The cruel trick of the internet and Ron Paul's popularity on it, is that while I don't watch any TV, I have no idea how well he's really doing. All this fund raising hype could be a cruel hoax played on teh LOki.
I hear rumors that there's this vast MSM conspiracy to not recognize him as a legitimate candidate, and folks consider a Mormon to be serious Republican business.
If so, is there any doubt that we're being steered right at Clinton or Obama?
On 2007-12-17 at 16:45:02, LOki asked to smell your dick
"The effect on the U.S. economy of such policies would be tremendous. Ottawa would have to react, or else we could lose the little competitive advantages that fiscal prudence has earned us over the last decade. Reducing the lowest income tax bracket from 15.5% to 15% will not do it. And who knows how far the loonie would fall back again if hard money and sound finances were to prevail south of the border?
Ron Paul policies would also threaten what has been a fundamental feature of Canadian economic policy for the past two decades, free trade -- or rather, relatively free managed trade -- with the United States. Paul's idea of free trade is to get the government out of the way, not to create more international bureaucratic structures that are not accountable. That would raise interesting debates. Would the NDP and the Council of Canadians denounce the threat of genuine free trade and launch a campaign to save NAFTA?
However many votes Paul ultimately gets, we shouldn't wait for an U.S. politician to force those reforms on us, especially one who wants to do away with Yankee imperialism. Freedom is a universal, not an American value. Free markets work everywhere. Why not get rid of all this government deadweight of our own volition, and for our own good?"
Q: Does it matter what a presidential candidate thinks of evolution?
At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And, uh, I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. It probably doesn’t bother me—it’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my [life?] to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know, you know, created us, every one of us, and created the universe—and the precise time and manner, and all, I don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. If that were the only issue, quite frankly—I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine—but if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.
nocal: Q: Does it matter what a presidential candidate thinks of evolution?
At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And, uh, I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. It probably doesn’t bother me—it’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my [life?] to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know, you know, created us, every one of us, and created the universe—and the precise time and manner, and all, I don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. If that were the only issue, quite frankly—I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine—but if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.
The question could be restated: Does it matter what a candidate says about evolution?
Although I also disagree with his stated philosophy, I suspect his answer is more cagey than it is ignorant. That is to say, he knows his "followers" are more interested in fiscal and foreign policy than the religious right issues. With that premise (which could be blatant rationalization on my part), it makes more sense as a candidate to allow religous voters the chance to consider the issues he does stand for, by not rejecting their personal beliefs. But by boxing it as a "theological" issue, he subtly puts the theologian on the defensive, rather than the scientist.
Personally, I favor his attitude that the argument doesn't belong in politics at all.
On 2007-12-30 at 11:02:38, jwalker asked to smell your dick
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
nocal: Q: Does it matter what a presidential candidate thinks of evolution?
At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And, uh, I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. It probably doesn’t bother me—it’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my [life?] to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know, you know, created us, every one of us, and created the universe—and the precise time and manner, and all, I don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. If that were the only issue, quite frankly—I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine—but if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.
You do realize that Ron Paul's belief that the Federal Government shouldn't be running (or really involved with at all) Education in this country.
Kind of moots that point no? Unless you think the color of a man's socks are also relevant to their ability to run a country.
if your superhero came out and admitted that he believed that bats are birds because the bible tells him so, would you regard that as irrelevant and akin to "colored socks"? (ron paul wears colored socks because they make him fleet footed)
if your superhero came out and admitted that he believed that bats are birds because the bible tells him so, would you regard that as irrelevant and akin to "colored socks"? (ron paul wears colored socks because they make him fleet footed)
I'm not a faggot. You're a faggot, faggot.
But I think you're right. I take issue with his views on religion and abortion, and I've always been a believer in universal health care. Nevertheless, I don't like how the government is wasteful on all levels and has too much control over our lives in too many ways.
I'm leaving the final decision to the general elections - there's a lot of time still to debate these things. For the primaries, though, I feel my vote has more meaning by voting for Paul as a Rebpublican. In this way I can vote against all the other shitheads on the R. ticket. The Democratic candidates are all saying pretty much the same thing anyway.
