Ron Paul voters busted?

By Clear thinker
Mon, 10/22/2007 - 19:32 ET

First of all, I hope everyone here will forgive me for arguing earlier today with our resident Ron Paul advocate. I'm ashamed that I acted like a 5 yr old, but at least I got the info that I was alluding to in our argument. Thanks goes to Evil Capitalist for the info...

"Phone companies make lots of money on SMS. SMS is probably the only profitable at any unit of measurement service wireless phone companies have on their networks. To encourage those interested in sending SMS messages to phone company customers, most of companies offer access to SMS gateways over internet - my program connects to SMS gateway and pumps out messages in a form of 'destination number'->sms message. I pay the phone company a fraction of a cent to access their gateway and whoever receives the message gets billed their per-message rate, typically somewhere between $0.05-$0.25 depending on a plan.

Pretty much every gateway allows its user to generate unique ids ( which in the handset-to-handset SMS messages are phone numbers assigned to the handset ). Since virtually every company doing vote-by-SMS polls is connected via a reverse gateway ( short message code ), process is reversed. So some enterprising person that has access to SMS gateway simply sends a pile of "votes" to the polling company's SMS gateway and with a few dollars he can vote a few hundred thousand times."

Read comments Free email alerts Take action

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Please share this with

Mon, 10/22/2007 - 23:34 ET by Clear thinker

Please share this with anyone that doubts that RP is getting skewed results (nice way of saying cheating) in the text polls.

Hopefully, the media will pick it up (I know I'm dreaming).

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Blatant Ron Paul Bias

Mon, 10/22/2007 - 23:50 ET by third eye

I cant find any polls on www.realclearpolitics.com where the Paulster even beats the margin of error in the polls, in fact he usually has less than 2%. Of course, we all know the reason why...

It's like that Aflac

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 00:59 ET by candance

It's like that Aflac commercial with the goat.

"Do we have a good GOP candidate?"

"No, we've got some other candidate."

"Will he fight Islamic jihad?"

"naa"

"Does he believe in the Patriot Act?"

"naa"

"Uh oh. Someone might notice he's not a Republican. Quick, put this elephant mask on his face."

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

Some bust...

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 06:17 ET by sarcasmo

You once again present 0 proof. I think Fox News would (gleefully, I might add, see Frank Luntz bias/agenda) bust Paul supporters if they did this. You're just mad that I won't admit to nonexistant fraud because you can find no fraud, so you're still grasping at straws among "professional" polls.

I'm already on the record as having very little respect for polls that do not cost gamblers money overseas, but I repeat, you have 0 proof of any fraud on the part of Paul supporters, like it or not. OTOH, some pollsters are getting a clue: Dr. Paul tends to do well among those able to operate cellphones who probably don't even have land lines. What a shocker Dr. Paul's the Hillary Killer, but it's true...Time to start the whinefest again! :)
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Sarc

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 09:09 ET by Jimbo

Actually Sarc - it is YOU who provides no proof. Yesterday, you made the assertion that the poll was not skewed becasue it was not possible to cheat in a texting poll.

I asked you to provide proof of your statement, and you you could produce were google links to other Ron Paul supporter blogs simply saying "it can't happen".

You have yet to prove what is listed here and on several other threads is false. Until you do, as far as I am concerned, Ron Paul's numbers are far higher than reality and he doesnt stand a remote chance of getting the Republican nod.

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

Sarc, its the libs that

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:47 ET by bassndude

Sarc, its the libs that vote for Paul in those online, phone votes. They are trying to skewer the results, and doing a fine job of it. Mulitple voters, and liberals.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

It's only a matter of time

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 06:45 ET by WhichWing

It's only a matter of time before you expose his $5 million in donations last quarter as a fraud. And that he's actually been stealing money from members of the military, right? There must be something strange going on if he leads all other GOP candidates combined in donations from the military. Investigate and report back with some more speculation as soon as possible, please.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

I'd like to see a link to that, WhichWay

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 08:55 ET by RJ

"...leads all other GOP candidates combined in donations from the military."

Oh, really? Source, please.

Also, if he leads "all other GOP candidates" then, given the overwhelming conservative makeup of our military, shouldn't you have also claimed he is the top military fundraiser?

Here's one link, got some more if you like

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 09:07 ET by Binxly

Not trying to be snide, but since you asked:

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/10/15/ron-paul-receives-the-most-military-donations-among-republicans-again-in-q3/

I would like to see more links

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 09:20 ET by RJ

A couple of questions occur to me:

1) Including "employees of the military" badly skews the concept of "military."

