RonBots Gone Wild! Again.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] ]The town clerk of Sutton, New Hampshire incurred the wrath of Ron Paul supporters following last week's primary election. Jennifer Call tells the Concord Monitor she somehow ended up recording that Paul received no votes in her town out of the 920 cast. But by the next morning the mistake had been fixed, and Paul received credit for 31 votes.

Call says over the next few hours she received about 40 calls from Paul supporters. Some falsely claimed they were media looking into a story about voter fraud. Others yelled she had committed treason. One said she should be shot. She also received enough calls at home that she locked her doors, unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.

Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

Or How to influence people and make all sorts of new friends. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322705,00.html)

While Uniting Left and Right! (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/FRONTPAGE/801150337)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 15 2008,08:36)]Quote[/b] ]The town clerk of Sutton, New Hampshire incurred the wrath of Ron Paul supporters following last week's primary election. Jennifer Call tells the Concord Monitor she somehow ended up recording that Paul received no votes in her town out of the 920 cast. But by the next morning the mistake had been fixed, and Paul received credit for 31 votes.

Call says over the next few hours she received about 40 calls from Paul supporters. Some falsely claimed they were media looking into a story about voter fraud. Others yelled she had committed treason. One said she should be shot. She also received enough calls at home that she locked her doors, unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.

Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

Or How to influence people and make all sorts of new friends. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322705,00.html)

While Uniting Left and Right! (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/FRONTPAGE/801150337)
So, nu?

[K3XR]

What's this Libertarians NOT for Paul.

http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/124340.html

[al2i]

So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,11:58)]So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.
And the basis for your accusation would be?

How exactly do you know it was intentional and not an error?

Yeah, I thought so.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,11:23)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,11:58)]So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.
And the basis for your accusation would be?

How exactly do you know it was intentional and not an error?

Yeah, I thought so.
Quote[/b] ]Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

She is a bitch and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vote count.

[KI4BNC]

*sniff sniff sniffsniffsniff*
something smells fishy with the whole thing. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,12:33)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,11:23)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,11:58)]So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.
And the basis for your accusation would be?

How exactly do you know it was intentional and not an error?

Yeah, I thought so.
Quote[/b] ]Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

She is a bitch and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vote count.
You're doing a very good job of making her case for her.

Congratulations.

[kb2vxa]

"most of these people are not rational." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K7JEM]

I wonder if it was the same crowd that chased Hannity around?

There is a valid point here. Some of these Paulites do seem irrational. They will look for a conspiracy theory anywhere, make excuses or rationalization for why their candidate doesn't get more than 10% of the vote, and scream "constitution" any time they can.

Joe

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 15 2008,16:36)]I wonder if it was the same crowd that chased Hannity around?

There is a valid point here. Some of these Paulites do seem irrational. They will look for a conspiracy theory anywhere, make excuses or rationalization for why their candidate doesn't get more than 10% of the vote, and scream "constitution" any time they can.

Joe
For proof we need look no farther than this very thread.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 15 2008,07:36)]Quote[/b] ]The town clerk of Sutton, New Hampshire incurred the wrath of Ron Paul supporters following last week's primary election. Jennifer Call tells the Concord Monitor she somehow ended up recording that Paul received no votes in her town out of the 920 cast. But by the next morning the mistake had been fixed, and Paul received credit for 31 votes.

Call says over the next few hours she received about 40 calls from Paul supporters. Some falsely claimed they were media looking into a story about voter fraud. Others yelled she had committed treason. One said she should be shot. She also received enough calls at home that she locked her doors, unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.

Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."
Good. Keep 'em honest, and keep it up. Next.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,12:12)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,12:33)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,11:23)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,11:58)]So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.
And the basis for your accusation would be?

How exactly do you know it was intentional and not an error?

Yeah, I thought so.
Quote[/b] ]Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

She is a bitch and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vote count.
You're doing a very good job of making her case for her.

Congratulations.
She is in an official position, and after failing to report people's votes, she then slanders them. This is an abuse of power. Since you cannot see that, you are an example of what is seriously wrong with this country. She should be removed from her position immediately.

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 15 2008,08:36)]Quote[/b] ]The town clerk of Sutton, New Hampshire incurred the wrath of Ron Paul supporters following last week's primary election. Jennifer Call tells the Concord Monitor she somehow ended up recording that Paul received no votes in her town out of the 920 cast. But by the next morning the mistake had been fixed, and Paul received credit for 31 votes.