On 2007-12-30 at 23:16:11, jwalker asked to smell your dick
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
if your superhero came out and admitted that he believed that bats are birds because the bible tells him so, would you regard that as irrelevant and akin to "colored socks"? (ron paul wears colored socks because they make him fleet footed)
If he said bats were birds I'd regard him as insane, as I'm sure most others would. How it even applies to a candidate who doesn't believe government should be influenced by or influence religion I'm not too sure..
jwalker:I take issue with his views on religion and abortion, and I've always been a believer in universal health care. Nevertheless, I don't like how the government is wasteful on all levels and has too much control over our lives in too many ways.
On 2007-12-30 at 23:16:11, jwalker asked to smell your dick
His personal views have no relation on how he intends to govern. I argue the religious aspect above. His personal views on abortion don't make a difference either since that's a decision he would restore to the individual states. You complain about government being wasteful and having too much control over our lives immediately after stating you believe in universal health care? You don't catch the irony in that? You would trust your life on a bureaucratic mess run by a government that can't evacuate a major city or get aid to one following a natural disaster?
____________________ Life loaded, verifying client data, please wait.........
nocal: Q: Does it matter what a presidential candidate thinks of evolution?
At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And, uh, I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory. It probably doesn’t bother me—it’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my [life?] to understand the exact origin. I think the Creator that I know, you know, created us, every one of us, and created the universe—and the precise time and manner, and all, I don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. If that were the only issue, quite frankly—I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine—but if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.
A: FromCensoring the evolution question is the most non-Paul thing you could do... "Paul was speaking in a relatively casual environment and was clearly not speaking in a scientifically or philosophically rigorous manner. Anyone who has heard the man speak or read anything he has written knows that he is typically much more thorough in his answers to important questions. This time there was some ambiguity and a segment of the internet population jumped all over it. (If only those who jumped on this did the same when other candidates make ridiculous mistakes which pertain directly to that candidate’s ability to wield executive power in our government, such as authorizing unnecessary pre-emptive wars, recommending nuclear first strikes against Iran, ignoring the value crisis surrounding the U.S. dollar, supporting the suspension of habeas corpus, acquiescing to the use of torture, or voting for sweeping measures that violate our civil liberties, to name but a few.)
I think that with some reasonable effort we can see that what Paul said and/or implied is that he believes that God was responsible for the origin of life, that evolution is a theory and not a law, and that he personally does not believe the question is pertinent to the political discussion."
Is this the very best you have nocal? That he claims to be Christian? Is your problem that he won't disavow his religion? Or is your problem that he doesn't take it on faith that there is no god, and subscribe to the religion of atheism?
While you're thinking about that, let me remind you of the constitutional prohibition regarding any test of religion for holding public office.
LOki, I don't think nocal has a problem with the dude owning up to following a particular faith, I think his concern is the fundamentalist leanings of it. I'm not trying to speak for nocal, that's just my observation of his position.
My view is that the entire world seems to be becoming polarized by fundamentalist extremists of one faith or another. Is planting a right-wing christian in the oval office going to fan those flames? I think it would. I also think this country has been tilting precariously toward the far right for far to long.
This isn't my real problem with Ron Paul, though. What I don't l don't like about him is the fact that he's proposing changes that sound to good to be true. In my experience, this usually equals snake oil. Sure, this would be harmless if I were considering a $19.95 RONCO purchase during a late night infomercial, but we're talking about making this man the most powerful political figure on the planet...
That's what scares me about this dude. What if he really is off his fucking rocker? When a guy comes along that is so completely and totally radical, I start thinking *nutjob*. There's a nagging, little feeling in my gut that doesn't trust this rEVOLutionary political point man. My instinct tells me he's nuts.
Add to that, the fact that he believes bats are birds, Noah put two of every animal and dinosaur on a boat before a great flood was released from a giant bubble around a flat earth, Virgins give birth to gods, 10 commandments are the only true laws and Zombies will soon rise from their graves as Gabriel poots on his super horn... and it ads a whole new dimension to his character.
____________________ "Still have to stop car." --Vasudeva
Wotak: LOki, I don't think nocal has a problem with the dude owning up to following a particular faith, I think his concern is the fundamentalist leanings of it. I'm not trying to speak for nocal, that's just my observation of his position.
