I guess the lesson is that you better not run for president if you don’t want people digging into your business and exposing you as a dirtbag. I took CabinGirl and Finny to the Philly Zoo today, and then to see the light show at Macy’s.
It was a nice outing. Finny roared at the tigers, baa’ed at the sheep, and bawk-bawked at the chickens. And we didn’t think about the maniacs running for the Republican nomination once.
48 Comments
Perhaps you should have been a little less “casual” w/your observation, Booman. Like…actually reading the Dondero piece.
He starts out by saying
“…twisted and used for an agenda from both sides…” A perfect description of your “dirtbag” characterization.
Among many other things, this is what Mr. Dondero thinks of Ron Paul’s basic character:
“Dirtbag,” eh?
Apparently not. In fact, he is anything but a “dirtbag” as far as this man believes. A creature of his culture and times? Yes, as are we all, but he has quite obviously attempted to transcend that upbringing and to a large degree he has succeeded in doing so.
Disagree w/him? Sure. That’s what Ron Paul is fighting to establish, a country where freedom of belief is paramount. However, what you have done here is the real “dirtbag” stuff. It is typical of the tactics of the mainstream media that you spend so much time devouring, and you are simply aping that mainstream media on your own level. You have decided what your message is going to be and you turn any and all information into a soundbite-sized idea…a wordbite, in the case of this “dirtbag” thing…whether the real thrust of the information supports it or not.
Shame on you. You used to be better than that.
AG
STFU, Arthur.
I read the piece and I didn’t sugar coat it or editorialize it. I wanted my readers to go read it for themselves.
Why? To listen to a dirtbag try to defend a dirtbag.
It’s kind of hilarious. He’s not homophobic but he won’t shake a gay man’s hand or use his toilet. He’s not racist, those newsletters are not the big issue. He doesn’t dislike Jews, I’m a quarter Jewish and I worked for him. Of course, he hates Israelis and he doesn’t think we ought to have interfered in the Holocaust.
What a defense!!
I’m a little puzzled by the Holocaust point he (and you) make. The Holocaust as such wasn’t even close to a major reason for the U.S. entering WW2, nor did we interfere with it in any meaningful way.
If anything, some very draconian immigration policies that prevented Jews from fleeing to the US from Europe likely exacerbated the Holocaust.
I wasn’t going to go there, but I think that’s true too.
Don’t think too hard about it. Ron Paul is nuts.
It’s not history. It’s Mr. Stormfront fronting for a bunch of asshole Nazi wannabes. A nicer, more polite David Duke. Of course we didn’t go to war with Germany over their Jewish policies. The fuckers were going to exterminate us, too, when they got around to it. But that’s not how these folks see it. They think we didn’t let them finish the job.
That’s why you can’t cherry-pick the stuff you like from Ron Paul.
Give it up.
You automatically kneejerk into mainstream DemRat mode when dealing with both Ron Paul and those who have split with him but once were close to him? So you are quoting people who you consider dirtbags against other people that you consider dirtbags?
C’mon.
Give yourself a break.
Like I said…you used to be better than this.
A career defending liars on the level of Barack Obama is not an honorable choice. Wake the fuck up.
AG
I said he’s a dirtbag. His former staffer is a dirtbag, too. You don’t have to believe his staffer. You can believe he’s damning with faint praise if you want. Perhaps he his. It hardly matters. Look at what he’s defending him against.
Joseph Welch said it.
I repeat it.
You write:
Prove it!!!
You cannot.
You just call names, like a little kid in a sandbox.
Some sad shit, Booman.
Groucho Marx said it:
I miss you, Booman.
What happened?
