Last week’s poll was a real nailbiter. We had a three way tie, but I think the Ron Paul supporters were stuffing the ballot box. Or maybe they’re the only ones who care enough to vote?
I asked my readers to choose between a bowl of Crispix, a peanut butter banana sandwich, Vienna sausages with crackers, or any single Little Debbie snack cake for their last meal.
Vienna sausage was the big loser, but only by one vote. I guess I’m not too surprised that it was so close. First of all, the voting was completely anonymous, so there was no risk of being singled out as someone who is actually willing to put Vienna sausages in your mouth. Another possible reason that the sausages got any votes at all is based on the same rationale that prompted me to choose the Little Debbies…
This is my last meal! Trans fat and phosphates be damned! I’m going out with a bang!
Don’t get me wrong–I’m a huge fan of both cereal and peanut butter and ______ sandwiches, but for $.35, it’s tough to beat a Fudge Round.
From the Wall Street Journal, Ron Paul’s supporters give some hilarious answers when disclosing their employers.
Paulâ€™s third-quarter financial disclosure report is sprinkled with supporters whose self-descriptions of their occupations are unusual, to say the least. Wade Talkington of Panama City, Fla., who donated $1,000 to Paul, lists his occupation as â€œtax slave to the Federal Govt.â€ Erik Hovden of Olalla, Wash., is the â€œHead slacker in Chgâ€ at Simpson LLC, and housewife Pamela Schuberg of Moorpark, Calif., a $2,300 donor, lists her employer as â€œour children.â€
I really like this. I think I’ll list my employer as “DROP TABLE Employer;” Just to see if the gov’ment code monkeys are on their toes.
Sorry. Nerd joke.
“You don’t dictate, you don’t legislate, virtue.”
“What are we gonna do when government fails in Washington, go to the U.N.?”
Watch the whole thing…
Three things you can count on when being interviewed by O’Reilly
1) If you are against the war, your answers to questions regarding it will be the voice over for video of angry Muslims protesting and/or burning the American flag. They are very aware that their viewership values images over words, and a large portion of it can’t digest both at the same time.
2) You will only get a chance to answer about half the questions he asks. This especially happens when O’Reilly is being pulled into waters that are over his head. “We don’t have time for a history lesson” translates into “If I allow you to answer this way you will make a point that I can’t refute because I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
3) When O’Relly responds to you with, “that may or may not be true”, you can rest assured that you are dead on right.
Here’s the video…
Of the candidates in the debate last night, Ron Paul is the only one who advocates leaving Iraq immediately. Here’s a simple analogy.
If you walk into a nest of hornets, they are bound to attack you. We’ll assume that you didn’t know you were walking into a hornet nest before, although that isn’t necessarily the case here. Even though you are bigger and stronger and have a shotgun, you are going to get stung–repeatedly.
What do you do? I see two options, and they both start with getting the hell away from the hornets. The only decision to be made is whether or not to come back with a can full of gas and completely incinerate them. To stand there in the middle of them and try to shoot them with the shotgun is idiotic. If you do that, you deserve to get stung.
Here’s some video from last night’s debate.
Sean Hannity said he was going to have a battle with Ron Paul after the debate. He’d been better off letting sleeping dogs lie. This mental midget should stick with interrupting nervous callers to his radio show and hanging up on the smart ones. Instead, he spent the majority of Paul’s interview pouting in the corner. When he finally piped up, his buddy Colmes helped him out by arguing with him so that he didn’t get embarrassed too badly by Dr. Paul. That’s my spin anyway.
Oh well. The less I hear Hannity’s voice the better.
Strippers for Ron Paul. Michelle does a great job of explaining why anyone who cares about freedom (not only theirs, but other people’s as well) should have their interest peaked by the Paul campaign.
All seriousness aside, it would have been interesting to hear her opinion on the idea of eliminating the Federal Reserve and changing back to the gold standard. Dolla bill yo!
Sharon Cobb offers some free advice that should be obvious to any thinking person, but obviously isn’t obvious to the GOP.
Y’all have got to get back to being Barry Goldwater Republicans and stay out of personal lives of consenting adults instead of trying to make what consenting adults do a political issue for you. It’s shortsighted.
Yep. You’d better believe that the GOP is missing out on a lot of folks in the late 20s and early 30s who would prefer to have the gov’ment out of our lives. Some are naive enough to opt for the liberal alternative to what is now being called conservative (although I don’t see the difference anymore) and giving up an equally important freedom by letting the gov’ment into their wallets. Big mistake.
Others, like me, are turned off by the whole situation and pushed into supporting third parties that have no chance of winning on principle.
Ron Paul has given me hope that the Republicans can actually turn this thing around and get back to basics. The longer he stays in the race, the more people will hear his message, and the further the Republicans will be pushed towards staying out of people’s lives. At the very least, they could finally have something to actually debate about when they face the Democrats. Hell, I may even finally vote for one.
Thanks to Michael Silence for pointing this one out.
** UPDATE **
A related comment in an unrelated post at TheLibertyPapers
They both believe in big government, they simply piss our money away on different issues. Both groupsâ€™ policies will eventually lead to economic disaster.
Well put by UCrawford
Justin Gardner asks the question:
In a time where we need unity, do you think Paulâ€™s â€œDr. Noâ€ way of politics will actually bring the country together?
There are some great responses to this question, and most actually address the first part–do we need unity necessarily? I think it would be great to have more unity in a love of freedom and a healthy appreciation for our differences.
But I’d settle for abiding by the Constitution and allowing individual states to decide how to deal with issues like health care, education, etc.
I’ve been clicking around Technorati and Digg to see the reaction on the Iowa Straw Poll, and of course there is already talk in the blogosphere about voting machines.
Look. I like Ron Paul. I support Ron Paul. I want his campaign to continue. If you feel the same way, it may be best to stop with the “Diebold-gate” talk.
At worst, you run the risk making the whole movement look like it’s full of 9-11 conspiracy nutjobs.
At best, you make Dr. Paul look like Al Gore.
Neither is very appealing. Nobody likes self hating wackos or crybabies.