Wotak: My view is that the entire world seems to be becoming polarized by fundamentalist extremists of one faith or another. Is planting a right-wing christian in the oval office going to fan those flames? I think it would. I also think this country has been tilting precariously toward the far right for far to long.
Ron Paul is right-wing by only the most technical of technicalities. But if technicalities is where you're at, you should check the origins "right-wing" and compare that to Ron Paul's politics. Hillary is far more right wing than Ron is. Obama is more right wing than Ron is.
I think the problem is with authoritarians. Frankly, the "liberal" label is a lie. The "tolerance" tale told by the hemp wearing, vegan, earth first, rainbow bumper-sticker on the Subaru, no war toys, maco-biotic, pyaramid-power set is also a lie. And though I don't wish to speak for you either, Wotak, I suspect your real problem with Ron Paul is not his Christianity, but rather the fact that he'll cut authority off from those who have been telling Christians to STFU because the US Government's established religion is Atheism.
Wotak: This isn't my real problem with Ron Paul, though. What I don't l don't like about him is the fact that he's proposing changes that sound to good to be true. In my experience, this usually equals snake oil. Sure, this would be harmless if I were considering a $19.95 RONCO purchase during a late night infomercial, but we're talking about making this man the most powerful political figure on the planet...
That's what scares me about this dude. What if he really is off his fucking rocker? When a guy comes along that is so completely and totally radical, I start thinking *nutjob*. There's a nagging, little feeling in my gut that doesn't trust this rEVOLutionary political point man. My instinct tells me he's nuts.
Wotak: Add to that, the fact that he believes bats are birds,...
Prove this. Not with conjecture about how he views the Bible, but actual evidience of his belief. This kind of hyperbole is funny, and I'll engage in it all day against you because you're right here to flail miserably in vain against it, but make your point or STFU.
Wotak: ...Noah put two of every animal and dinosaur on a boat before a great flood was released from a giant bubble around a flat earth, ....
Are you absolutely sure this is what he thinks? You're ready to prove this with evidence?
Wotak: Virgins give birth to gods, ...
Are you absolutely sure this is what he thinks? And you can prove they don't, ever?
Wotak: ...10 commandments are the only true laws ....
Are you absolutely sure this is what he thinks, and youare absolutely sure that a certain 10 rules are not the only true laws? You have this certainty in evidence, or just the convictions of your beliefs?
Wotak: ... and Zombies will soon rise from their graves as Gabriel poots on his super horn...
Again, you are sure this is his belief?
Wotak: ...and it ads a whole new dimension to his character.
Imagine the surprise you'd have if we found out he believed all that crap exactly as you expect, but it all turns out to be right--that these Christian superstitions are not superstitions after all. What then? You're fucking sorry for being an intellectual douche-bag? Too late.
I understand the arguments involved in dismissing the step into the super-natural, but absence of evidence is still not proof of absence--it's barely evidence for absence. If you're running around asserting that there is no God, you're running around in the same circles with those who claim there is a God that you can't see, or hear, etc...And as long as you allow the next guy to freely follow his conscience and perhaps have his candle in the window, or whatever, that's fine; Ron Paul strikes me as that kind of guy--Hillary, for instance, does not.
If he said bats were birds I'd regard him as insane, as I'm sure most others would. How it even applies to a candidate who doesn't believe government should be influenced by or influence religion I'm not too sure..
if you don't believe in evolution, perhaps i regard you as a stupid idiot, and whether or not you believe in other stupid idiot beliefs is perhaps immaterial. does a person need to believe one truly stupid and outrageous thing for you to discount their views, or does it need to be a whole fucking laundry list? because if you recall, ron paul also said:
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
(thanks loki)
yet you would like to just write me off by saying, "well of course you don't like him; you are an atheist and he believes in a god, so clearly, there it is." i have never bashed a candidate just for being religious. rather, if they have some bizarre belief, then i have issues with it.
if mitt romney had an interview where he said he believes in polygamy and magic underpants, you idiots would have a field day, simply because he is not ron paul and he has a stupid belief. it is irrelevant whether or not that is a religious belief.
ron paul has written things that are downright insane, racist, xenophobic, and creepy, and none of it seems to bother when presented one by one.
does it need to all be presented in a youtube video or something?