AG
In fairness, on the homophobic charge the guy did say “Yes and No” and I think that’s on point. Anyone who disagrees with giving homosexuality protected class status is castigated as being homophobic, even though there’s no fear – rational or irrational – involved. Anyone who disagrees with legalizing gay marriage is castigated as being homophobic. Anyone who in any way varies from current orthodoxy on the matter is denigrated as being homophobic, to the point that even Andrew Sullivan on occasion has been called homophobic. On those points Ron Paul does not qualify as homophobic – he opposes none of that from what I understand. He is, however, afraid of homosexuals in his personal space. He is the rare one people for whom the term “homophobic” should actually apply (if we ignore the fact that it logically means an irrational fear of sameness, much like we ignore the fact that Arabs are Semites and therefore logically can’t be anti-Semitic).
Does everyone who believes that the state of Israel should not exist necessarily hate Jews? If they believe that the financial and political capital that America has spent in support of Israel has not been worth it does that then mean that they hate Jews and support the Holocaust? Generally, when those who support Israel (particularly the Likud vision of Greater Israel) make such claims they get jumped nine ways to Sunday – is that now a valid assertion?
Correct, Oscar. In both cases, Ron Paul is worse than the initial charge, if his former friend can be believed.
This is not editorializing? Not sugarcoating? I guess we need a new description, then.
How about “editorial gerrymandering?” Yeah, that about covers it. Moving the borders around so that if people don’t look too closely they won’t know what has really happened.
You wrote:
You linked the word “dirtbag”…and thus the concept “exposing [someone] as a dirtbag (Ron Paul in this instance) to a website where Eric Dondero went out of his way numerous times to state that his ex-boss is anything but a racist, anti-semitic and functionally anti-homosexual dirtbag. You didn’t say anything at all about how you were quoting one dirtbag’s approval to show that the person being approved is himself a dirtbag until I called you on it. Then you backpedaled like a motherfucker. This is Fox News-level journalism, Booman, and it sucks.
Sorry, but there it is.
Fox News…the Left Wing version.
Nice.
I thought that only happened over at the little orange place…you know, where Little Big Man runs the show?
But here?
I’m shocked.
I really am.
Gonna invite some of the Daily Kos enforcers over here next? Meteor Blades and the gang?
Nice, Booman.
Very nice.
AG
I get it, Booman really, really doesn’t like Ron Paul. I’m not fond of the guy, either, but I’m not sure the “dirtbag” label is necessary.
I’m not fully informed on Paul’s position on Israel, but if it’s partly about the large amount of financial “aid” we automatically give Israel year after year, with little to no debate or even a vote in Congress– there are plenty of people who agree with Paul, including in Israel itself.
Regarding the Holocaust, as another poster pointed out, it didn’t figure in all that much regarding our entry into WWII. If you read the recent biography on FDR Traitor to His Class, you’ll learn Churchill was more or less begging for FDR’s help, and not getting his committment.
Keep in mind WWII followed WWI- a brutal war which turned more than a few Americans into isolationists. Just as Churchill and other European leaders were pressuring FDR to enter the war, numerous members of congress were pressuring him to not do so.
One wonders what would have happened had Pearl Harbor not occurred.
OH yes!!!
Precisely.
Ron Paul does not support the AIPAC goal of buttressing Israel’s military presence to he point that it can essentially single-handedly keep the Middle East in a state of barely suppressed war, so he’s an anti-semite.
He doesn’t believe that people of color actually need the help of a welfare nanny state to get their shit together and that in fact a state of that sort is a drawback on every level imaginable both to the people that it is supposed to help and to the people who are taxed to finance that non-helping “help,” so he is a racist as well.
And the dance goes on and on and on and on.
Until…one way or another…it ends. Either the chickens come home to roost, shitting all over the dance floor or we start a new dance to a better band.
Hmmm…
I know which side I’m on.
Bet on it.
AG
Yep, political science 101 proven right again. Most people don’t like every party’s policy stances. They’re attracted by one or two policies, and then they eventually adopt the remainder of policies, convincing themselves they’re correct.
AG, waging war against the welfare state in favor of feudalism, based on an initial support for someone against the MIC. Well done. As if we support the welfare state just for minorities…jesus christ that was a racist as fuck statement.
