Rick Perry's Latest Ad

Azdak

I don't understand why there isn't more outrage over this ad. If the word "gays" had been replaced with "blacks" or "women", the public would be in an uproar. Why is this okay? He's pretty much getting on national television and denouncing the service of our troops who happen to be homosexual.

How in the world did he (or his PR people) think that was a good ad????? I don't even see how that issue fits at all into his ad.

Have you seen any of the republican debates? When you have an audience that boos gay soldiers serving on active duty and cheers when people die because they have no health insurance, no level of mean-spirited bigotry is too low.

I love watching Republican debates and seeing who can one-up the other one with their conservatism. But I only watched the first three. It becomes apparent who is being pushed by which ever media outlet is hosting who they want to win by the sheer number of questions they will ask a "front runner" as opposed to the others, who often get dumb questions when they actually do get one.

You mean the "Tea Party Sponsored Debate" wasn't objective? Whouda thunk it.

adrian_indy

Ron Paul is a nut but at least he's a nut who's not also an @$$hole. I didn't vote for Obama last time. I voted McCain, hoped he'd swing back towards the way he was in 2000 and prayed he'd stay alive as nothing sends fear down my spine more than the words President Palin *shudder* -- except perhaps President Bachmann. Fortunately, she doesn't stand a chance. I would vote Obama this time if he'd grow a set and stop letting the GOP bully him. Right down to the Plan B won't be OTC decision of the past day, he's just gotten way too soft. It's like he's actually afraid of those schoolyard bullies. If the POTUS can't even stand up to people like Cantor, how can he expect to command respect in the world?

Do you really think for one second that either Mittens or Newt would command respect? '

Recently an article appeared in Der Spiegel about the republican candidates. It was entitled: "A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses" -- very subtle, no?

Here are a few choice selections:

For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.

It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive ... Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.

Oh, and Der Spiegel is considered a conservative magazine in Germany.

Across the world I think people are as perplexed and disappointed as many Americans that Obama hasn't challenged the republicans more directly, but they still respect him a lot more than ANY republican--now or in recent memory.

I love Newtie and the people who support him. Nothing says credibility like when the moral majority impeaches a POTUS for lying about a BJ, and then trying to nominate the guy who led the charge, who coincidently would leave those impeachment hearings to go get blown in the parking lot by his mistress.

Azdak

Americans are perplexing. We complain that Democrats are a bunch of wimps when they work with the other side. But at the same time we complain when Republicans refuse to work with Democrats Or when presidents over reach and don't let the whole of our system work itself out. We set ourselves up for a no win situation.

I will be voting for Obama again. Too much at stake not to and I don't live in a world where I have to pretend that every choice a politician makes has to be perfect. While I have been disappointed a few times, I would be disappointed almost every single time if someone else won because I do not have the same values as a Republican and unlike Ron Paul, I don't think my rights as a woman should be up for a vote. (Just one of the many things I disagree with Paul about. He might stick to his guns, but I think his guns are broken) JMO

I think it will end up being a close race, mostly because american voters have the attentions spans of hyperactive gerbils. Conservatives will wail again that the election was "stolen". What they won't realize is that a lot of current poll dissatisfaction with Obama comes from people who supported him and who do not feel he has been progressive or liberal enough. The solutions THEY prefer are ones that are the antithesis of anything a conservative would propose. When it comes time to vote, few liberals would ever vote for a republican just because they are unhappy with Obama, no matter how much they stamp their feet over at Daily Kos.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a narcissistic racist.

mikajoanow

Ron Paul is a nut but at least he's a nut who's not also an @$$hole. I didn't vote for Obama last time. I voted McCain, hoped he'd swing back towards the way he was in 2000 and prayed he'd stay alive as nothing sends fear down my spine more than the words President Palin *shudder* -- except perhaps President Bachmann. Fortunately, she doesn't stand a chance. I would vote Obama this time if he'd grow a set and stop letting the GOP bully him. Right down to the Plan B won't be OTC decision of the past day, he's just gotten way too soft. It's like he's actually afraid of those schoolyard bullies. If the POTUS can't even stand up to people like Cantor, how can he expect to command respect in the world?