Call says over the next few hours she received about 40 calls from Paul supporters. Some falsely claimed they were media looking into a story about voter fraud. Others yelled she had committed treason. One said she should be shot. She also received enough calls at home that she locked her doors, unhooked her answering machine and requested an unlisted number.

Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

Or How to influence people and make all sorts of new friends. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322705,00.html)

While Uniting Left and Right! (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/FRONTPAGE/801150337)
HOLYCRAP!

You linked Fox News!

Jonathan

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,14:50)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,12:12)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,12:33)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,11:23)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,11:58)]So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.
And the basis for your accusation would be?

How exactly do you know it was intentional and not an error?

Yeah, I thought so.
Quote[/b] ]Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

She is a bitch and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vote count.
You're doing a very good job of making her case for her.

Congratulations.
She is in an official position, and after failing to report people's votes, she then slanders them. This is an abuse of power. Since you cannot see that, you are an example of what is seriously wrong with this country. She should be removed from her position immediately.
What an excellent job you're doing of supporting the observation that
"most of them are not rational".

Keep it up. Ron Paul would be proud of the harm you're doing his campaign.

[N3ATS]

Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,18:19)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,14:50)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,12:12)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,12:33)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,11:23)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,11:58)]So after attempting to disenfranchise the Paul voters, then she gets away with slandering them to the loud "amens" of the fascists and Bolsheviks everywhere. That is normal.
And the basis for your accusation would be?

How exactly do you know it was intentional and not an error?

Yeah, I thought so.
Quote[/b] ]Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

She is a bitch and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a vote count.
You're doing a very good job of making her case for her.

Congratulations.
She is in an official position, and after failing to report people's votes, she then slanders them. This is an abuse of power. Since you cannot see that, you are an example of what is seriously wrong with this country. She should be removed from her position immediately.
What an excellent job you're doing of supporting the observation that
"most of them are not rational".

Keep it up. Ron Paul would be proud of the harm you're doing his campaign.
Quote[/b] ]Of her experience with Paul supporters, Call says — "most of these people are not rational."

She should never work in an official capacity again.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,19:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
yes. and usually it motivates people to make mistakes.

Look at McGraw in this thread for a good example.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,18:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
Reason and emotion are not opposites. There is nothing irrational about being upset with some criminal and/or incompetent bitch who uses an official position to slander her political enemies.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,18:39)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,19:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
yes. and usually it motivates people to make mistakes.

Look at McGraw in this thread for a good example.
OK, I am looking. Where is the error?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,19:44)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,18:39)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,19:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
yes. and usually it motivates people to make mistakes.

Look at McGraw in this thread for a good example.
OK, I am looking. Where is the error?
It's in this sentence

Quote[/b] ]There is nothing irrational about being upset with some criminal and/or incompetent bitch who uses an official position to slander her political enemies.

There's a lot of irrationality in that sentence, starting with your misunderstanding of 'slander', continuing through your assertion that the nutters who called her were "her political enemies", to your use of bitch to describe someone, who as far as you know, simply made, and then rectified a mistake.

Your response is far out of proportion to the situation, which is a pretty good definition of "irrational", as were the callers who suggested she be shot and accused her of 'treason'.

It's not slander to describe someone's irrational behavior as irrational, McGraw, and anyone reasonable would describe the behavior of those callers as irrational.

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Jan. 15 2008,16:53)]HOLYCRAP!

You linked Fox News!

Jonathan
It's not the first time. They've been getting better now that the reality of a big change is setting in. Not exactly the NY Times, but definitely better.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,18:51)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,19:44)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,18:39)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,19:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
yes. and usually it motivates people to make mistakes.

Look at McGraw in this thread for a good example.
OK, I am looking. Where is the error?
It's in this sentence

Quote[/b] ]There is nothing irrational about being upset with some criminal and/or incompetent bitch who uses an official position to slander her political enemies.

There's a lot of irrationality in that sentence, starting with your misunderstanding of 'slander', continuing through your assertion that the nutters who called her were "her political enemies", to your use of bitch to describe someone, who as far as you know, simply made, and then rectified a mistake.

Your response is far out of proportion to the situation, which is a pretty good definition of "irrational", as were the callers who suggested she be shot and accused her of 'treason'.