Madame draws disability, and for several years my wages were low enough that we were hovering around the poverty level. Without WIC, or the free school lunches, and so forth, we would have been even worse off. I was thankful those services were there. What “welfare state” we do have saved our butts. At the moment, my wages are enough to make us part of what we call the middle class. Would have never made it here with out a little help back then and I am more than happy to pay for that “welfare state” that our country’s far right (including Ron Paul) so readily denigrates.
I’d find an excuse to not use the toilet at Ron Paul’s house.
Yep, Paleoconservative/Constitutionalist a la Pat Buchanan down to the core, sprinkled with a little less authoritarianism.
I have no idea why libertarians do not embrace Gary Johnson and tell Paul to go to hell.
I wish progressives would come out and give us the real reasons they hate Ron Paul. I suggest it is because you know full well that on the most important issues, foreign wars, civil liberties, the drug war, Ron Paul is right and our constitutional scholar president is wrong. And should they ever be in a match-up, you will see a lot of the true leftists in the Democratic party abandon Obama for Paul in droves. They will not care that Paul didn’t hake hands with a gay guy 25 years ago (assuming the story is even true)
Were Gary Johnson ever to reach national prominence, the establishment would do whatever they could to destroy him to.
I hate Ron Paul more for his supporters than anything else — his dismissal of inequality and currying favor of Austrian quackery in grinding deflation from dissolving central banks comes in at a close second.
For people who think the government is the problem, I have never seen so much support for one individual barring Obama-cultists (although they’d be good sparring partners over who’s the least infallible). Maybe bring some Chomskeyites into the mix.
If you’re an anti-war activist and you want to fight for Ron Paul based on those grounds, then please, be my guest. I personally see climate change as the most important pressing issue, and voting for someone who not only advocates stopping the enforcement of legislation that the EPA is enacting which will cripple coal plants in America by 2014, but advocates for its dismantlement, is downright cruel and immoral. Climate change is going to kill more people than any fucking war. But nonetheless, if you insist on voting on anti-war grounds, be fucking upfront about it, and stop rationalizing his other bullshit. That’s the problem I have.
Digby worded it this way:
And put another way, you will not find me rationalizing Obama’s bullshit wars, his nonsense on national security, his throwing women under the bus, or any other nonsense. I will call his ass out. But you won’t find that in many voters for Ron Paul. AG is a prime example. He started off with an anti-MIC crush, and it’s devolved into a cultlike fetish of epic proportions with rationalizations of Paul being a fucking prophet. It’s annoying as hell.
This is true. I read that post by Digby and couldn’t agree more. Paul has nothing for people concerned about inequality and his economic policies would make it even worse.
Glad you’re ready to call out Obama for his support of the National Defense act. For his escalation in Afghanistan, for his drone wars, for nearly starting a conflict with Pakistan and for escalating the crisis with Iran. Did I miss anything? Oh, yes. His claiming the right to have anyone executed on his order. Speaking of racism, do you think if Anwar al Awlaki were a white guy, Obama would have ordered his execution?
I wont even get into his relationship with the big banks because that describes every president we’ve had for decades.
In short, Obama is a killer. Ron Paul isn’t perfect. Comb through his life and you will find something wrong. But, assuming the worst about the news letters, the Dondero guy and whatever, Ron Paul is STILL light years ahead of Obama as an ethical and decent human being.
Regarding you’re quote from Digby, I have no problem admitting I’m for Paul because of civil liberties, opposition to war, opposition to the Fed. Especially I’m for him because he stuck with those positions even when they were unpopular, when they seemed likely to cost him an election.
The last point especially bears repeating as you don’t find many (any?) politicians who do that.
I didn’t bring up racism. Depends. Would this white person be in Yemen? If so, yes.
I’d say every president other than perhaps Jefferson or Jackson, both of whom had more of a personal vindictive crusade than any moral play towards the common man. I’d also say that Hamilton’s vision for banking was better than Jefferson’s, as Canada’s system is modeled after it.