Do you really think for one second that either Mittens or Newt would command respect? '

Recently an article appeared in Der Spiegel about the republican candidates. It was entitled: "A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses" -- very subtle, no?

Here are a few choice selections:

For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.

It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive ... Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.

Oh, and Der Spiegel is considered a conservative magazine in Germany.

Across the world I think people are as perplexed and disappointed as many Americans that Obama hasn't challenged the republicans more directly, but they still respect him a lot more than ANY republican--now or in recent memory.

I love Newtie and the people who support him. Nothing says credibility like when the moral majority impeaches a POTUS for lying about a BJ, and then trying to nominate the guy who led the charge, who coincidently would leave those impeachment hearings to go get blown in the parking lot by his mistress.

Can't blame a guy for wanting a bj. At least he married that mistress.

I find it strange that Cain is being shunned because of his actions by the same people.

Bahet

They spin so much you'd theink they'd be dizzy by now... Then again, that might help explain a lot.

adrian_indy

Ron Paul is a nut but at least he's a nut who's not also an @$$hole. I didn't vote for Obama last time. I voted McCain, hoped he'd swing back towards the way he was in 2000 and prayed he'd stay alive as nothing sends fear down my spine more than the words President Palin *shudder* -- except perhaps President Bachmann. Fortunately, she doesn't stand a chance. I would vote Obama this time if he'd grow a set and stop letting the GOP bully him. Right down to the Plan B won't be OTC decision of the past day, he's just gotten way too soft. It's like he's actually afraid of those schoolyard bullies. If the POTUS can't even stand up to people like Cantor, how can he expect to command respect in the world?

Do you really think for one second that either Mittens or Newt would command respect? '

Recently an article appeared in Der Spiegel about the republican candidates. It was entitled: "A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses" -- very subtle, no?

Here are a few choice selections:

For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.

It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive ... Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.

Oh, and Der Spiegel is considered a conservative magazine in Germany.

Across the world I think people are as perplexed and disappointed as many Americans that Obama hasn't challenged the republicans more directly, but they still respect him a lot more than ANY republican--now or in recent memory.

I love Newtie and the people who support him. Nothing says credibility like when the moral majority impeaches a POTUS for lying about a BJ, and then trying to nominate the guy who led the charge, who coincidently would leave those impeachment hearings to go get blown in the parking lot by his mistress.

Can't blame a guy for wanting a bj. At least he married that mistress.

I find it strange that Cain is being shunned because of his actions by the same people.

None of it makes much sense, although Cain's actions were considered harrassment which is illegal behavior. Newt's just a hypocrit and that's not illegal.

BrettPGH

Newt's just a hypocrite and that's not illegal.

I hear he's considering this as a campaign slogan.

mikajoanow

Ron Paul is a nut but at least he's a nut who's not also an @$$hole. I didn't vote for Obama last time. I voted McCain, hoped he'd swing back towards the way he was in 2000 and prayed he'd stay alive as nothing sends fear down my spine more than the words President Palin *shudder* -- except perhaps President Bachmann. Fortunately, she doesn't stand a chance. I would vote Obama this time if he'd grow a set and stop letting the GOP bully him. Right down to the Plan B won't be OTC decision of the past day, he's just gotten way too soft. It's like he's actually afraid of those schoolyard bullies. If the POTUS can't even stand up to people like Cantor, how can he expect to command respect in the world?

Do you really think for one second that either Mittens or Newt would command respect? '

Recently an article appeared in Der Spiegel about the republican candidates. It was entitled: "A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses" -- very subtle, no?

Here are a few choice selections:

For months now, they've been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what's still the most powerful job in the world.

It's true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it's just not that funny anymore. In fact, it's utterly horrifying.
It's horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They're ruining the reputation of the United States.