It's not slander to describe someone's irrational behavior as irrational, McGraw, and anyone reasonable would describe the behavior of those callers as irrational.
This official who is in a position of public trust manages to "miss" the votes for Paul, but when the Paul supporters point this out, she subsequently goes to the press with wild tales about masses of Paul supporters telling her she should be shot for treason OWTTE.

WE already know that she is either incompetent or willfully incompetent by her failure to notice those votes, but then you irrationally accept that there were any callers at all, and/or that they were even Paul supporters, and /or that they said what she says they said. That's quite a reach.

She's a bitch.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,20:39)]This official who is in a position of public trust manages to "miss" the votes for Paul, but when the Paul supporters point this out, she subsequently goes to the press with wild tales about masses of Paul supporters telling her she should be shot for treason OWTTE.

You keep telling yourself that story, and eventually you'll come to believe it.

But your exaggerations are merely making you appear to be as irrational as the people who demanded she be shot.

Quote[/b] ]WE already know that she is either incompetent or willfully incompetent by her failure to notice those votes, but then you irrationally accept that there were any callers at all, and/or that they were even Paul supporters, and /or that they said what she says they said. That's quite a reach.

Oh yes, anyone who makes a mistake in transcribing data is "willfully incompetent."

Actually, there were more than callers, there was email, and some of the email was copied to the press. None of the descriptions made by the lady are inaccurate, unlike yours.

Oh, and some of the nastier calls were taken by her answering machine, and, I understand, the tapes are now in the hands of the police for investigation.

Quote[/b] ]She's a bitch.

and you're irrationally making it up as you go along.

Are you sure you're a Ron Paul supporter? You're sure doing a lot to undermine his campaign.

[K7JEM]

Another article. (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/FRONTPAGE/801150337http://)

Quote[/b] ]Ron Paul will never be elected president. But his supporters win the prize for being the most doltish, unhinged, discourteous, and mentally unbalanced in the race.


Link (http://http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/paulbots_freakout_small_town_c.html)

Joe

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,20:35)]Oh yes, anyone who makes a mistake in transcribing data is "willfully incompetent."
I said that "she is either incompetent or willfully incompetent".

However, I seriously doubt that any of those votes would have been "found" at all if it wasn't for the Ron Paul voter coming in to ask why his vote wasn't registered.

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 15 2008,19:35)]... Not exactly the NY Times, but definitely better.
I agree...

Definitely better then the New York Times!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KG4JYD]

I wouldn't call her a bitch, but I would definitely agree with al2i and say she isn't qualified to be in public service with an attitude like that.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 15 2008,13:36)]Some of these Paulites do seem irrational.
Every campaign has their share of irrational grassroots supporters. Since Ron Paul has the most grassroots supporters of any other candidate, there are obviously more irrational ones.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,22:09)]However, I seriously doubt that any of those votes would have been "found" at all if it wasn't for the Ron Paul voter coming in to ask why his vote wasn't registered.
You don't need the quotes around found. We've all got that your delusional about some kind of conspiracy to deprive Paul of 31 votes.

But you did hit one point: It is unlikely that the error would have been found. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but 31 votes out of all the ballots cast in New Hampshire is a tiny number compared to what the experts believe are miscounted due to simple human error in every election.

Ever been a precinct worker?

Ever work the tally on an election night?

Given the opportunity for human error in a still mostly by-hand process, it's amazing that election tallies are off farther, more often than they are.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,22:01)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,22:09)]However, I seriously doubt that any of those votes would have been "found" at all if it wasn't for the Ron Paul voter coming in to ask why his vote wasn't registered.
You don't need the quotes around found. We've all got that your delusional about some kind of conspiracy to deprive Paul of 31 votes.

But you did hit one point: It is unlikely that the error would have been found. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but 31 votes out of all the ballots cast in New Hampshire is a tiny number compared to what the experts believe are miscounted due to simple human error in every election.

Ever been a precinct worker?

Ever work the tally on an election night?

Given the opportunity for human error in a still mostly by-hand process, it's amazing that election tallies are off farther, more often than they are.
No, but I have been an observer where votes took a circuitous car chase and two hours to travel 15 miles and show up to be counted where we lost by 26 votes total only after that particular box of ballots was counted.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 15 2008,22:43)]I wouldn't call her a bitch, but I would definitely agree with al2i and say she isn't qualified to be in public service with an attitude like that.
I don't think so.