Yeah, like every president of an imperialist power and/or nation-state. It comes in the job description. Might as well include that in the “description of every president we’ve had for decades.” Except just take out the decades with a more apt, “every president we’ve ever had.”
Well, human beings by and large are not “ethical” or “decent,” especially ones who are ambitious enough to make a run to be the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s largest and most powerful superpower; they’re most certainly not “rational actors” like in the beloved free for all of the free market (distinct from capitalism, which could not exist without the state). And in that respect, assuming you accept the premises of the social contract (many people do not, and they don’t vote by sheer principle), I’m not looking for someone who is. States and their executives are amoral actors looking out for the national interest of its players; the same as corporations, and some might say fascism won…though I’d say we’ve further drifted away from it giving people more power and freedom as time has gone on. Balancing the freedom to say what I want, write what I want, walk wherever the fuck I want; and the freedom from worry over shelter, food, medical care.
Regarding Paul’s consistency, I see no value in consistency. Well, it depends on your definition. I have changed my mind on a number of issues since 2007 — usually more leftist, but in others more libertarian. Does this make me inconsistent? Someone who’s as old as Paul and hasn’t moved in the slightest on any issue isn’t something to marvel at. How can you have the same views on everything as our culture evolves? Ideological rigidity isn’t something I look for in a leader, especially with new information. He’s a rigid ideologue.
If I were to endorse a GOP nominee, it would be Gary Johnson. I’ll probably be voting for Paul in the Republican primary, though.
“I’ll probably be voting for Paul in the Republican primary, though.”
Thanks for that. It’s all I wanted to hear. Your reasons for doing so are entirely your own business.
Good Luck
Basically, what really annoys me about Ron Paul supporters is their thinking that all we have to do is get Ron Paul into office, and then there will be happiness and sprinkles again. It’s the same thing that annoyed me with Obama-cultists, and it actually led me to withdraw my support from Obama in March of 2008. Oh, I still voted and organized for him, but until March I thought of actually voting “for” him rather than “against” Republicans. That honeymoon didn’t last long (his speech on MLK-day to sometime in March).
Nothing in this country has changed for the better without people on the ground demanding it, and you would think the people who support Ron Paul — who always have a “I’m above you and this entire process because I don’t support either party” — would understand that. But they don’t. They think they just need to elect him, and then watch the magic happen. It doesn’t work like that. You know why civil liberties are going away? Because a majority of Americans do not care enough to get out in the streets over it, and a good deal of them would actively give them up for protection against “those” people. I’m not talking simple protests, either. I’m talking “Occupy” the politicians’ lives and making it miserable.
Course, a lot of people simply aren’t hurting badly enough for this to happen; I’m guilty, too.
amen
Seems we’re on somewhat similar wavelengths. I was just saying something about Paul’s rather cult-like supporters on another thread – I see them as doing him far more harm than good.
His economic policies remind me a good deal of a former Congressman from Orange County California, Bill Dannemeyer, who was considered a joke by folks outside of his Congressional district (which at the time was so red that the GOP could have run Francis the Talking Mule as their candidate and won). The dude was a big fan of ditching the Fed and going back to the Gold Standard, from what I can conjure up from memory, much along the lines of what Paul seems to want to do currently. I don’t think Paul would have anything to offer someone like me, who is very concerned with income inequality (in addition to climate change, and so on).
Now, what I find amusing is how people say that there wouldn’t be as much inequality under Paul, and that we’d all be richer. This doesn’t make sense in and of itself, given that they want us to return to the gold standard which would pulverize growth because there simply isn’t enough people for the amount of gold that we have (well, there is…it’d just result in more pulverizing boom/busts than we currently experience). But let’s assume it’s true…we’ll all be richer. Then on the other hand, Paul sycophants like Peter Schiff run to Bloomberg to tell all about the virtues of the wealthy, parasite class, and how inequality and rich people are good things:
Bankers Join Billionaires to Debunk `Imbecile’ Attack on Top 1%
Make up your damn minds.