2) Also skewing the concept, as one responder said, doesn't this include only $200 or more? Given low military pay, I'm guessing that members of the armed forces are under-represented in these numbers.

Hail to the Chief

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:53 ET by Jimbo

Should we strike up "Hail to the Chief" now?

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

"Got more, just let me know

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:55 ET by Jimbo

"Got more, just let me know when it's enough for you to believe its at all *possible* that you could believe someone you dont like could be getting so much attention and support from the military."

From the "Let's Quit" candidate? Don't you see why we are questioning the pedistal you folks are trying to put the "Dr." on?

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

hahaha I love how you put

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:59 ET by Binxly

hahaha I love how you put quotes around doctor. Its clear many have PDS, a similar strain of BDS. You can't give him ANY credibility and even seem to now question his place as a doctor. Good for you!

Culty

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:19 ET by Jimbo

Wrong again Culty. I put quotes around "Dr." becasue I fail to see how delivering babies qualifies him to be Commander in Chief. I see it as a cheap attempt to prop him up in light of the fact that he is trailing the frontrunners.

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

"Culty" nice. I guess if a

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:42 ET by Binxly

"Culty" nice. I guess if a bear is a sheep in your mind, no amount of explaination or even evidence that the bear is just that is even worth it. I could sit here and name off the various reasons I am anything but a cult member of the Ron Paul camp (yes admittedly that subculture in his supporters does exist) but you'd just continue believing what you wish. I hope that works out for you.

You sure sound like a

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:56 ET by Jimbo

You sure sound like a "Culty".

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

I delivered my firstborn.

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 16:54 ET by Clear thinker

I delivered my firstborn. Can I run for POTUS?

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

You got my vote CT! :-P

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 16:58 ET by Binxly

You got my vote CT! :-P

Only if you have a

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:57 ET by Jimbo

Only if you have a following who can send text messages really fast!

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

Jimbo.... Well, now that

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 18:00 ET by Clear thinker

Jimbo....

Well, now that I know how to game the system. Hmmmm....

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Your fresh links don't answer my questions binx

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:02 ET by RJ

Why are you ignoring them?

I figured since no one

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:13 ET by Binxly

I figured since no one really likes to click links to get the info (myself included) I included the list detailing where the money came from and also one of the other sites that wouldn't let me past the table in, it also mentions EACH department of the military (Army, USMC, Air Force, etc) and the monetary denominations comming from each dept. McCain did recieve a slight margin more from the Marines but it was a very small margin indeed.

I guess what Im asking is, if the departmental breakdown by monies dontated is not what you want, what *exactly* do you want? Seriously, I'll do my best to find the answer, even if it's one that supports your position. I for one haven't yet lost my 'objectivity.' Seriously though, let me know what you want, I'll try my best to get it and link it.

Can't Lose it

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:21 ET by Jimbo

"I for one haven't yet lost my 'objectivity.' "

You can't lose something you never had.

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

HAHAHAHA. Ok Jimbo, I'm

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:50 ET by Binxly

HAHAHAHA. Ok Jimbo, I'm too tempted to let it go. How do you know I am not 'objective'? I have said multiple times that I have made mistakes in my life, and, for the most part (excluding when I was younger and much too proud) I have taken responsibility for them. Just because I have a differing opinion doesn't make me partisan or non-ojective. However, refusing to believe anything but your own strict, inflexible views of an issue even in lieu of information that presents the point that the 'other views' may be worth looking at as well is quite subjective. Afterall, its much easier to keep believing what you want, ignoring any and all counter-positions regardless of merit.

I consider myself objective because I read all sides. That also includes swallowing my tounge and venturing into the crap fest that is the left of left wing media outlets as well. If you aren't paying attention to ALL people, you're views are only representative of the people alike in mind of yourself. That is hardly a position to take when America is founded on what the people want. The people should be the focus, not some ideals of the few who don't want to let any other ideas into the picture.

Your conclusions about the Paul donations don't hold up, binx

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:54 ET by RJ

Looking at the questions below, it's clear that your claims don't hold up to scrutiny. It's possible you're right, but nothing the Paulites have presented so far even comes close to being conclusive.

My questions were pretty clear. I don't know what you don't understand about them.

1) Including all "employees of the military" badly skews the concept of "military." (Please explain what you don't get about this.)

2) Also skewing the concept, doesn't this include only $200 or more? Is that right? Given low military pay, I'm guessing that members of the armed forces are under-represented in these numbers. (What's hard to understand about this?)

