Paul Paranoia

By -
As I've said before, I think Paul is the best candidate we've seen in quite a while. But the level of paranoia displayed by some of his supporters is disturbing. When the MSM (mainstream media) said Paul had no chance to win, this was said to be an attempt to suppress his campaign. (Instead of just being the truth, which is, Paul has no chance of getting the GOP nomination.) He is doing better than they initially predicted, which is great.

But now that the media are acknowledging that, from Nick Bradley we get this: "Although Paul as at 9% in the latest ARG poll in nevada, a statistical tie for third pace, the AP is raising the bar as high as possibly can [sic] for Paul in Nevada -- they wouldn't want a top 3 finish in NV to be seen as a success. Now, the MSM can dismiss a 2nd or 3rd place finish by Paul in NV as a 'suprising [sic] disappointment,' not a 'surprising showing.'"

You see, if the MSM says Paul will do well, that is also an attempt to undermine his chances! In fact, if the MSM eats breakfast in the morning, that is part of a secret plot to portray Ron Paul as a racist!

But wait! Bradley himself writes, "And since low turnout is expected in Nevada, Paul could do very well."

Bradley is himself an MSM mole at LRC! They're coming to take me away, eeeh-ha!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more