Now, start with the assumption that she'd made an ordinary mistake. Suppose the calls really came and were as described. Now consider that she was asked by the press to describe the calls. Do you really believe that there's anything surprising about even a civil servant describing callers who called them a traitor and suggested they be shot irrational?

I'd say that if she had made an honest mistake that her response to the calls was amazingly civil and showed a very good attitude.

You may not be aware of this, but public service does not equate to "take threatening phone calls and act as if nothing happened."

The callers and emailers were out of line. Threating someone with death over 31 votes is highly irrational. Calling the woman a bitch because she reacted rather calmly to such calls is also irrational and out of proportion.

Y'all really need to do something about that paranoia problem.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,23:07)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,22:01)]Ever been a precinct worker?

Ever work the tally on an election night?

No, but . . .
I didn't think so.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the overwhelming majority of people who do those jobs are decent ordinary folks who sometimes make mistakes and aren't crazy enough to risk their jobs or positions over "stealing" 31 votes from a candidate who was going to lose anyway.

I'm sure there's a fascinating story behind your car chase, but I elided it, because this thread's about irrational Ron Paul supporters and how you're demonstrating that sort of behavior.

Maybe you could start another topic to tell about it?

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Jan. 16 2008,00:17)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Jan. 15 2008,19:35)]... Not exactly the NY Times, but definitely better.
I agree...

Definitely better then the New York Times!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
No, Fox is better than it used to be. If there was anything better than the Times, Ruppert Murdoch wouldn't be looking into buying it. He would try to get the better paper instead.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,22:01)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,22:09)]However, I seriously doubt that any of those votes would have been "found" at all if it wasn't for the Ron Paul voter coming in to ask why his vote wasn't registered.
You don't need the quotes around found. We've all got that your delusional about some kind of conspiracy to deprive Paul of 31 votes.

But you did hit one point: It is unlikely that the error would have been found. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but 31 votes out of all the ballots cast in New Hampshire is a tiny number compared to what the experts believe are miscounted due to simple human error in every election.

Ever been a precinct worker?

Ever work the tally on an election night?

Given the opportunity for human error in a still mostly by-hand process, it's amazing that election tallies are off farther, more often than they are.
I assumed it was simple incompetence -- or perhaps willfully so. Either way, the 31 votes were "found" after a Ron Paul supporter complained about his missing vote. No big conspiracy at all, just a normal day in an election count.

Your paranoia about Ron Paul supporters is just as exaggerated as hers, and your delusions about vote counting are charming to say the least..

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,23:26)]I assumed it was simple incompetence -- or perhaps willfully so. Either way, the 31 votes were "found" after a Ron Paul supporter complained about his missing vote. No big conspiracy at all, just a normal day in an election count.
Help me out here, McGraw. What part of

Quote[/b] ]So after attempting to disenfranchise

wasn't meant to be accusation of deliberate election fraud?

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 15 2008,22:44)]Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ Jan. 15 2008,13:36)]Some of these Paulites do seem irrational.
Every campaign has their share of irrational grassroots supporters. Since Ron Paul has the most grassroots supporters of any other candidate, there are obviously more irrational ones.
It's "more than", not "most of", unless you leave out the "any."

But don't you find it just a tiny bit irrational to claim that Paul, who is consistently running at or below fourth, has the "most" of any kind of supporters?

unless, by "grassroots" you meant "imaginary"?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,23:06)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,23:26)]I assumed it was simple incompetence -- or perhaps willfully so. Either way, the 31 votes were "found" after a Ron Paul supporter complained about his missing vote. No big conspiracy at all, just a normal day in an election count.
Help me out here, McGraw. What part of

Quote[/b] ]So after attempting to disenfranchise

wasn't meant to be accusation of deliberate election fraud?
I meant that what started out to be a mistake that she said she should have noticed was conveniently allowed to continue until a Ron Paul voter came in asking after his vote. After that it was "whoops!"

Instead of apologizing or reacting "calmly" as you so fascinatingly and incorrectly put it, she went on to tell the media that she "cried" and lived in "terror" from "not rational" Ron Paul people.


Quote[/b] ]Call admits she should have been skeptical when she said "0" on the phone.