LOki: Ron Paul is right-wing by only the most technical of technicalities. But if technicalities is where you're at, you should check the origins "right-wing" and compare that to Ron Paul's politics. Hillary is far more right wing than Ron is. Obama is more right wing than Ron is.
I do not give carp if Obama and Hillary are considered more or less of something than Ron Paul is. I don't like either of them any more than I do him. As I've stated before, I don't like any of these douche bags. Especially the ones I see leaning right. Paul is leaning right more than any of the two you've mentioned above when it comes to religion. Even you can't deny that.
LOki: I think the problem is with authoritarians. Frankly, the "liberal" label is a lie.
Ted Nugent would shoot you in the face for murmuring such blasphemy. Gene Simmons would just try to show you his plaster casted peepee. Either way labels are lies, yes.
LOki: The "tolerance" tale told by the hemp wearing, vegan, earth first, rainbow bumper-sticker on the Subaru, no war toys, maco-biotic, pyaramid-power set is also a lie.
Well, nice, we agree on something. :Cheezewizpie!:
LOki: And though I don't wish to speak for you either, Wotak, I suspect your real problem with Ron Paul is not his Christianity, but rather the fact that he'll cut authority off from those who have been telling Christians to STFU because the US Government's established religion is Atheism.
"Blarg!", he says, while reaching for straws.
I do not believe that Ron Paul can deliver on 90% of the shit that he's already promising. Do you really want to promise a bit more for him? He'll hush the athiests? lol. Nobody can hush the athiests. I don't believe this any more than I believe anybody can hush the rancid turd breath of the jesus-freaks that infect this country's ears with their freaky speaking in tongues. You can't shut these mother fuckers up, but you can choose to ignore them... and ridicule them for mumbling freaky shit anywhere near your lawn.
I don't want Ron Pauls freaky mumblings on my lawn, either.
LOki: Imagine the surprise you'd have if we found out he believed all that crap exactly as you expect, but it all turns out to be right--that these Christian superstitions are not superstitions after all. What then? You're fucking sorry for being an intellectual douche-bag? Too late.
Well, perhaps I do not give a fuck about the prize attached to such a bullshit belief structure?
I am not sitting here counting the minutes until I'll be allowed to begin worshiping some fucked up "god" for an eternity as a prize for following his most retarded of rules on earth.
This logic applies three fold for all gods that would create cancer for tiny children and then look at all that he created and see that it was good.
That all-knowing, all-good, perfect and legendary motherfucker is retarded. I do not worship retards. Good luck with that shit.
LOki: I understand the arguments involved in dismissing the step into the super-natural...
Good, because the rest of your quote is worthless. I do not CARE if this god exists. If he exists, his own bible shows him to be one pathetic, fucked up creator. This alone proves him imperfect and therefore illegitimate and if he does not exist, I wouldn't be surprised.
If I were to vote in this next election, I would vote for the person who could prove to be the most logical and honest.
Ron Paul might believe that he is the most honest runner and many a man may believe this as well, but he lacks logic if he believes in the shit that's scribbled into that fucking bible and that leads me to believe that he's a fucking nutjob.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
____________________ "Still have to stop car." --Vasudeva
There seems to be a debate going on between Fox News and New Hampshire Republicans over precisely who will participate in this weekend's presidential debate.
...
Then, on Monday, that state party chair, Fergus Cullen, issued a statement saying that limiting candidates was not in the party's tradition, suggesting the media should not be in the business of excluding serious candidates and talks were continuing with Fox.
So whose decision is it?
The comments posted by readers are intersting. Especially this one:
The FCC and the loopholes Congress has given media companies are largely to blame for this Fox News debacle. The original intent of equal time rules was to specifically prohibit media companies from selecting which candidates should be able to access the airwaves. Unfortunately, so many exceptions to equal time rules were given - i.e. interviews and debates became "on the spot news", that media companies are now allowed to do precisely what Congress originally intended to prevent when they wrote the Communications Act that first gave the FCC its authority.