Erm, not enough gold for the amount of people we have*
You want some real reasons? How about these?
He’s for “right to work” which would destroy the working class and unions in the country
He’s anti-choice so he’s for big government getting involved in the medical choices of women.
He would let the government default and destroy the economy in the process.
He would eliminate all income, capital gains, and estate taxes – giving the wealthy in this country and unprecedented windfall
He would repeal the Affordable Care Act, there by reversing a progressive goal that has taken us 100+ years to achieve
I could keep going, but I think you get the point. I got this information off of his site.
You may have gotten some of “this information off of his site,” but certainly not the conclusions that you so ignorantly draw from that so-called “information.”
Prove that this would be the result.
You cannot.
Bullshit. He simply wants those “choices” to be made on a more local level.
Once again…prove that this would “destroy the economy.” Is the economy not damned near destroyed already?
It’s “an” unprecedented windfall, you illiterate SOB. And please…prove that this would also not give the middle class an equally unprecedented windfall, thereby actually saving the country from bankruptcy.
It took 100+ years for us to “achieve” a technologically enforced surveillance state, the nasty role of policeman for the world and a hypnomedia that has literally enslaved the minds of most American citizens. Just because something took a century to happen doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a good thing.
Duh.
Yeah.
I get the point.
You’re a total blockhead is the point.
Go away.
Y’bother me.
AG
I bother you because you’re a moron.
You need proof of “right to work” being a disaster, just look at the right to work states.
You need proof that the repeal of those taxes wouldn’t greatly benefit the wealthy, ask a CPA who pays the most in income, estate, and capital gains.
stop drinking the Paul koolaid and get your head out of your ass
What we are doing now is not working. Every other candidate for preznit is to some degree or another speaking about preserving the status quo…Obama included. In fact, Obama is the status quo. Ron Paul wants to change the whole game. There is no way to know if the totality of what he is suggesting would “work,” just as there is no way to know how many of his policies would actually be instituted should he win the election. There would be massive Permanent Government resistance, particularly in Congress. Nevertheless, simply winding down our state of permanent war would have economic ramifications that are almost totally unpredictable.
When you get to a point where:
1-Whatever you are doing is simply not working
and
2-There is really no way to predict how various changes might affect the situation
…then the best set of choices that you can make are those that are based on a certain kind of morality. “Morality” is really nothing more than the tactical survival recommendations of the wisest among us that have been distilled through the centuries.
“Thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal” are suggestions regarding how best to survive in the world. Killing and stealing are the way that this empire survives. It is what we do on a daily basis, worldwide. Short term, they work great. Steal stuff from others at the point of a gun and live high on the hog. Long term…and this is where we have arrived today…they don’t work so well. Those from whom you have been stealing come back and one way or another kick your ass. Malcolm X pinned it when he said “Eventually the chickens always come home to roost.” Ron Paul wants to stop the institutionalized theft and murder of the American Empire. He wants to do it internationally and he wants to do it domestically as well. Bring home the troops and put our own house in order. The specifics? This tax and that bank? The details will work themselves out once truly moral actions are taken.
I really believe this, IL JimP. So does Ron Paul. Will he win? I doubt it. I do not care, one way or another. I will no longer support compromise on this level. Why? Because on all available evidence it simply doesn’t work.
Another great distillation of the wisdom of ages is the I Ching.
Here is what it has to say about “evil.”
This is not empty religious or political rhetoric; it is simply a very good picture of how things really work. How they work long term.
“…a compromise with evil is not possible; evil must under all circumstances be openly discredited.”
Sounds like Ron Paul’s whole career, to me. Has he made mistakes? Yup. He is only human, as are we all. Has he learned from them? Looks like it to me.
He is trying to do “the right thing.” I support him in that effort, win, lose or draw. You don’t? Great. That’s what makes horseraces.
AG
I don’t care about his past mistakes, is he probably a racist and homophobe? I would say yes, but there is little current proof of it.