"Of course hindsight is 20-20," she said late last week. "Right then I should have said, 'That's weird for it to be blank.' "

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 16 2008,00:48)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,23:06)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 15 2008,23:26)]I assumed it was simple incompetence -- or perhaps willfully so. Either way, the 31 votes were "found" after a Ron Paul supporter complained about his missing vote. No big conspiracy at all, just a normal day in an election count.
Help me out here, McGraw. What part of

Quote[/b] ]So after attempting to disenfranchise

wasn't meant to be accusation of deliberate election fraud?
I meant that what started out to be a mistake that she said she should have noticed was conveniently allowed to continue until a Ron Paul voter came in asking after his vote.
Ah.

I see.

So is it "attempting" or "disenfranchise" that you have an unusual definition of?

By the way, McGraw, you've neglected to mention that "conveniently allowed to continue" covers a period of less than eleven hours.

Are you really so irrational that you think death threats are an appropriate response to an 11 hour oversight?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,00:25)]So is it "attempting" or "disenfranchise" that you have an unusual definition of?

By the way, McGraw, you've neglected to mention that "conveniently allowed to continue" covers a period of less than eleven hours.

Are you really so irrational that you think death threats are an appropriate response to an 11 hour oversight?
She admits she should have been skeptical when she said "Zero" on the phone. That means the voters were disenfranchised by either incompetence or willful incompetence. This was only corrected after a Ron Paul voter was alert enough and cared enough to ask after his vote. The fact that he did so was why it was only eleven hours. I am pretty sure that it would have been eleven centuries if no one had asked after the vote. Eleven hours was long enough that those 31 voters were indeed disenfranchised, so my use of "attempted" is not fair to the voters. They were disenfranchised.

I have seen no evidence of death threats other than the comments of a person who misreported the vote and said she was in terror and crying. Perhaps she was in fear for cheating voters and had every reason to get emotional.

If the people of Sutton NH decide she is worth keeping, then that is their decision. I would actively seek to have her thrown out. Even if her mistake was honest, she handled it terribly.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,21:39)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,19:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
yes. and usually it motivates people to make mistakes.

Look at McGraw in this thread for a good example.
True, but it does get people's attention.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, the spirit of those people is great. Far better than those who simply go to the polls, pull the big lever and grumble about it for the next four years.

Aggression motivates those who would otherwise rest on their laurels thinking that the populace will just obey and continue "business as usual".

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 16 2008,12:05)]True, but it does get people's attention.
So does setting oneself on fire at an intersection.

Quote[/b] ]Right, wrong, or indifferent, the spirit of those people is great. Far better than those who simply go to the polls, pull the big lever and grumble about it for the next four years.

Acting rudely and irrationally, however, does not indicate "spirit," not to even think of "great;" it merely underscores bad taste or a psychological imbalance -- I strongly suspect the latter in most cases with RP supporters, given their evident profiles. I had better prefer the less animated citizens who quietly do their duty at the polls without seeking to insult the staff who serve them.

[N8CPA]

I want to know who's nuttiest: Dennis coo-Kucinich, Cynthia "I channeled Chandra Leavy" McKenna, or Ron Paul's whackapalooza parade--judging by the callers to local call-in shows.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 16 2008,12:00)]I had better prefer the less animated citizens who quietly do their duty at the polls without seeking to insult the staff who serve them.
This is not surprising, given your complacency and tolerance for the status-quo. Apathy is the stepping stone of tyranny.

Whether it has to do with RP or not. We have the right to fair elections, and I applaud anyone who will speak up to make it so. Whether they are voting for Clinton, Paul, Giuliani, or whomever. The elected are not the point, the process IS.

Our rights and freedoms are being stripped away, slowly. What other recourse, than creating a ruckus, do we have? Voting? Writing letters? "Please Mr. Senator, do what's right.... Pretty please?'

It is high time that the American people stand up, get vocal, and demand that our government and its officials do what is right.

If some little old lady at the polls gets offended, well, sorry ma'am, but we've had enough.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 16 2008,01:46)]She admits she should have been skeptical when she said "Zero" on the phone. That means the voters were disenfranchised by either incompetence or willful incompetence.

Ah, I see, it's "disenfranchised" you have the unusual definition of.

You seem to neglect that the correction had already taken place before the first irrational caller contacted Call.

Nobody had been "disenfranchised". The official tally had not been certified.

Quote[/b] ]This was only corrected after a Ron Paul voter was alert enough and cared enough to ask after his vote. The fact that he did so was why it was only eleven hours. I am pretty sure that it would have been eleven centuries if no one had asked after the vote.

Earlier you were pretty sure she'd made up the phone calls. Neither you nor I know the details of vote checking in that election district. Had it been a typical Montana election, the second review, which is still taken before the vote is certified, would have caught it.