This farce of a forum takes things to a new level though. It is a manufactured event specifically intended to limit voters' awareness to only the corporate-backed shills who currently lay claim to Fox News' own appellation of front-runner status (never mind that some polls have Dr Paul running third in New Hampshire). There's certainly enough precedent to suggest that they can get away with trying to call this "on the spot news", but if one were to mention that the FCC takes abuse complaints from the public at fccinfo@fcc.gov, or that they accept official complaints by phone at 1-888-CALL-FCC, there's a good chance that Fox News would suddenly see a few thousand complaints added to their public file. And if that were to happen, it would certainly make the job of some freedom-loving independent attorney's lawsuit against them all the easier to win, should one rise to the occasion.
On 2008-01-01 at 22:51:39, jwalker asked to smell your dick
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
With all this hooplah about Fox News excluding Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter-Snax, i think it's important that everyone knows its not just Faux News shitting on certain candidates. The Fucking LA Times * Is to blame too.
Trans-Texas Corridor is real. The front for the sooner(than later) to be North American Union is real. Maybe the devaluation of our dollar is a ploy to get us to accept a need for a 'universal-North American currency? Maybe. But sadly, it would seem like that psycho path Alex Jones was right (his Endgame flick). "They" do want to privately fund and privately collect taxes on this Trans-Texas Corridor.
The site says: But states are discovering that this once proven method of financing is falling short of meeting the transportation mission, and they are forced to find other ways of making up the shortfall. Texas has a plan to do that. It involves seeking innovative solutions, private partners and empowering local communities to fill the gap.
At least Dr. Paul has the fucking balls to speak the truth, even when we are so conditioned, that the truth sounds damn near insane and ridiculous.
He ain't perfect, but he is by FAR, the superior candidate.
So faggits, SEND HIM SOME CHEDDAR because it sure isn't going to be worth shit in the near future.
____________________ "Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
LOki: Ron Paul is right-wing by only the most technical of technicalities. But if technicalities is where you're at, you should check the origins "right-wing" and compare that to Ron Paul's politics. Hillary is far more right wing than Ron is. Obama is more right wing than Ron is.
I do not give carp if Obama and Hillary are considered more or less of something than Ron Paul is. I don't like either of them any more than I do him. As I've stated before, I don't like any of these douche bags. Especially the ones I see leaning right. Paul is leaning right more than any of the two you've mentioned above when it comes to religion. Even you can't deny that.
If you don't care about the labels, Wotak, then why do you use them? And yes, Wotak, I can deny it that regarding religion--both Hillary and Obama take a more rightist postition than Ron Paul. Before you come screaming back at me, look real close at your premises--do not presume that Christian always means Christian right; do not presume that Democrat always means religious tolerance; do not presume that Democrat must always mean left.
Wotak:
LOki: And though I don't wish to speak for you either, Wotak, I suspect your real problem with Ron Paul is not his Christianity, but rather the fact that he'll cut authority off from those who have been telling Christians to STFU because the US Government's established religion is Atheism.
"Blarg!", he says, while reaching for straws.
I do not believe that Ron Paul can deliver on 90% of the shit that he's already promising. Do you really want to promise a bit more for him? He'll hush the athiests? lol. Nobody can hush the athiests. I don't believe this any more than I believe anybody can hush the rancid turd breath of the jesus-freaks that infect this country's ears with their freaky speaking in tongues. You can't shut these mother fuckers up, but you can choose to ignore them... and ridicule them for mumbling freaky shit anywhere near your lawn.
I don't want Ron Pauls freaky mumblings on my lawn, either.
It's one thing to miss the point, it's another thing to change it. The point is authoritarians. You appear to like them--in particular, the kind with an Atheist bent. I don't like any of them. I am still suggesting that your problem with Ron Paul is not with his Christianity, but rather with his anti-authoritarianism. Your favored bullies are threatened to get kicked out. The very notion of government bullies is being challenged, and those of questionable merit are beginning to twitch. You, apparently, among them.
Wotak:
LOki: Imagine the surprise you'd have if we found out he believed all that crap exactly as you expect, but it all turns out to be right--that these Christian superstitions are not superstitions after all. What then? You're fucking sorry for being an intellectual douche-bag? Too late.
Well, perhaps I do not give a fuck about the prize attached to such a bullshit belief structure?