3) The figures come from "declared employers." So Paul was only ahead in donations by those who declared themselves to be employees of the military.....which could be anyone.

But looking at the "undeclared" figures, which measure in the millions, not thousands, it makes me wonder why so many donators, SUPPOSEDLY IN THE MILITARY so readily "declare" Paul, but not other candidates....particularly since polls show him to be at the bottom with the military vote. Hmmm.

RJ, I don't really care

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 14:22 ET by Binxly

RJ, I don't really care about the fact that they are presenting it as Paul is ahead in donations. My point is, if he's recieved as much as he has, claiming that the military is not behind him is ludicrous. As for the differentiation of what is 'true military personel,' I gave a link and a list of monitary donations from each branches of the military. Its in plain sight. I don't really care if he DOES garner the most funds of all canidates, I just find it amazing that for a man that supposedly the military is 'very much opposed.'

"Opposed to Paul?" I don't know about that, binx, but

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 14:47 ET by RJ

did you check the latest Gallup poll, where Paul is at 1% among the military?

You now claim to "not care" but the point of publishing the numbers (as any number of RP websites will tell you) is to claim that the figures mean Paul is the favorite candidate among "the military."

And what does "the military" mean? It is those who serve or have served in the military. However, your donations list includes employees of the military. That includes various administrative personnel, DOD employees, etc. That skews the figures and negates the implied point.

So 'military' shouldn't

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 15:54 ET by Binxly

So 'military' shouldn't count unless it is someone who's seen combat? If that's the case, where is the line drawn? Are battle ready soldiers that have yet to see actual combat still counted? All I see here is an argument of the semantics. Like it or not, Ron is raising money at an alarming rate, and he's doing so without pandering to special interest groups, exchanging 'favors' for campaign contributions. Its funny, for people who claim to not be worried at all about Ron, you sure do spend alot of time and frustration on trying to prove he isn't a threat :-P

Don't be ridiculous, binx

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:53 ET by RJ

Are you being deliberately obteuse? Where did I say anything about "combat ready?" Being in the military is exactly what it says....IN THE MILITARY. Not working FOR the military. Are you possibly not aware of the millions who work FOR the military, but who are not enlisted?

The rest of your post is a blatant changing-the-subject non-sequitur. Where have I said anything about Paul except to debunk the Paulites claim that these numbers "prove" anything at all about the military?

Remember, I was responding to specific claims by WhichWay, and you're the one who jumped in to defend him. It's a little late to broaden the argument.

RJ, I know with all the

Wed, 10/24/2007 - 09:25 ET by Binxly

RJ, I know with all the rediculous switching of arguments that goes on here its hard to believe I was being honest, but I really wasn't sure what you were refering to. I agree, it seems odd that those IN the military would be supporting someone who wants to pull them out of areas across the globe as that would put plenty out of work and admittedly, if I was an employee of the military or even *in* the military I'd be a bit leery about a guy who wants to pull me out of my position and bring me back home where I may not be needed to work, therefore possibly putting me out of a job, I probably wouldn't donate to the guy either. I can see your point, I just wanted to make light of the fact that Dr. Paul isn't some random to be quickly dismissed. Its true he isn't exactly a shoe-in for the Republican Nominee for POTUS but he isn't exactly the longshot, 'cold day in hell' canidate he was just 6 months ago.

Riposte

Sat, 10/27/2007 - 03:32 ET by Unsane

There must be something strange going on if he leads all other GOP candidates combined in donations from the military.

One, how do they know if the donors are military or not? Why, because they say they are? That says nothing. I circulate throughout Houston without letting anyone know of my Reserve status, and they thus have no clue they are taking money from, or talking to, a military member. All I need to do is omit my rank, which I routinely do; and if I show my driver's license when my ID is requested, they will never know.

Two, let's say they are military. Do they know that they are violating military regulations? I was a voting officer once - one who assists fellow servicemembers and their families with voting absentee. The AFI with which I am familiar explicitly prohibits Airmen from making political campaign contributions to any partisan political candidate. Your God fits in that category. If you wish to test me further on this point, I can quote the AFI chapter and verse, as I have a copy of it available.