I’m more concerned about his policy positions which would do irreparable harm to working class people. In that regard, he’s just as bad as any of the others in the GOP clown car.
And you repeat:
Translation:
He’s “probably a racist and homophobe,” eh? Despite his many eloquently stated statements to the contrary and despite what his personal aide of 11 years says? Someone who is not by any means a Ron Paul apologist but instead currently opposes him on positional grounds. (See my Mon Dec 26th, 2011 at 07:15:24 PM EST comment above on this thread.) Great. And why do you think this? Because “there is little current proof of it.?” There is little current proof of the idea that I am not a sex addict of some kind although I did have a number of…dalliances years ago before I realized how empty that whole scene is. Am I then “probably” guilty today? Get real.
You are “more concerned about his policy positions which would do irreparable harm to working class people?”
Prove this, goddamnit. “Irreparable harm to working class people” has already occurred under the current system. Prove it, don’t just dribble the latest anti-Ron Paul talking points all over my computer screen.
There is one amazing thing that Ron Paul has done already, you know. He has now united the Democrats and Republicans into one truly bipartisan group, The Anti-Ron Paul party. No partisan bickering here, bet on it. It’s now a 24/7 “Anybody but Ron Paul” message from people who have damaged this country on every level imaginable over the past 50 years or so. That alone is sufficient sign that he has something important to say. Wake the fuck up.
AG
He doesn’t really have anything important to say. You act like he’s George Carlin or something.
This is probably why you can support Hillary Clinton in one campaign and then Ron Paul in the next: you don’t look at the Gang you are electing, but only the candidate. And you only look at the part of the candidate you like or don’t like, leaving the rest aside.
Ron Paul’s Gang has been around for forty years. We all know who they are. It’s no secret.
In the past ten years, he’s gained a younger constituency that is less concerned about the white race than about the drug war or U.S. imperialism. These are mostly youth voters and disaffected progressives. But they have little to do with Paulism.
If you knew that Obama used the Daschle/Gephardt machine to wrest power from the Clintons, then you knew he would show fealty to that group. That’s actually what you were voting for, whether you wanted it or not.
Same with Paul. WTFU.
The number of Americans who disagree with this statement is rising at an exponential rate, and most astoundingly that number is growing despite (or perhaps because of) the almost completely united mass media system that has been pushing against Ron Paul…first by ignoring him and now by attacking him as a racist…for almost a year.
Watch, Booman. He’s got the mojo now. Not Obama and most certainly not any of the other so-called Republicans. The Democratic Party has painted itself into a one-percenter corner right next to the one that has been occupied by the Republicans since the Reagan years, and the 99% is pissed-off!!! Pissed off about Congress, pissed off about the permanent war system and really pissed off about our economic situation. Fewer and fewer people give a shit about party names and party positions while more and more people are ready to vote for whomever offers them a reasonably cogent way to get out of the mess in which we now find ourselves. Easily 90% of Ron Paul’s platform sounds “cogent” to me and I am going with it.
Regarding my support for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the primaries 4 years ago…I wrote today that “I will no longer support compromise” on a moral level for the sake of political expediency. I was compromising on that level when I supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because there were no morally acceptable national politicians in any sort of position where they could possibly win the presidency at that time and I figured that if we were going to be forced to have a son-of-a-bitch for president, Hillary Clinton would be a better, more effective son-of-a-bitch than would Barack Obama. The results of Obama’s term of office bear my position out as far as I am concerned. Hillary Clinton already had the lay of the land. She knew wehere the bodies were buried…hell, she buried some of them herself…and she had serious personal animus towards the Neo-Con/Intelligence establishment that knifed her husband in the back with that Lewinsky honeytrap sting thing. Simply put, I believe that she would have been a much more effective president than Obama. I further believe that the large segments of the PermaGov agreed with me and thus threw its support towards Obama because it did not want a truly effective president.
Things are different today. The country is four years poorer, four years less free, four more years into a nasty surveillance state and thus four years wiser. Thus the surge towards the only politician who offers any kind of substantive change whatsoever. I do not have to go against my own moral beliefs…anti-war, anti-economic imperialist theft…because there is a viable candidate out there who agrees with me. This is a first in American politics since the Eugene McCarthy/RFK (to some degree)/George McGovern days. I had hopes for Howard Dean but he got taken off at the knees by the media and never recovered. Now Ron Paul is running, and he is winning. Maybe evolution is not through with America yet.
We shall see.
Soon enough.
Bet on it.
AG
P.S. You also write:
Y’know what? I’ll betcha that George Carlin would be pro-Paul. Carlin just talked sense. So does Ron Paul. Bet on that as well. George Carlin was the Harry Truman of comedy.
Harry Truman:
George Carlin:
Like dat.
Watch.
Ron Paul:
Watch.
Ron Paul is about to knock off a number of “little man on a wedding cake” types.
The biggest little man on a wedding cake at present?
Yup.
Watch.
Could happen.
Odds that Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination? Down to less than 3 to 1 against at present. Make it 5 to 2. If he wins Iowa, places strong in New Hampshire and say takes Virginia in a virtual head-to-head with the essential little-man-on-an-artificially-colored-and-flavored-cake, Mitt Romney? Man, he’s got it.
Watch.
Odds that he could beat Obama in a national election?
Dead even. Too close to call.
Watch.
This is the second time you have made a personal attack against me in this thread, it’s pretty childish. Now I know why pretty much everyone here ignores you, and all your PermaGov nonsense.
I haven’t been here very long and commented even less; but now that I know your inability to articulate your opinions without personal attacks and your embarrassing disconnect from reality basically makes you irrelevant, along with all the other Paul minions, you can safely be ignored by me as well.
Good luck, and I hope you come to your senses soon.
Yeah. I’m “ignored,” alright.
So was Ron Paul until recently.
Keep on ignoring what I am saying. (As if you had any choice in the matter.)
To quote the prophet Bob Dylan…”Something is happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones.”
Yup.
You pinned it.
Thank you.
S.
I’ll give you one reason why I dislike Ron Paul. He was the only member of Congress to vote against awarding Rosa Parks a gold medal for her contributions to the nation. That was in 1999.
I’m sure he can come up with some reason why that doesn’t involve objecting to Rosa Parks’ contributions to the nation. Perhaps he thought it was a misuse of gold.
But the truth is that he is a figurehead for white nationalists and neo-confederates. He casts those kinds of votes and says he objects to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they rally around him.
You are now living in Never-Never Land, Booman.
Quite amazing, actually.
The landing is going to be quite hard, brother.
Brace yourself.
AG
Witness his phony act: link
But they are not “coming out,” Lysander. Half of them are so deep in the political closet that they don’t even really know why they hate Paul so much and the other half have too much to lose to risk telling the truth. That’s what a lifetime of tapdancing around the facts of the matter does to people. It’s sad to see, actually. As this fight…this kind of fighting that Booman is doing, turning things that people have said on their head to support his own preconceived positions…as this kind of thing becomes more and more publicized by the media, more and more people are going to begin to be able to smell the rot. On both (
supposed) sides, DemRats and RatPubs both. And when that happens, it will be the end of both lying, hustling parties. A better outcome I cannot imagine, actually. Maybe it will even collapse the media structure that sustains the dumbshow.What if they ran the news and no one tuned in?
Let us pray.
AG
Good for you. You’ve been thinking and writing about Republicans too much in the last quarter.
Some things to watch: the protest of the Russian Duma election and the move by the Sadrists to dissolve the Iraqi parliament and call for new elections.
I want to go to the Macy’s light show; guess I’ll have to wait for next year
Merci me — cool it.
BooMan – Thanks for the link to the Wanamaker site. I’ve just spent some peaceful minutes listing to that great organ being played with such joy.