Then there's Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He's a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a "Man of Ideas" (The Washington Post) -- even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive ... Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party's hope.

Oh, and Der Spiegel is considered a conservative magazine in Germany.

Across the world I think people are as perplexed and disappointed as many Americans that Obama hasn't challenged the republicans more directly, but they still respect him a lot more than ANY republican--now or in recent memory.

I love Newtie and the people who support him. Nothing says credibility like when the moral majority impeaches a POTUS for lying about a BJ, and then trying to nominate the guy who led the charge, who coincidently would leave those impeachment hearings to go get blown in the parking lot by his mistress.

Can't blame a guy for wanting a bj. At least he married that mistress.

I find it strange that Cain is being shunned because of his actions by the same people.

None of it makes much sense, although Cain's actions were considered harrassment which is illegal behavior. Newt's just a hypocrit and that's not illegal.

Yeah, I guess that is true for some of the women.

mikajoanow

Newt's just a hypocrite and that's not illegal.

I hear he's considering this as a campaign slogan.

lmao

adrian_indy

Americans are perplexing. We complain that Democrats are a bunch of wimps when they work with the other side. But at the same time we complain when Republicans refuse to work with Democrats Or when presidents over reach and don't let the whole of our system work itself out. We set ourselves up for a no win situation.

I will be voting for Obama again. Too much at stake not to and I don't live in a world where I have to pretend that every choice a politician makes has to be perfect. While I have been disappointed a few times, I would be disappointed almost every single time if someone else won because I do not have the same values as a Republican and unlike Ron Paul, I don't think my rights as a woman should be up for a vote. (Just one of the many things I disagree with Paul about. He might stick to his guns, but I think his guns are broken) JMO

I think it will end up being a close race, mostly because american voters have the attentions spans of hyperactive gerbils. Conservatives will wail again that the election was "stolen". What they won't realize is that a lot of current poll dissatisfaction with Obama comes from people who supported him and who do not feel he has been progressive or liberal enough. The solutions THEY prefer are ones that are the antithesis of anything a conservative would propose. When it comes time to vote, few liberals would ever vote for a republican just because they are unhappy with Obama, no matter how much they stamp their feet over at Daily Kos.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a narcissistic racist.

I'm asking just for an opinion here more than wanting to debate, but why do you think Ron Paul is a Narcissistic Racist? You are not the first person I have heard this from, and my research on the guy has been limited to what he said during the last couple of elections and some of his voting record.

CasperO

Great source on Ron Paul. You can read years of the man's work here, tons of writing. I've been following him for years and I think he's a valuable voice to have in the house of Rep's.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

I wouldn't let him actually RUN a sock hop, but he makes interesting points and is a good if somewhat extreme POV to have in a large legislature.

adrian_indy

Great source on Ron Paul. You can read years of the man's work here, tons of writing. I've been following him for years and I think he's a valuable voice to have in the house of Rep's.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

I wouldn't let him actually RUN a sock hop, but he makes interesting points and is a good if somewhat extreme POV to have in a large legislature.

Thanks, I'm going to read this later when I can concentrate.

Bahet

Are any of them NOT narcissists?

TheRoadDog

Ron Paul is a nut but at least he's a nut who's not also an @$$hole. I didn't vote for Obama last time. I voted McCain, hoped he'd swing back towards the way he was in 2000 and prayed he'd stay alive as nothing sends fear down my spine more than the words President Palin *shudder* -- except perhaps President Bachmann. Fortunately, she doesn't stand a chance. I would vote Obama this time if he'd grow a set and stop letting the GOP bully him. Right down to the Plan B won't be OTC decision of the past day, he's just gotten way too soft. It's like he's actually afraid of those schoolyard bullies. If the POTUS can't even stand up to people like Cantor, how can he expect to command respect in the world?

I'd rather vote for RuPaul.