Do you know why that is done, WhichWhine? You should, as much as you whine about other people "hating democracy" and all. In most democracies (Turkey being the only exception I can think of), the military is controlled by civilian authorities, and is expected to remain neutral in political contests.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

CT, definately impressive,

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 08:37 ET by Binxly

CT, definately impressive, I learned something new about phone polls today I guess. That said, just because you found it's 'possible' doesn't mean persay it is the case. I am a person of honesty first and foremost, and I got alot of pride in many areas, yet blind pride in my choice for president is not so strong that I would blindly deny 'cheating' if I knew it was the case. That said however, just because it COULD be doesn't mean it is. Given, it makes me more skeptical, but, while I have admitted I believe it is more possible, let me pose a question, and I'd love for anyone to answer it without getting smarmy or espousing their *personal* belief that it is 'impossible' because that it is not.

If Ron Paul's poll victories were bunk, I'd conceed without issue. I wouldn't complain about unfair exposure, the potential cheating of the *other* canidates and their poll victories, but would simply admit he did not win. So, my question is, If Dr. Paul WERE to win the primary, how long would you protest? How much research would need to be conducted before you would believe he won fairly and justly? Would you *EVER* believe he won fairly and justly? and if not, how does that make you any different from the pro-Gore crowd that created the fiasco in 2000 and also ended up violating multiple election rules that were somehow simply 'ignored' while Gore sat and whinned?

How would you react? Would you ever conceed he won? Even if he DID?

Done with Paul

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 09:14 ET by Jimbo

Oh come on already. This subject has run its course and is now entirely boring.

First the Paul Cult Members say that rigging a phone survey isnt possible. Proof is provided that it can. So? Now the paul cult is saying that just becasue it CAN happen, doesnt mean that it did.

PAUL WILL NOT BE ELECTED AS THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. Any poll where rigging is not possible (real clear for example, has him at the back of the pack. Besides, noone wants to vote for a President and have to listen to him whine for 4 years, admit defeat in Iraq, and not be able to get anything done domestically.

He should break off and start his independent run and begin siphoning off Republic votes now, since that's his long term goal anyway.

Republican? Laughable.

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

Soooo angry. Lets wait and

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:16 ET by Binxly

Soooo angry. Lets wait and see, shall we? If he loses, I said I'd conceed, and if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, ill do so publicly on here. You, however, I believe should be kept away from sharp objects should Dr. Paul indeed win. I don't think 'mentally stable' will be the correct definitive term of your psyche. Again, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but your inability to accept certain possibilities makes you just as bad as the 'deniers' of the cheating (which hasn't been proven, only a method).

Binx, you're quick to ascribe anger

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:33 ET by RJ

Not only do I disagree that Jimbo seems angry, but I suggest your reaction reveals you to be overly sensitive on certain subjects...like Paul.

I laughed out loud at the rest of your reactive post, coming as it does from someone who constantly reproaches others for being too "mean."

Thanks RJ

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:41 ET by Jimbo

Thanks RJ. You are absolutely right. There is plenty in this world to make me angry, and the cult followers of “Dr.” Paul sure aren’t one of them. No reason to be.

I am intrigued however, at the "willing suspension of disbelief” by the Dr’s cult.

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

There is indeed a Dr. Paul

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 10:53 ET by Binxly

There is indeed a Dr. Paul cult, however, of this I am not. His mistakes and things I disagree slightly with him on I still do so. he is not my God, just my choice as president. This burns your bottom more than anything. Afterall, you are one to talk of a cult mentality. I see how quickly you toss someone under the bus here once your opinions differ. Rather than simply presenting your side, reading the other side, and either A: finding one side was 'wrong' or B: Agreeing to disagree, a large lot of you would rather just stick your tounge out and call anyone with dissenting opinion a schoolyard taunting name. Shows real political prowess. If I had only known all Ron Paul has to do to get his point across is to call his opponents flakes and idiots.....

(That said I dont think any of the main names in the Republican primary are either flakes or idiots, just keeping the game going by YOUR rules though. Afterall, your approach MUST be the only one just like your opinion must also be the ONLY valid one, right? :)

Ive said all I can about

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:51 ET by Jimbo

Ive said all I can about the good "Dr." and his following. Your post about my approach to people is correct only in those cases where I have tried to speak intelligently to someone who refuses to hear me. However, in your case, I'd be happy to oblige.

Go piss up a rope.

How's that?

Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"

Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."

To be fair...

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:04 ET by Clear thinker

I realize that the heading was misleading so I hope everyone notices I have now added a question mark.

Sarc said over and over that this type of cheating "can't be done", so the idea was to show how mistaken he was.

Thank you, and once again, please forgive my behaviour yesterday.

