this is something interesting that I thought should be posted in here... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OynCgwmD-HM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I noticed this too and was shocked when I saw how soon they were able to project it, but I assumed when they project a winner off exit polls it was from a majority of the voters and they asked them a clear "who did you vote for?" type of thing. But there was over 641,000 votes cast and media networks were able to project a clear winner out of the exit polls of only 2300 voters which is less then half of a percent. I didn't get too far in math class so am I missing something? Why would they do this if there was a good chance of them being wrong in their prediction?
Like I've explained before, I don't agree with Paul on everything. Also, I notice you didn't reply to anything from my post explaining why a Romney presidency would be a disaster and would drive the US into a ditch...
First, claiming that inflation is something which drastically hurts the middle class as opposed to the rich is just flat out wrong, even if I ignore the fact that inflation over the last four years has been at the moderate rates and hasn't panicked into the spiral which extremists like Paul and Glenn Beck love to champion. Jesus Christ himself could run for President tomorrow - if he proclaimed that the Federal Reserve should be ended and we should go back to gold like Ron Paul does, I would oppose him. Second, I don't actually believe that Romney will actually drag us into a war with Iran. Thirdly, the idea that Ron Paul will think about regulating Wall Street is um, uh, yeah, r****ded, not to mention, Ron Paul, work with Democrats? The man has not shown in 20 years in Congress the slightest interest in working with the rank and file or anyone in Congress who represents a compromise in his beliefs. Don't give me crap like he co-sponsored bills with other extremist nuttards like Kucinich and Sanders like I've seen some of his supporters claim as an example of his bipartisanship. The man, in 20 years of plunking his ass in Congress, has proposed and successfully passed one more bill in Congress than I have. And now I'm supposed to believe that he'll do a better job working with those same people with whom he has shown he can't pass legislature with than Obama or Romney? Get serious. Hell, just statistics in general. ToyCen, how many people do you think are polled when they figure out Obama's approval ratings throughout the country? It's a very miniscule proportion of the population.
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t9xx6bjyawg?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t9xx6bjyawg?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> Seriously, how can you not vote for this man. Anyone that has had to stand-up for themselves and stay principled in a work environment knows how difficult that can be and this man does it on the biggest stage laying the most on the line.
As I've said before - almost everything Ron Paul says I agree with. Almost everything. But that one last thing - the hopelessly delusional idea that a genuine 'free market' can ever exist and, even if it defied reality by existing, would actually reward those who are smart and work hard. I agree with almost everything Ron Paul says, but that one thing would turn this country into an even bigger piece of **** than it is right now under Obama. That said, if he runs as a 3rd party candidate (he won't get the Republican nomination) I'll vote for him - it would make it more likely that another 3rd party would have a stage in the next election and, as so often happens with third parties, the dominant parties would probably try to adopt some of his ideas of liberty to siphon away voters from him.
I agree that they're stronger; I don't agree that they're deadlier. Not now, at least, while everybody thinks using alcohol is no big deal. If you use meth, you probably know you're messing with death. And the people that want to do that are rare and of a different sort than the general population, which drinks, many of them irresponsibly, many of them driving while buzzed at least. Alcohol is deadlier than each of those drugs combined precisely because it is socially acceptable. I don't believe legalizing cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, whatever is going to make it socially acceptable to use those drugs and I doubt the number of people using them would rise significantly. People that want to use those drugs have no difficulty or qualm about obtaining them. I know. I was one. The only real effects that legalizing hard drugs would have would be to stop putting people in jail for harming only themselves, stop ceding the market to criminals, make sure users knew the dosage and ingredients of what they were using (of which, not knowing is the major cause of overdose and death from them), and allow the government to collect a pretty significant amount of money on sin taxes, again, now ceded to criminals. There is zero reason for any drug to be illegal in America. All drugs should pass through the FDA so that we know what is in them and have sufficient information available on them to make our own choices about what to put in our bodies.
Putting aside the Ron Paul nonsense, Rick Santorum is up by double digits in Michigan in almost every poll. :grin:
Wouldn't Toycen's video make any sense, any at all, if after all of the votes were counted Gingrich didn't win? They projected, and they were right, it seems the r****d narrating it is actually backing up what he's arguing.
It is called statistical sampling and, when done properly, is remarkably accurate. Unfortunately, the people at Fox didn't do it properly, may have cherry picked areas where Romney or Santorum had more support than at large, or just polled at one location.
This non-stop whining from santorum about google, occupy protestors, dan savage etc is just sad. Dude doesn't even know what "tolerance" means. Absolutely clueless.
its worth pointing out that when someone asked you why you like romney you spend 4 paragraphs railing against paul and libertarians. what do you like about mitt romney? forget ron paul - why do you support romney? you admit you supported ron paul in 2008 and even represented him as a delegate at the convention. ive asked you why you supported paul in 2008 and the only reason you gave was that you thought he was "honest". and now someone asks why you like romney and your only answer is that he is not "crazy". you need to do better than that. it appears that your support of candidates is superficial at best. you have flip-flopped to the extreme - in 1 election cycle you went from a die-hard paul supporter to one of his biggest critics. everyone grows and changes, but its very unusual to have someone flip-flop on their core beliefs to the degree that you have in such a short amount of time. cuba and iran, anyone?