Quote[/b] ]Eleven hours was long enough that those 31 voters were indeed disenfranchised, so my use of "attempted" is not fair to the voters. They were disenfranchised.

To be disenfranchised, their vote had to have not counted in a certified election.

Quote[/b] ]If the people of Sutton NH decide she is worth keeping, then that is their decision. I would actively seek to have her thrown out. Even if her mistake was honest, she handled it terribly.

So you would have someone thrown out without knowing if the process would have worked properly anyway, without checking to see if the death threats had really been received, and all because Call described irrational behavior as 'irrational'.

Keep demonstrating that she was right about Ron Paul supporters. I'm sure you're doing your candidate a lot of good.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 16 2008,09:05)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,21:39)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 15 2008,19:22)]Rational? Perhaps not. But aggression motivates.
yes. and usually it motivates people to make mistakes.

Look at McGraw in this thread for a good example.
True, but it does get people's attention.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, the spirit of those people is great. Far better than those who simply go to the polls, pull the big lever and grumble about it for the next four years.

Aggression motivates those who would otherwise rest on their laurels thinking that the populace will just obey and continue "business as usual".
Actually, "get people's attention" is not "get the job done". I learned that early in the environmental movement. It's easy for the Sierra Club to "get people's attention" and not accomplish anything. It takes a lot more work to not be noticed but to accomplish environmental compromise like the Nature Conservancy.

Had we spoken to the business community in their language in the first place, the environmental movement would have gotten more done sooner.

Ron Paul's supporters remind me of the AIM takeover of Alcatraz. Got a lot of attention. Nobody remembers it. Nothing happened as a result of it.

In my business we call this the difference between thrashing and swimming.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 16 2008,13:41)]It is high time that the American people stand up, get vocal, and demand that our government and its officials do what is right.

If some little old lady at the polls gets offended, well, sorry ma'am, but we've had enough.
The American people have been standing up, getting vocal, and demanding that the government do what is right for over thirty years now, and spewing death threats at people who make and correct honest mistakes isn't going to make any more difference than all that noise has.

You don't affect change by running a nutter candidate with no chance in a presidential election.

Do you really want change? Take a close look at what the religious right did to the republican party. What they wanted was wrong, but how they went about it is how change is really accomplished.

You don't want change. You want to should about it and then whine about how the government didn't listen to you.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,17:28)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 16 2008,13:41)]It is high time that the American people stand up, get vocal, and demand that our government and its officials do what is right.

If some little old lady at the polls gets offended, well, sorry ma'am, but we've had enough.
The American people have been standing up, getting vocal, and demanding that the government do what is right for over thirty years now, and spewing death threats at people who make and correct honest mistakes isn't going to make any more difference than all that noise has.

You don't affect change by running a nutter candidate with no chance in a presidential election.

Do you really want change? Take a close look at what the religious right did to the republican party. What they wanted was wrong, but how they went about it is how change is really accomplished.

You don't want change. You want to should about it and then whine about how the government didn't listen to you.
The American public has been sitting on its arse for 30 years now. Hence the reason we've been slowly sinking further into the abyss.

I guess that depends on the type of change we want. We won't effect change by electing the same old bought and sold candidates. The change you want, is different from what I want. Obviously.

I have taken a look at the religious wing of the republican party. A long time ago actually, and I have never cast a vote for them. As a matter of fact, this election will be the first one where I will be voting for someone of either of the two "major" parties.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,17:22)]Ron Paul's supporters remind me of the AIM takeover of Alcatraz. Got a lot of attention. Nobody remembers it. Nothing happened as a result of it.
True, but just the opposite at Attica.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 16 2008,19:52)]The American public has been sitting on its arse for 30 years now. #Hence the reason we've been slowly sinking further into the abyss.


#
Not voting is also a vote. One can as easily make the case that the "American public" of your nightmares is generally satisfied with the political situation in these United States.

Quote[/b] ]I guess that depends on the type of change we want. We won't effect change by electing the same old bought and sold candidates. The change you want, is different from what I want. Obviously.


Don't forget that you are but a single three-hundred-millionth part of the population. What is important to bear in mind is that the change "they" want is different from that which you seek. The way the system works.

Quote[/b] ]I have taken a look at the religious wing of the republican party. A long time ago actually, and I have never cast a vote for them.

They seem to have done rather well without you.