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

CT, while we may disagree

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 11:18 ET by Binxly

CT, while we may disagree in whether or not we believe the polls were skewed, I do want to say thanks for finding out this info and I myself do stand corrected in my belief that it was 'impossible' to be done. Like I've said before, I have my educated opinions and research all I can in my free time, but sometimes things slip through. Thanks for catching this one. That said, however, it leaves the opportunity to cheat for ALL canidate supporters and also, just because it is possible, doesn't mean it 100% occured, although I am open to the belief that it IS possible, and in that case, I would feel annoyed. If it was a cause of cheating, then we are going against the very principle Dr. Paul is running on and the message his following preaches, honesty.

Keep up the research CT, it keeps me informed of the opposition and if there is dishonesty in the campaign of Dr. Paul, I definately would want to know about it.

binx... First of all, I

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:09 ET by Clear thinker

binx...

First of all, I don't think all RP supporters are cheaters. In fact, the method used above could generate thousands of votes by one person, so I'm not claiming his supporters are cheats. I am a little worried though that his followers seem a bit unhinged.

I was challenged by someone that is challenged and I accepted the challenge.

As to other comments... I don't like RP because he runs as a Republican and we all know he's only considered Republican because he filled out a paper saying so. RP is a Libertarian, always has been, always will be. There are items in the Liberatarian platform that I can agree with, but it's the ones that I don't agree with that worry me the most. I vote R because they come the closest to what I want in leadership. I will vote for Fred for two reasons. He's the only one of the top tier candidates that can beat Hillary in the general, and he has always been a Conservative, something the other top tier candidates can't claim.

I honestly don't care about RP because I know he cannot win the nomination, so there's no need for me to get worked up over him. I was just showing Mr. Smarty Pants that he's not as smart as he would have us all beleive.

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

'I honestly don't care

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:42 ET by Binxly

'I honestly don't care about RP because I know he cannot win the nomination, so there's no need for me to get worked up over him. I was just showing Mr. Smarty Pants that he's not as smart as he would have us all beleive.'

Can't argue with you there. I agree, when someone comes off as a know-it-all it can get obnoxious, and I gotta say of all the people who claim Ron 'doesn't get under their skin' I actually believe you, as you said, if people truely believed he had no shot, why worry?

Annoyance

Sat, 10/27/2007 - 03:38 ET by Unsane

Have you bothered to consider that some of us are less worried than severely annoyed?

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Dr Paul and the Primaries

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 12:10 ET by candance

Oct 22, Open Thread, comment by sarcasmo on the subject of Paul's voting bloc:

Some are from newly-minted Republicans like me.

If Paul won the primary, I would say the GOP was hijacked by quasi-libetarians looking for a bigger platform with more money. If he does, which is unlikely, it won't be because of old-school Republicans in favor of him. It will stem from fair-weather Republicans.

And if he does get the GOP, there WILL be a third party because I'd never vote for him. Even Hillary is stronger on the war on terror.

card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy

RP as 3rd party cand

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 16:20 ET by eustice

the last poster had a good point:: why not have RP run as a third party candidate, and for that matter, why not start now? RP, save your money and energy of supporters by putting that towards the petitions and paperwork it'll take to get on all the ballots.

Because its dumb to quit

Tue, 10/23/2007 - 17:06 ET by Binxly

Because its dumb to quit now! At first people said he wouldn't last a month. Then we hear he won't even raise a million dollars in the entire run. Now he's gaining speed and people can't stand it. At first I genuinely believe it was mere annoyance, hence why no one spent any time on him. Now they are circling the wagons and attacking him. Truth be told, most of the social conservatives out there would LOVE if he went third party, which is why there's so much buzz about him 'being of no concern.' They can spin all they like but they are genuinely afraid that Paul may just do the impossible. Afterall, if it was such a slam dunk that he'd lose, why waste all your time here bashing him when you could be out *supporting* the guy YOU want as POTUS?

Annoyance continued

Sat, 10/27/2007 - 03:44 ET by Unsane

Spoken like a Paul worshipper who has just come home from a self-denounciation session (that is, denouncing yourself publically for not LOVING Paul as deeply and intensely as possible)... Anyways, perhaps you should consider the annoyance some of us feel. I won't worry until he actually WINS a state in the primaries. And, once again, I cannot vote for someone whose dream it is to see the United States as whiny, powerless and toothless as possible on the world scene; as isolated as possible from the world (economically and politically) so as to make Albania from 1946-1991 as open a society as their ever was; and a complete, total reactionary. I have a range of candidates in mind right now; the winner of my ovte will be determined by a few more hurdles.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.