CasperO

What politician isn't a narcissist? The unfortunate reality of the presidency is that wanting the job pretty much disqualifies you from it. What kind of preening, self important *kitten* really thinks he is equipped - or really wants to be - the chief executive of the United States of America?

We'd probably be better off drafting people. Some nice middle of the road dump truck driver from North Dakota. I imagine the poor sap getting the letter in the mail. "Dammit! I have to be president next year!"

adrian_indy

I want to vote for Govenor Jesse Ventura.

CasperO

Jesse V for prez, RuPaul for Veep. We've had worse...

adrian_indy

Jesse V for prez, RuPaul for Veep. We've had worse...

Mostly cuz he ain't got time to bleed.

CasperO

Lewis Black has the best idea. Throw a dart at a map. Put a monkey in a plane with a parachute. Push the monkey out of the plane at the location of the dart. The first person the monkey walks up to and holds hands with is the new president.

Much better than what we do now. At least a 50/50 shot and getting a decent, honest human being.

mikajoanow

Lewis Black has the best idea. Throw a dart at a map. Put a monkey in a plane with a parachute. Push the monkey out of the plane at the location of the dart. The first person the monkey walks up to and holds hands with is the new president.

Much better than what we do now. At least a 50/50 shot and getting a decent, honest human being.

I think you're giving far too much credit to the average joe. I'll see your Black and raise you a Carlin

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. *kitten* Hope.'"

mikajoanow

I want to vote for Govenor Jesse Ventura.

I don't hate him. I think he is an atheist though, so that pretty much knocks him out of the running. Plus that whole 9-11 thing isn't going to get him very far with anyone besides the tin foil hat brigade.

Azdak

Lewis Black has the best idea. Throw a dart at a map. Put a monkey in a plane with a parachute. Push the monkey out of the plane at the location of the dart. The first person the monkey walks up to and holds hands with is the new president.

Much better than what we do now. At least a 50/50 shot and getting a decent, honest human being.

The biggest problem with democracy is that our elected leaders tend to reflect the moral character and intelligence of the voting population.

People have complained about the quality of politicians since the day this country was founded. Doesn't mean we should not hold them accountable, but IMO you could throw them all out tomorrow, start with a clean slate, and the next batch would be just as bad.

adrian_indy

I want to vote for Govenor Jesse Ventura.

I don't hate him. I think he is an atheist though, so that pretty much knocks him out of the running. Plus that whole 9-11 thing isn't going to get him very far with anyone besides the tin foil hat brigade.

Yeah, he said he was an atheist about a year ago. But I've like him since he originally ran in Minnesota. For some reason those debates were on in Indiana. I've read all his books and I really like the guy.

Yakisoba

I'd rather vote for RuPaul.

Azdak

Americans are perplexing. We complain that Democrats are a bunch of wimps when they work with the other side. But at the same time we complain when Republicans refuse to work with Democrats Or when presidents over reach and don't let the whole of our system work itself out. We set ourselves up for a no win situation.

I will be voting for Obama again. Too much at stake not to and I don't live in a world where I have to pretend that every choice a politician makes has to be perfect. While I have been disappointed a few times, I would be disappointed almost every single time if someone else won because I do not have the same values as a Republican and unlike Ron Paul, I don't think my rights as a woman should be up for a vote. (Just one of the many things I disagree with Paul about. He might stick to his guns, but I think his guns are broken) JMO

I think it will end up being a close race, mostly because american voters have the attentions spans of hyperactive gerbils. Conservatives will wail again that the election was "stolen". What they won't realize is that a lot of current poll dissatisfaction with Obama comes from people who supported him and who do not feel he has been progressive or liberal enough. The solutions THEY prefer are ones that are the antithesis of anything a conservative would propose. When it comes time to vote, few liberals would ever vote for a republican just because they are unhappy with Obama, no matter how much they stamp their feet over at Daily Kos.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a narcissistic racist.