Quote[/b] ]As a matter of fact, this election will be the first one where I will be voting for someone of either of the two "major" parties.

If you are in possession of the least bit of introspection, you might find therein a cause for change.

As I have commented before, and you have harshly castigated me for those comments, you may finally be awakening to the reality that one of the candidates of those two major political parties will be given the key to the front door of the Executive Mansion.

Though the differences between the two of them may be relatively minor, they are differences. Those differences matter. Any way you slice your cheese, the lesser of evils is still, ipso facto, LESS EVIL.

As my long dead Irish mother used to intone, "Rome wasn't built in a day." I bridled at that phrase no less than you are probably smirking now, but the essence of change is made in teeny, tiny steps. When one squanders those steps on candidates with no chance of achieving the end prize, you lose far more than the mere opportunity to cluck and wheeze about how stupid everyone else has been.

[KC9JIQ]

So I really don't get this, it seems there is this huge Ron Paul crusade going on, but when Pat Buchanan ran, we didn't get all this fanfare from the GoPatGo crowd.

Pat Buchanan would serve a better president than Mr. Paul.

We just need a diehard conservative in the white house, but I don't see that happening until the day when the major cities are nuked out of exisistance.

The City people are ruining this country, entitlement programs, urban sprawl, the nanny state, no Ham Radio towers, no handguns, etc.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 16 2008,20:15)]Pat Buchanan would serve a better president than Mr. Paul.
And who, pray tell, would this "better president" be? It's OK to name names, you are among friends.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 16 2008,17:15)]Pat Buchanan would serve a better president than Mr. Paul.
It is highly speculated that President Ron Paul would appoint Pat Buchanan to a high position.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,23:07)]Do you really believe that there's anything surprising about even a civil servant describing callers who called them a traitor and suggested they be shot irrational?
Surprising? No. I don't think very highly of most people who work for the government...

And she doesn't have the right to slander.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,00:09)]But don't you find it just a tiny bit irrational to claim that Paul, who is consistently running at or below fourth, has the "most" of any kind of supporters?
It is a FACT that Ron Paul has the largest grassroots support of any other campaign. This should be obvious by the fact that he has raised over $20 million from individuals.

[N3ATS]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 16 2008,19:09)]As I have commented before, and you have harshly castigated me for those comments, you may finally be awakening to the reality that one of the candidates of those two major political parties will be given the key to the front door of the Executive Mansion.

Though the differences between the two of them may be relatively minor, they are differences. Those differences matter. Any way you slice your cheese, the lesser of evils is still, ipso facto, LESS EVIL.

As my long dead Irish mother used to intone, "Rome wasn't built in a day." I bridled at that phrase no less than you are probably smirking now, but the essence of change is made in teeny, tiny steps. When one squanders those steps on candidates with no chance of achieving the end prize, you lose far more than the mere opportunity to cluck and wheeze about how stupid everyone else has been.
I am not smirking.

Just when are we to expect change? The R's are getting farther and farther to the left, the D's are all out socialists. Things are getting worse, not better.

Yes, the differences are minor. The destination is exactly the same with these pigs, the only difference is the route taken.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 16 2008,17:53)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 15 2008,23:07)]Do you really believe that there's anything surprising about even a civil servant describing callers who called them a traitor and suggested they be shot irrational?
Surprising? No. I don't think very highly of most people who work for the government...

And she doesn't have the right to slander.
Then I suggest you don't know many people in government.

By the way, she hasn't committed slander.

You should get some legal training if you're going to go making assertions like that. You might find yourself on the wrong side of a libel suit, otherwise. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 16 2008,17:56)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,00:09)]But don't you find it just a tiny bit irrational to claim that Paul, who is consistently running at or below fourth, has the "most" of any kind of supporters?
It is a FACT that Ron Paul has the largest grassroots support of any other campaign. This should be obvious by the fact that he has raised over $20 million from individuals.
It is a fact that he is doing poorly in the ballot box.

The only way that it can also be a fact that he has "the largest grassroots" support would be if his supporters were forgetting to vote for him in large numbers.

It will be interesting to read the results of the candidates reports on their fund raising on the 30th.