I am not sitting here counting the minutes until I'll be allowed to begin worshiping some fucked up "god" for an eternity as a prize for following his most retarded of rules on earth.
This logic applies three fold for all gods that would create cancer for tiny children and then look at all that he created and see that it was good.
That all-knowing, all-good, perfect and legendary motherfucker is retarded. I do not worship retards. Good luck with that shit.
The point was not to advocate for you adopting Ron Paul's Christian belief set. Nor was it an invitation for you continue your fatuous characature of what you believe it is. My error here was to suggest a thought experiment to an intellectual douche-bag--my bad.
Wotak:
LOki: I understand the arguments involved in dismissing the step into the super-natural...
Good, because the rest of your quote is worthless. I do not CARE if this god exists. If he exists, his own bible shows him to be one pathetic, fucked up creator. This alone proves him imperfect and therefore illegitimate and if he does not exist, I wouldn't be surprised.
Well Wotak, I not surprised you consider the rest of the quote worthless, because it has nothing to do with this god you pretend to be worked up about, and everything to do about people being free to persue the dictates of their conscience. Again, it comes back to the point you tried to dodge earlier--authoritarianism. You seem to be carrying a mighty big chip on your shoulder for those who carry a Bible, and it looks like a frothing rabid irrational chip. It's much safer for you to attack Ron Paul's superstions, yet doing so, you highlight his position as a Constitionalist. As far a Ron Paul is concerned, I would take that as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...". I see where the authoritarians would have a problem with that. I'm sure you do too, and I'm suggesting that's your real problem with Ron Paul.
Wotak: If I were to vote in this next election, I would vote for the person who could prove to be the most logical and honest.
Ron Paul might believe that he is the most honest runner and many a man may believe this as well, but he lacks logic if he believes in the shit that's scribbled into that fucking bible and that leads me to believe that he's a fucking nutjob.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
Wotak, the metaphysics of Truth are slippery, and do not require an empirical basis in fact. 3 little pigs never built 3 little houses out of straw, wood, or bricks; but the story holds Truth non-the-less. The same may be argued for "the shit that's scribbled into that fucking bible". Honesty and logic are separate bits, but you're right; at some point, logic and honesty will meet, and if you have intellectual integrity, you will honor your honesty and follow the dictates of your conscience. You're being a true bigot, Wotak, but hey, that's just my opinion.
You may not have noticed, but the article you linked to the L.A. Times is tongue-in-cheek humor, and is pro Ron Paul. Take a look at the previous post I made, and you'll see it is a more current blog from the same Andrew Malcom, who is drawing attention to the Fox News problem, pointing out that the NHGOP was complaining about it.
As a promoter as much involved as yourself, you should be more careful with your criticisms.
____________________ To the dog who has money, men say "My Lord Dog".
You may not have noticed, but the article you linked to the L.A. Times is tongue-in-cheek humor, and is pro Ron Paul. Take a look at the previous post I made, and you'll see it is a more current blog from the same Andrew Malcom, who is drawing attention to the Fox News problem, pointing out that the NHGOP was complaining about it.
As a promoter as much involved as yourself, you should be more careful with your criticisms.
Maybe HE is the one who should be more careful, YES? Idiots like me are dangerously inept at interpreting sarcasm and humor through internet posts.
____________________ "Kill him! Kill the fuckin' indian! What am I watching here two fuckin' fags!?"
Rodney Dangerfield as Ed Wilson
LOki: You're being a true bigot, Wotak, but hey, that's just my opinion.
At the end of the day; yeah, I guess I am but at least I'm being honest with myself and whoever chooses to read this discussion.
Look at it this way: at least Ron Paul isn't going to have me voting against him.
Of all the candidates, he's the only one saying anything I really agree with. On the other hand, I have a problem trusting the logic of a man that doesn't believe in evolution when it comes to making such critical changes to the government I live within.
Just because I think he might be full of crap doesn't make it so. As I said, it's my opinion. I'm not going to get into a personal nut kicking contest with you over it. I'm just stating my opinions for the sake of discussion.
On 2008-01-02 at 17:01:12, Wotak asked to smell your dick
____________________ "Still have to stop car." --Vasudeva