I'm asking just for an opinion here more than wanting to debate, but why do you think Ron Paul is a Narcissistic Racist? You are not the first person I have heard this from, and my research on the guy has been limited to what he said during the last couple of elections and some of his voting record.

A serious question deserves a serious answer. OK--that one I'll admit was somewhat gratuitous. But I think Paul gets a pass because he has created a faux "principled libertarian" persona that even many liberals have bought into and so I tend to use strong words when referring to him to try to shake people loose from their assumptions.

Recently Paul defended his son's statements that he would not have supported voting for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, not would he have voted to repeal Jim Crow laws. Those positions could arguably be defended as a "principled", if unseemly and extreme, defense of individual property rights. However numerous racist statements and articles have appeared in various Ron Paul newsletters over the years that betray his true feelings. Things like "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "opinion polls consistently show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions".

There's lots and lots more. These newsletters came out mostly in the late1980s to mid 1990s. Paul made quite a bit of money from them. In the early 2000s when they came to light, Paul came up with various excuses--he didn't write them, he didn't know what was in any of the newsletters published under his name, blah, blah, blah (so much for that vaunted Randian individual responsibility). However in 1996, Paul admitted that he had written the articles and defended them in general, saying that quotes like the above mentioned were -- you guessed it --"taken out of context".

I think Paul is intelligent and clever and carefully crafts his persona. I use the term narcissism for a couple of reasons: Paul claims to be dedicated to the principles of the US Constitution, but it's the Ron Paul Constitution, not the real one. He reserves the right for himself to interpret the document. Congress? Supreme Court? Nope. Only Paul's opinions count--it's like he sat there and helped James Madison write the thing. Paul's infatuation with the whole Ayn Rand philosophy is also a red flag IMO. He is one of those people who assumes that, because he has achieved some measure of material success in his life, he is somehow superior to all others, one of the "producers" who wants to enjoy all the benefits of a modern, civilized society but wants someone else to pay for it. I find him also somewhat of a hypocrite--playing up the "personal liberty" stuff as long as it results in his personal enrichment. If you are a woman who wants to control her own body--well, not so much. He also has supported and surrounded himself with extremist christian dominionist groups that are about as anti-liberty as you can find. Now that may be just a marriage of convenience--Paul has made a number of public remarks that suggest that while he considers himself a strong evangelical christian, he shows some tolerant tendencies. But, like the accusations of racism, it's a murky pattern. Paul says one thing in public, but then has a lot of associations and support from people who think just the opposite. As I said, maybe he just feels he needs to have a "big tent" of supporters.

So that may not all hold up in court, but it's enough for me personally to have my opinion. Again, if it wasn't for the fact that his "libertarian" persona is accepted without question, I would just consider him another cranky old grandpa who makes for an amusing occasional interview. But I think he is such a phony, I have a stronger reaction.

It's an opinion. We all look at different facets of a person and get to pick and choose which ones are most important to us based on our own values, etc. A lot of people, including liberals, look at Paul with a more sympathetic eye, so I am probably in the minority on this one.

adrian_indy

Americans are perplexing. We complain that Democrats are a bunch of wimps when they work with the other side. But at the same time we complain when Republicans refuse to work with Democrats Or when presidents over reach and don't let the whole of our system work itself out. We set ourselves up for a no win situation.

I will be voting for Obama again. Too much at stake not to and I don't live in a world where I have to pretend that every choice a politician makes has to be perfect. While I have been disappointed a few times, I would be disappointed almost every single time if someone else won because I do not have the same values as a Republican and unlike Ron Paul, I don't think my rights as a woman should be up for a vote. (Just one of the many things I disagree with Paul about. He might stick to his guns, but I think his guns are broken) JMO

I think it will end up being a close race, mostly because american voters have the attentions spans of hyperactive gerbils. Conservatives will wail again that the election was "stolen". What they won't realize is that a lot of current poll dissatisfaction with Obama comes from people who supported him and who do not feel he has been progressive or liberal enough. The solutions THEY prefer are ones that are the antithesis of anything a conservative would propose. When it comes time to vote, few liberals would ever vote for a republican just because they are unhappy with Obama, no matter how much they stamp their feet over at Daily Kos.