[kc2orw]

Yes the greedy unrepentant dittoheads have placed their last hope on a nitwit. Sorry but you will have to pay taxes as it isn't unconstitutional. The last pair of constitutional tax evaders ended up in prison their 50 caliber machine gun didn't help them. The Police just waited till hunger got the better of them. So much for live free and die shooting. I figure that is usually BS from big BSers playing at being independent of the rest of society. Whats worse is that for many of the dupes a hypothetical Utopian RP presidency will cost them more then the Democrats raising the max tax rate to 50%. Some might be sitting on a horded pile of cash but most of these dopes will just be making an easy life for the horders in their midst.
What did bugs say "What a buncha maroons"

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,19:43)]The only way that it can also be a fact that he has "the largest grassroots" support would be if his supporters were forgetting to vote for him in large numbers.
Wrong again.

Ron Paul has more citizens actively campaigning for him than any other Republican.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 16 2008,20:59)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,19:43)]The only way that it can also be a fact that he has "the largest grassroots" support would be if his supporters were forgetting to vote for him in large numbers.
Wrong again.

Ron Paul has more citizens actively campaigning for him than any other Republican.
You have no evidence to back that up.

We've been over this before. You can tell us all sorts of Ron Paul statistics, but you don't have any data from the other campaigns to compare it to.

[K7JEM]

I will say this. Ron Paul supporters are the most committed.

(and some of those institutions let them out to campaign for him)

Joe

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,21:19)]You have no evidence to back that up.
YES I DO:
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 16 2008,17:15)]So I really don't get this, it seems there is this huge Ron Paul crusade going on, but when Pat Buchanan ran, we didn't get all this fanfare from the GoPatGo crowd.

Pat Buchanan would serve a better president than Mr. Paul.

We just need a diehard conservative in the white house, but I don't see that happening until the day when the major cities are nuked out of exisistance.

The City people are ruining this country, entitlement programs, urban sprawl, the nanny state, no Ham Radio towers, no handguns, etc.
yeah right. bring pure fascism to the country a la' Buchanan. . In Xenophobia, and racism we trust. Fortunately most Americans have enough sense to recongnize Buchanan for the fringe lunatic that he is.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 17 2008,20:44)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,21:19)]You have no evidence to back that up.
YES I DO:
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/
Now, THERE's an objective website! Data we can trust, I'm sure.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 17 2008,17:55)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 17 2008,20:44)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,21:19)]You have no evidence to back that up.
YES I DO:
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/
Now, THERE's an objective website! Data we can trust, I'm sure.
Actually it is. It is run by Ron Paul supporters of course, but it has to be accurate because many decisions are made off of that data.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 17 2008,17:44)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 16 2008,21:19)]You have no evidence to back that up.
YES I DO:
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/
Now read the rest of my post, that you elided.

Even if your web site is accurate about Paul's campaign, it still doesn't tell us anything about the others.

You can't make a comparison without data from both, no matter how much wishful thinking you do.

So, no, you do not have evidence that compares Ron Paul's level of support to other candidates and supports your claim.

[K3XR]

What the cultists Ronettes won't tell you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Jan. 18 2008,04:24)]What the cultists Ronettes won't tell you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html
An interesting piece that transparently draws the wrong conclusion by going into scare mode at the end. A very rare good one from the little linking fool.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 18 2008,08:32)]An interesting piece that transparently draws the wrong conclusion by going into scare mode at the end.
Not surprisingly, you have it exactly backasswards. Again.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 18 2008,04:41)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 18 2008,08:32)]An interesting piece that transparently draws the wrong conclusion by going into scare mode at the end.
Not surprisingly, you have it exactly backasswards. Again.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I can go into scare mode as well. Atoms will eventually be split in anger old man. Your Leviathan will not protect you.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 18 2008,08:47)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 18 2008,04:41)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 18 2008,08:32)]An interesting piece that transparently draws the wrong conclusion by going into scare mode at the end.
Not surprisingly, you have it exactly backasswards. Again.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I can go into scare mode as well. #Atoms will eventually be split in anger old man. #Your Leviathan will not protect you.
The answer to that is a well managed program of engagement, not withdrawal into fantasy land. Many an ostrich gets bit on the ass.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 18 2008,04:57)]The answer to that is a well managed program of engagement, not withdrawal into fantasy land. Many an ostrich gets bit on the ass.
Well good for you! That is exactly as Ron Paul has said.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 18 2008,09:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 18 2008,04:57)]The answer to that is a well managed program of engagement, not withdrawal into fantasy land. Many an ostrich gets bit on the ass.
Well good for you! #That is exactly as Ron Paul has said.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif