Hi again all. I've been away, and I've been "outed" as a collection of networked, spamming, crabgrass-like robots by Fox News. ;) Actually, I was hangin' at the Daily Paul, whose traffic now exceeds Redstate's. (More on them later, on to the links!) I've also been a bit busy, due to $41 billion more magically-appearing fiat dollars chasing the same quantity of gold, silver, etc. Plus I have a few plans for November 5th...
First, and especially for "Unsane," who has only been one-character-off, we have www.wwrpd.org -- I swear I am not making that URL up, and I'm NOT responsible for it! It just appeared, just like ronpaulgraphs.com did. :)
On the recent arson fires, read this, and then this. They're saying the same thing, with some very different words, but it might be enlightening. And here's an angle on fires you will not see in the news...
Next, we have Military & Veterans for Ron Paul. Note especially the Reagan pages regarding the sheer length of the good doctor's relationship with Ronald Reagan. That lady in the bottom pic is, if I'm not mistaken, wife#1, Jane Wyman, and the photo was probably taken at an early Goldwater event where Reagan spoke if my guess is right. The US Army sniper's testimony in that old congress commercial might partially explain why he's so popular with military folks, wallet-wise. Ron Paul supports 'em when it counts, and even when everyone else would like to forget about them, and constitution-reading veterans aren't stupid.
Baywatch babe & Playboy playmate Donna D'Errico supports Ron Paul! Along with more & more hot chicks of all ages on YouTube & elsewhere on the 'net. Donna's a Catholic, but people of all religions might find what Dr. Paul wrote in 2005 upon the passing of Pope John Paul interesting. He's much more polite than I am, but we're both saying "many people seem to be worshipping big government, not God," unless I'm mistaken. And for protestants, another Chuck Baldwin article on why Christians should support Constitutional government. And for rap-fans, this. We do diversity in this campaign, we don't just talk about it.
Interview in the Rocky Mountain Chronicle, featuring possibly the world's worst pic of the candidate. Oh well, they can't get that kind of bias out of themselves.
I've been enjoying the FECal/First Amendment aspects of Colbert's run, especially when he mentions O'Reilly "protecting America from Dumbledore's flaming wand."
The Leno appearance happened after my bedtime, and Leno's staff refused our flowers and the can of Hormel brand Spam I sent as a joke, but they went to a good cause (the firefighters). And check out what this lovely girl said about the crowd. The media loves talking about racist nutcases, but they don't seem to want to address why, of all Republicans out-there, Ron Paul does so-damn-well with black voters. Ask yourself "why?" The only answer I can come-up-with is "antilibertarian bias," which remains my thesis whether I'm around or not when it comes to this place.
What I love most about "Little Green Footballs"? Intellectual consistency. By contrast, some liberals are honest. James Babb gets my "best mocking of RedState" award, and I think we all know their actual policy by now. Doesn't matter a bit, though. See red line for why. :)
Our rockin' NYC team. Signs like theirs or this one aren't financed (or known) by the official campaign. They just happen, as Chris Matthews discovered at the Democrat debate aftermath. Funny how dishonest polls can't hurt us much...
And speaking of polls...
You can tell we're doing well in the straw-polls when Tom DeLay says nice things about Ron Paul. :) This is, after all, the same wease...er...guy who recruited a tax & spend Democrat to change parties & run against Dr. Paul. And Glen Beck's letting Penn Jillette say nice things. What next? Townhall saying nice things, too? What's the world coming-to?? ;)
Finally, and just for Tax Hike Mike Huckabee fans, I present a can of whoop-ass by a journalist who's obviously been around for a few Arkansas governors and seen slick talkers before. Devastatingly good writing, especially the end. And Binxley, if you're reading, please watch the entire Judge Napolitano youtube video, especially the end, if you like Rudy at all. You won't after that!
Thanks.
JMR
[ Update: How to "win" straw polls which "don't matter" -- as I say in the thread, the party apparently didn't learn from Florida's rule-changin' experience how to milk Mitt's moolah!]
Comments Policy
sarc---
November 3, 2007 - 11:40 ET by misterbillA long read--but good. I followed almost every link in each of your links, I came across Ron Paul's vting record on free trade. He is trying to protect Americans and their jobs and still support free trade which is a little confusing to me.
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade.
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act:
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement.
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile.
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements.
And next, which true free traders should like:
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.- WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
- WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
- WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
- WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:- The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
- The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire .
Even with theses votes, Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.
Puzzling!!!???
As Colbert said...
November 3, 2007 - 12:08 ET by sarcasmoHe's "an enigma, wrapped in a riddle in a sesame seed bun of mystery," and I certainly don't speak for the man. Having said that, people like me think any true free trade agreement that's not control-freakery in disguise should have a few characteristics. One important characteristic is that when written, the agreement should find a way to be shorter than The Bible. None of the big-government agreements with "free trade" in the title qualifies these days. This is because their writers want to make them highly complex, unreadably-long welfare programs for lobbyists and lawyers instead of real free trade.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
PS misterbill
November 3, 2007 - 12:15 ET by sarcasmoAs a wordsmith, I think you'll especially like the CA fire links which say almost exactly the same thing in such different ways. Makes one think....
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Defeatist
November 4, 2007 - 04:24 ET by UnsaneSo. because you believe the United States of America is this fragile, delicate nation that can't even have embassies in Washington (I am sure I am exaggerating only very slightly) lest its sovereignty is destroyed (yet you can't seem to explain NATO, the OAS, the Alaska Highway, and other things that have existed for the past six decades), we MUST turn it into the most whiny, pathetic shell of a nation possible...so whiny and powerless, that even the EU is more powerful than it is?
Sad...but then, defeatists like stuff like that...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Did Paul get those dried apricots I sent?
November 3, 2007 - 11:54 ET by third eyeFrom the Time article on Ron Paul, 1 Nov 07
Representative Tom Tancredo, another long-shot G.O.P. candidate, tells
me that after a debate in New Hampshire, one of his staffers walked up
to a guy in a shark costume and asked him if he was a Ron Paul
supporter. "No. They're all nuts," replied the shark. "I'm just a guy
in a shark suit."
http://www.time.com/...
For extra points...
November 3, 2007 - 12:02 ET by sarcasmoSpot the made-up "fact" in the Time article.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I think I found it
November 3, 2007 - 12:15 ET by third eye"Paul's fans — and there were more than 100 of them in Leno's audience,
many of whom had flown in from out of town — are entranced by a man who
responds to surprising information with "Wowee" and a jaw-dropped smile
not often seen apart from 5-year-old boys and Muppets."
Ron Paul smiling? This is clearly fictitious, your absolutely right Sarc
Yep.
November 3, 2007 - 14:59 ET by sarcasmoToo much media bias for you to ever see pics like this, but he's smiling all-over, anyway, whether or not you ever-see it. I was standing about 8 feet away from this, and the 72 year old Presidential candidate, after what must have been a very long day, lifted the cute little kid like she weighed nothing. :) Cute kid.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc--which "fact"?
November 3, 2007 - 12:55 ET by misterbillsarc--which "fact"?
Right here...
November 3, 2007 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmo"Paul doesn't expect that he will win the nomination, and..." only his proctologist knows where this "journalist" got this whopper (see Leno interview for actual facts). Prediction: Despite my words here and on the Daily Paul saying only his proctologist knows, we shall see no retraction/correction. Mark my words.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
found it Sarc
November 3, 2007 - 13:02 ET by botgI (Ron P) say, 'We're diverse. We even have some Republicans,'"
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Nope
November 3, 2007 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmoBut nice try. See above.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
but i must disagree
November 3, 2007 - 15:12 ET by botgnow if it said "we even have some newly-minted Republicans"
GoHunter08
The proof will come...
November 3, 2007 - 15:35 ET by sarcasmoIn the primaries. I'm willing to wait 'till then, especially considering straw poll results.
And we're talkin' TIME MAGAZINE here. We go back...They have a history of antilibertarian bias stretching back to their never-retracted lie about Lyndon LaRouche being a Libertarian in either the early '80s or late '70s, I forget which.
I'm more concerned with forcing a source outta their creative writer for the rectally-derived "fact" I outlined above, which is contrary to everything Dr. Paul has ever said. Let's focus on that bias, at least for a bit, so I can skewer Time's "journalist" a bit more here like I already skewered him in the Daily Paul. :) From experience, I don't expect a factual retraction from the likes of Time, so proctologist/creative-writing jokes are all I get...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
indeed it will carry on
November 3, 2007 - 15:55 ET by botgindeed it will
carry on sarc (i'm no fan of Time meself)
GoHunter08
Another interesting
November 3, 2007 - 17:16 ET by Clear thinkerAnother interesting link...
Ron Paul and his campaign may have nothing to do with this, but it sure puts a cloud over him...
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Hey Ct... Thanks for that
November 3, 2007 - 17:26 ET by bigtimerHey Ct...
Thanks for that info. I wonder if that was what Scarborough was referring to on his show yesterday morning...I missed the segment where he talked about later after the tease.
The posts afterwards were interesting too....lol.
lol....well, well
November 3, 2007 - 17:32 ET by RJI think this must have been what he was talking about, BT.
I'm sure sarky will deny this smoking gun just the way the Paul spokesman disingenuously claimed someone might be out to "embarrass" the campaign....lol!
"If it is true, it could be done by a well-intentioned yet misguided supporter or someone with bad intentions trying to embarrass the campaign," he wrote while ferrying his boss to tape an appearance on The Tonight Show. "Either way, this is independent work, and we have no connection."
It will be interesting to see if the righteous Ron Paul demands anyone who might be engaged in technical manupulation stop immediately.
It seems he has been silent
November 3, 2007 - 17:37 ET by bigtimerIt seems he has been silent about this all so far RJ...glad we found out what Joe was talking about though thanks to Ct.
I haven't heard a word from Paul about this as of yet anyway. If he is smart he had better make a statement.
Thanks for the kudos but
November 3, 2007 - 23:26 ET by Clear thinkerThanks for the kudos but the credit goes to vrwc13. He posted the link 2 days ago in the Open Thread.
Just for the record: Ron Paul has zero chance to win the nomination, especially if his supporters continue to act like Democrats.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
"Clear" thinker, your
November 4, 2007 - 00:52 ET by ThoughtPolice"Clear" thinker, your predictions are as funny as your posts. No chance? Just like he had "no chance" at bringing in over 5 million last quarter too, i'm sure.
He just won another straw poll (Arkansas I think) by a LANDSLIDE. Oh, but I know...straw polls mean nothing (especially when the candidate you like doesn't win!).
As for the botnet story, get a life. The fact that people are saying this is Ron pauls "negative" is laughable. Obviously they'll do ANYTHING to make him look bad. Let's think about this for a sec, shall we? How do botnets vote in all those online polls? How do botnets vote in the text message polls? Last but not least, how do botnets bring in almost as much money as John McCain? (I thought all they could do was send a few annoying spam messages!)
Looks like you need to try a bit harder to discredit the good Dr.!
Delegate count, please
November 4, 2007 - 04:28 ET by UnsaneHe just won another straw poll (Arkansas I think) by a LANDSLIDE. Oh, but I know...straw polls mean nothing (especially when the candidate you like doesn't win!). So, with this impressive victory, how many delegates did Paul pick up for the Convention?
And as for people out to make Paul look bad...he does a great job all by himself.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Delegate count for the others, please...
November 4, 2007 - 07:19 ET by sarcasmoFirst. You can't even operate under one standard, and you expect to be convincing here. Ha. No wonder so many of us respect you so much. And didn't you see your own URL??? Item 1, and you were only one character off...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Various
November 5, 2007 - 09:50 ET by UnsaneHow am I not operating under one standard?
No wonder so many of us respect you so much Wow, and you speak for ALL of NB posters too? Amazing. I missed that appointment...
Sarcasmo, no, I actually have a job and a life, so no, I did not notice that. But that's also because I was deeply touched by your kind words for me in your post.
Now, run along to your self-denunciation session. Something you can take with you: I early-voted the other day here in TX and when I went to the polling place, it was surrounded by HPD personnel in riot gear, pushing back an agitated, desperate crowd of thousands. What were those crowds demanding? They wanted to vote fo Ron Paul, and they wanted to RIGHT NOW.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
If you don't see the double-standard
November 6, 2007 - 06:05 ET by sarcasmoThat doesn't change it. :) It just makes it funnier.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Lazy...just unbelievably lazy
November 7, 2007 - 01:15 ET by UnsaneIf you can't point out the double-standard, you are lazy. And still a BFI. And THAT makes YOU funnier.
Before we award Ron Paul the full complement of delegates to the convention AND 538 electoral votes for winning a lousy straw poll, why don't we all just go ahead and hold the primaries anyways, just to be sure that he REALLY deserved them?
And, do we count how many votes he gets only, or do we calculate the "spent-per-voter" basis to award him the delegates?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I haven't read ALL of
November 7, 2007 - 02:49 ET by WhichWingI haven't read ALL of sarcasmo's posts, but I don't recall him calling off the vote and declaring Ron Paul the winner. (But I guess that's just more of Unsane's extremist rhetoric seeping through, if only the poor guy could see that there is something between the two extremes of every situation...)
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Number of delegates?
November 7, 2007 - 03:53 ET by UnsaneIf only poor WhichWhine actually had a spine...
Yes, sarcasmo frequently refers to "ass-kickin'". Which implies victory. Which, unfortunately for you and him, not a single delegate has gone to Ron Paul as a result of any straw polls, text polls or anything else.
You actually are going to have to face the polls in an ELECTION.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Who has the delegates then?
November 8, 2007 - 07:57 ET by WhichWingWho has the delegates then? When some one says Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell do you jump in with your rant about holding elections anyway? Hell no you don't! Of course you don't!
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
It's a double-standard which matches
November 8, 2007 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmoMuch of the media bias we bust here, come to think of it...I mean, many reporters' worldviews are so-stilted that we see the same kind of both double-standards AND attitudes from them. Good spotting. For something more-intellectual than "unsane" will ever give us on Dr. Paul and God, check out the Huffypo-interview with the good doctor's brother, David.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
More whining and whimpering
November 8, 2007 - 08:04 ET by UnsaneYou might have noticed that though I have a range of candidates, I have not actively supported a particular one. By the way, I want them to face the polls as well...
...just because.
Continue with your tantrum. And just accept the fact that I am perpetually allergic to reactionaries.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
More irony...
November 8, 2007 - 08:06 ET by sarcasmoYou're no-better and giving him a straight answer than you are with me, eh? Funny...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Straight talk
November 8, 2007 - 08:26 ET by UnsaneOh, you are given straight answers - by me, and others - but, to quote Sarcasmo, "YOU CAN'T READ!!!" Or, more accurately, you don't want to read them, because you just cannot stand the thought that someone else not named Sarcasmo just might be right.
(For some reason, whenever I see your posts together with WhichWhine, I can't help but hear "Romeo and Juliet", and I don't even have it on my laptop.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
More like 0-content.
November 8, 2007 - 08:52 ET by sarcasmoI'll resort to one of those evil "link" things again. I know, it's not conducive to evaluating sources, but it's what we've got here on the internet.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Shahinshah of zero
November 9, 2007 - 06:45 ET by UnsaneAnytime you link, and knowing how much contempt you have for source evaluation, I say that makes you the king...the Shahinshah...of "0 content".
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You've proven 0
November 9, 2007 - 10:44 ET by sarcasmo"Contempt" on my part for source evaluation, either here or anywhere else. You just like personal insults because you're better at that than you are at discussing policy (which requires actual thought). It shows. You want this thread to degenerate into your usual insults. People reading us both might want to ask themselves "why?" IMO.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Glass house
November 11, 2007 - 03:39 ET by UnsaneWhat needs to be proven, beyond your links? Your abilities to evaluate sources are nonexistent. Your exchanges with BD, where he "shacked" you, comes to mind. He asked you a specific question, and for you to not post links related to Ron Paul or to one of Paul's Cultists in response. The silence you gave him was deafening, because it proves you cannot look at a source that doesn't immediately slavishly back up either your POV or that of your God.
Keep whining about my "personal insults." What's that they say about people who live in glass houses?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane, I can respect your
November 8, 2007 - 08:59 ET by WhichWingUnsane, I can respect your skepticism and desire for source evaluation, to a degree. But your unwillingness to read anything posted by anybody is quite frustrating to everyone. While rejecting any and all sources provided you sing the praises of your own sources. Sources that may or may not be credible, but certainly are not available at everyone's fingertips in either case. Some links posted don't need you to evaluate their sources, because some are actually the source. For example, you go on about Ron Paul's policies being anti-semitic but refuse to look at a link from Jews For Ron Paul. How, honestly, do you expect anyone to proceed from such a point in a conversation?
(For clarification, sarcasmo has courted me in the past, and I promptly informed him that my love was only for Unsane.)
All humor aside, WW makes
November 8, 2007 - 15:50 ET by BinxlyAll humor aside, WW makes some good points. You call out Sarc for 'whining' when the demeanor and tone of your emails are much more complacent than his initial posts. Its true he reacts somewhat when people respond in a rude way, but its true that too often those who accuse him of his demeanor are often worse in their own.
I too have given Unsane many different examples of what true anti-semitism is, and for someone so terribly against a PC-mindset (which I am also against in this sense) its funny to see him equate Dr. Paul's belief that we over-endorse Israel to proof of anti-semitism. Its obvious, I'm afraid, that Unsane is another person who simply will not move on his beliefs and that is fine. The problem is, when I listen to his point, I take what I can, have actually *learned* a bit from him too, and then politely disagree (excusing the few times in which his name-calling got to me and I admittedly stooped to his level.)
I think in all honesty that perhaps arguing with Unsane on these issues is both counterproductive and a complete waste of time as well as an unnecessary stress. As he loves to say 'let's wait until the primaries.' Wait we will do indeed. I can only hope there are no sharp objects or high places easily accessible to Unsane should 'hell freeze over' and Ron win the nomination.
Binxly
November 9, 2007 - 06:59 ET by UnsaneAh, Binxly. How I should have known that you would come to the rescue...
I too have given Unsane many different examples of what true anti-semitism is, and for someone so terribly against a PC-mindset (which I am also against in this sense) its funny to see him equate Dr. Paul's belief that we over-endorse Israel to proof of anti-semitism. I have also explained to you multiple times that, IF he is NOT anti-Semitic, his comments about Israel only highlights that he is a complete idiot.
Wait we will do indeed. I can only hope there are no sharp objects or high places easily accessible to Unsane should 'hell freeze over' and Ron win the nomination. Nah. If Ron Paul DOES win the nomination, I will be in a very bad quandary: both presidential candidates will have a deep, passionate hatred for the United States, and both will want to render the United States as whiny, weak, and pathetic as possible. So, who, at that point, do I vote for? The Reactionary that wants to severely weaken the United States, or the Socialist that wants to severely weaken the United States?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Prove that "deep, passionate hatred."
November 9, 2007 - 10:48 ET by sarcasmoYou can't, because you're full of crap. I know that from experience. But you'll flail and try to make it about me instead of the issues, anyway, if my guess is right.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sarcasmo, paragon of civility
November 11, 2007 - 03:45 ET by UnsaneYou can't, because you're full of crap. And of course, knowing you, because you cannot help yourself, you will WHINE and SCREAM elsewhere about my "personal insults." I know that from experience. When did we ever meet? I really am surprised you haven't been to Houston thus far, so that you can see what Paul's district is like. But you'll flail and try to make it about me instead of the issues, anyway, if my guess is right. And your guess is wrong.
" Ron Paul has taken a good, hard look around America and hates everything he sees. He hates the Iraq war. He hates the rest of our foreign policy. He pretty much thinks we shouldn't have a foreign policy. He hates our bloated and meddlesome federal government. (What's that they say about stuck clocks?) He hates abortion. He hates the Treasury and floating currency. Basically, he wishes it were 1796 and he could wear a powdered wig without being ridiculed in public." - Dean Barnett, The Weekly Standard
Why not refute any of this in your very own words, sans links to other Ron Paul sites and Ron Paul worshippers? Bet you can't.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Frustrating?
November 9, 2007 - 06:51 ET by UnsaneYeah, I know, its frustrating that I use sources like...BOOKS. That source of information that is easily evaluated and has been around thousands of years longer than the Internet.
I do provide titles of the publications I cite. What, is it going to kill you to check them out yourself?
Oh, that website you cite does nothing to change the fact that your God has called the Israeli government the biggest lobby in Washington. As I explained to your buddy Binxly once: if that doesn't make him anti-Semitic, it does make him a complete idiot.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Your God is clearly big-government
November 9, 2007 - 10:50 ET by sarcasmoBut here's another of those evil links to not-evaluate, and then quickly claim I don't evaluate things. Keep flailin', and keep up the worship of ever-bigger big government!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Illiteracy
November 11, 2007 - 03:48 ET by UnsaneMy God is big-government?
Don't worry, sarc. The first step to recovering from illiteracy is admitting you can't read...
(I don't click on links. Link away, I won't read them. Standard policy.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
It is much easier to pick
November 8, 2007 - 08:46 ET by WhichWingIt is much easier to pick three or more candidates and say you don't necessarily support any of them, isnt it? And then you can join the masses and vote for which ever one was chosen for you.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Translations
November 9, 2007 - 07:02 ET by UnsaneOne, I translate that post as "I, WhichWhine, have extremely severe problems with reading." Two, unlike you, I do not hinge everything in my life on a politician, as no candidate on earth from anywhere for anything is going to provide me life-saving meals or a roof over my head. I do not worship a candidate like Eyedema, Turkmenbashy, or Kim Jong-Il.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
BS
November 9, 2007 - 10:52 ET by sarcasmoYou stupidly accuse others of worshipping that which we plainly don't worship, while yourself worshipping bigger & bigger government. I then treat you with the respect you deserve for trying that tactic. Lather, rinse, repeat.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
More contradictions
November 11, 2007 - 03:54 ET by UnsaneYou stupidly accuse others of worshipping that which we plainly don't worship just as you stupidly scream at me "You worship theholydrugwar!!!"? Me, the atheist, who worships absolutely NOTHING?
while yourself worshipping bigger & bigger government. And you whine this with 0 proof, to quote Sarcasmo. All this tells me is that YOU CAN'T READ, to quote Sarcasmo. Repeatedly on NB, I have talked of taking money away from education, from Nanny State programs, and of ways to make the government more efficient, and yet, you whine that I "worship" bigger government? This is sad, even for you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You vote for and worship
November 22, 2007 - 07:40 ET by sarcasmoBig government Republicans. They don't want to admit to being that, but they worship big government, and so do you. Atheists often DO worship big government, don't feel bad about it. But don't be intellectually dishonest about what I worship when you want to tax me to fund a variety of wars that will not work. War is the health of the state, as Bourne said (go look it up, no link this time).
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
TRY, just TRY, to enjoy Thanksgiving
November 22, 2007 - 17:57 ET by UnsaneYou vote for and worship big government Republicans. Yet, when I tell you that you are a Paul worshipper, you will WHINE and SCREAM that I have no idea who you worship. I guess you are the only one on NB with the license to tell people who and what they worship. Never mind that I am an atheist (perhaps you need to look that up in the dictionary, along with "reactionary"). Nor do I vote for "big-government Republicans" willingly...as this is not a parliamentary democracy, I cannot vote for the party that 100% mirrors my own views...until I officially start up the Unsane party.
Atheists often DO worship big government, don't feel bad about it. So, don't bitch ever again when I tell you that you worship Ron Paul. Okay, Paul Worshipper?
And the more you accuse me of liking big government, the more you indicate to me your severe selective literacy problems.
But don't be intellectually dishonest about what I worship when you want to tax me to fund a variety of wars that will not work. Yep, I want to tax poor Sarcasmo to fund war all by himself.
What wars will not work? Thedrugwarisworkinginthatitiscuttingdownusage. The Iraq war is working just fine, as violence works to solve lots and lots of problems.
TRY to have a Happy Thanksgiving. Instead of being the miserable soul that you are, I am going to bake massive quantities of cookies once again, while downing Spaetlese.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
You're hallucinating again...
December 4, 2007 - 11:40 ET by sarcasmoI had a great Thanksgiving, and I never was miserable. If you somehow don't worship big government, maybe I don't worship what you say, huh? You always want one standard when I apply your double standards to you, though. I'm having FUN, why is that so-hard to get through your head??? It's big government Republicans like that RINO Rudy who are getting teary-eyed.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Not silent at all, my friend...
November 4, 2007 - 07:17 ET by sarcasmoSee various YouTube videos already posted, you just haven't taken sufficient time on my many links. If you're like RJ & dimwitted enough to believe "journalism" regarding Ron Paul supporters (a bunch of spam-hating computer-guys) spamming instead of opponents, it's too-pathetically-dumb for me to WANT to change your mind. Stay with the stupid-theory, it'll make for more amusing comments!! ;) From me, anyway.
And if Paul "had better make a statement" about someone else's spam despite his total non-involvement and the TOTAL likelihood that idiots won't believe it, shouldn't Dubya make a statement about Daniel Carver's support in spite of his equal non-involvement & smartness? He's about 3-4 years late by now, if so...The idea that supporters equal the candidate is silly.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The publicity that Ron Paul
November 6, 2007 - 08:00 ET by TexasOptimistThe publicity that Ron Paul has "earned" is largely because of these shenanigans. So even if Paul is himself uninvolved with them, it would still be wise for him to do something to negate it.
George W. Bush is not a full-fledged conservative, but I still support his presidency. (Although I am rethinking this position daily!) Still, I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats. Merry Christmas 2007.
You mean like yesterday's "shenanigans"?
November 6, 2007 - 08:05 ET by sarcasmoWhen we broke a record & made history? That's funny!! Hell, as I showed already, we even made a biased media notice! :) Why not be happy at the success of a Republican candidate who happens to be the only true conservative??
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Reactionary
November 7, 2007 - 01:18 ET by UnsaneWhy not be happy at the success of a Republican candidate who happens to be the only true conservative?? Because, like you, Ron Paul is a reactionary, NOT a conservative.
It is hilarious to see various flakes defend their candidates by saying "He's a true conservative!!!", be it Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul or whoever. Whenever I see "true conservative" attached to any candidate, that is my cue to run as fast as possible from him/her.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Somenthing's rotten in Denmark...
November 7, 2007 - 01:36 ET by RESTLESS 1... and it's not the cheese.
I can't figure what Ron Paul is doing in this race. I, however, am fearing a Ross Perot moment coming. I mean think about it, RP= Ron Paul ; RP= Ross Perot. Coincidence? Hmmm.
Is It Just Me?
November 4, 2007 - 09:14 ET by Sua Sponte 75Not that I have loads of time for research, but this gentleman seems to have quite the following of Truthers, Holocaust deniers, UFOers, Neo-Nazis. I can't seem to find anywhere where he's distancing himself from them either. Is it just me?
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
No, that's just Unsane. He
November 4, 2007 - 09:51 ET by WhichWingNo, that's just Unsane. He refuses to distance himself from anything other than reality.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
WhichWhine "strikes" again
November 7, 2007 - 01:23 ET by UnsaneYou are such a deeply confused little boy. My staunch support of Israel alone is enough to chase away the neo-Nazis. Though, I must admit, I have always wanted to walk up to a bunch of skinheads and say "Shalom". :-)
Considering that I have read such outstanding books like City In The Sky, that detail 9/11/01 in ways that will make truthers like you very uncomfortable, I can't be a "truther".
I am firmly grounded in reality, so much so that I like to read how we got to present day reality, which is more than I can say for this pathetic whiner I know who throws a tantrum anytime someone cites history for him...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
If only you supported the
November 7, 2007 - 02:52 ET by WhichWingIf only you supported the USA as much as you supported Israel. Have you looked into citizenship in Israel? I'd be willing to chip in some cash if needed.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Silly, confused little boy!
November 7, 2007 - 03:12 ET by UnsaneSuch a silly, confused little boy!!! Supporting Israel IS supporting the USA.
Why did we support West Berlin in its hour of need?
Why did, and why do we, support South Korea in its hour of need?
And that's just TWO examples.
And of course, you constantly whine and bawl about how much our civil liberties are threatened, that we hate democracy, and how much I support Israel over the United States...yet, I am the servicemember here. Ironic?
And what is the matter with supporting Israel? Hmmmmmmm? If you love democracy as much as you whine you do, why don't you do anything to defend it? Why aren't you supporting Israel, and by extension, the USA?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Lay it out for me, simply.
November 7, 2007 - 03:17 ET by WhichWingLay it out for me, simply. Why should I care about Israel? Why do care about Israel?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
The case for Israel
November 7, 2007 - 03:55 ET by UnsaneI have repeatedly on NB. Hell, I am an atheist and have made the case for Israel over and over again, as have many other posters.
Why don't you care about Israel? Why don't you support Israel? I thought you were the biggest fan of democracy on NB...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I am a fan of preserving
November 8, 2007 - 07:54 ET by WhichWingI am a fan of preserving OUR republic over granting one to someone else.
I care about America. If Israel is doing well, good for them. I'm not calling for any action against Israel, I'm calling for no more action on behalf of Israel. My duty is to my country, not theirs.
So again I ask, why do you care about Israel, and why should I?
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Come on
November 8, 2007 - 07:59 ET by JimboAre you saying that you don’t care whether democracy flourishes elsewhere on the globe, as long as it does so here?
Isolationism may have worked 150 years ago before things like nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles were invented, but it IS in this country’s best interest to support democracy elsewhere on the globe.
Come on, are you serious with this stuff?
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."
One cost of freedom
November 8, 2007 - 08:12 ET by UnsaneYour continued whining about that only convinces me that if you were in power in the late 1940s, your response to Stalin's blockade of Berlin would be to run up to him like a whipped, scared puppy, say "I am so sorry!!!" and leave all of Europe to him.
JFK once said something to the effect of (I'll get the exact quote sometime) "When we defend freedom in Berlin, we defend freedom in London and New York as well." When we protect representative democracy in Israel, we are protecting it here. It is really quite simple.
Democratic institutions didn't just magically happen in Eastern Europe in 1989. They were fought for, and earned. And one reason it came about was the fact that the United States did not abandon Western Europe.
The fact you cannot get these simple facts of history only confirms to me that you are nothing more than a selfish, petulant little boy with NO concept of what it means to have freedom and democracy, or what goes into it to protect and defend it. Yet, you so greedily suck the tits of democracy and freedom...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
America does not support Israel
November 8, 2007 - 09:22 ET by fosstenAmerica has lately done more to harm Israel than we've done to support her. We've pressured Israel to negotiate with terrorists, to engage in cease-fires with Hezbollah despite the fact that Israel did not start the conflict. We've pushed Israel to give up land in the Gaza strip, land which Israel EARNED by virtue of winning wars in 1967 which she DID NOT EVEN START.
We continually preach non-retaliation to Israel no matter when she is attacked or provoked by her hate-filled Islamic neighbors. I would argue that Israel would be better off if we simply stayed out of it and stopped telling Israel not to defend herself. As far as I'm concerned, Israel could wipe out her neighbors in a New York minute, and the neighbors know it. They also know that the United States fears losing Middle Eastern oil, so we will always interfere and take the side of telling Israel not to retaliate. This is bad policy and is not in Israel's best interests - it is in our own cowardly interests and actually harms Israel.
Not to mention the fact that our American media always paints Israel as the bad guys. If I were Israel I would tell the US to go pound sand.
Forget 911, I dial 9MM.
The blame game
November 21, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Unsanefossten - Since when did Israel become a colony of America?
I am a staunch supporter of Israel, but even so, quit blaming this country because Ehud Olmert is a wuss. If Ariel Sharon or Netanyahu were in power last summer, they would have violently defended Israel and walked around facing the entire globe with a fully extended middle finger.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And I can't find one instance
November 4, 2007 - 10:47 ET by sarcasmoOf George Bush distancing himself from Daniel Carver. One standard. :) It's not like LGF's position on internet polls I lampooned above; with me the word one means "one."
JMR
[Edit: As if it weren't obvious, I think this