Oh, and Ron Paul is a narcissistic racist.

I'm asking just for an opinion here more than wanting to debate, but why do you think Ron Paul is a Narcissistic Racist? You are not the first person I have heard this from, and my research on the guy has been limited to what he said during the last couple of elections and some of his voting record.

A serious question deserves a serious answer. OK--that one I'll admit was somewhat gratuitous. But I think Paul gets a pass because he has created a faux "principled libertarian" persona that even many liberals have bought into and so I tend to use strong words when referring to him to try to shake people loose from their assumptions.

Recently Paul defended his son's statements that he would not have supported voting for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, not would he have voted to repeal Jim Crow laws. Those positions could arguably be defended as a "principled", if unseemly and extreme, defense of individual property rights. However numerous racist statements and articles have appeared in various Ron Paul newsletters over the years that betray his true feelings. Things like "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "opinion polls consistently show only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions".

There's lots and lots more. These newsletters came out mostly in the late1980s to mid 1990s. Paul made quite a bit of money from them. In the early 2000s when they came to light, Paul came up with various excuses--he didn't write them, he didn't know what was in any of the newsletters published under his name, blah, blah, blah (so much for that vaunted Randian individual responsibility). However in 1996, Paul admitted that he had written the articles and defended them in general, saying that quotes like the above mentioned were -- you guessed it --"taken out of context".

I think Paul is intelligent and clever and carefully crafts his persona. I use the term narcissism for a couple of reasons: Paul claims to be dedicated to the principles of the US Constitution, but it's the Ron Paul Constitution, not the real one. He reserves the right for himself to interpret the document. Congress? Supreme Court? Nope. Only Paul's opinions count--it's like he sat there and helped James Madison write the thing. Paul's infatuation with the whole Ayn Rand philosophy is also a red flag IMO. He is one of those people who assumes that, because he has achieved some measure of material success in his life, he is somehow superior to all others, one of the "producers" who wants to enjoy all the benefits of a modern, civilized society but wants someone else to pay for it. I find him also somewhat of a hypocrite--playing up the "personal liberty" stuff as long as it results in his personal enrichment. If you are a woman who wants to control her own body--well, not so much. He also has supported and surrounded himself with extremist christian dominionist groups that are about as anti-liberty as you can find. Now that may be just a marriage of convenience--Paul has made a number of public remarks that suggest that while he considers himself a strong evangelical christian, he shows some tolerant tendencies. But, like the accusations of racism, it's a murky pattern. Paul says one thing in public, but then has a lot of associations and support from people who think just the opposite. As I said, maybe he just feels he needs to have a "big tent" of supporters.

So that may not all hold up in court, but it's enough for me personally to have my opinion. Again, if it wasn't for the fact that his "libertarian" persona is accepted without question, I would just consider him another cranky old grandpa who makes for an amusing occasional interview. But I think he is such a phony, I have a stronger reaction.

It's an opinion. We all look at different facets of a person and get to pick and choose which ones are most important to us based on our own values, etc. A lot of people, including liberals, look at Paul with a more sympathetic eye, so I am probably in the minority on this one.

Cool, thanks.

KarmaxKitty

I'd rather vote for RuPaul.

Well, I'll be... Where the heck can I get one of these? XDDDDD

futiledevices

Marig0ld

Yes, he will end the war against religion. As long as it's HIS religion. Everyone else can just go *kitten* themselves, right? :noway:

I couldn't view this at work but now I'm glad I didn't. I am too angry to expand on this, I think other folks here have summed it up quite nicely.

poisongirl6485

I love how he projects this whole air of "Oh whoa is me, the poor Christian minority who is so oppressed and persecuted."

Sorry, but if your religion makes up something like 80% of the country, YOU ARE NOT OPPRESSED!!!!