nobody's_hero
Member

If anyone wants to delete those silly one-sided poll threads before the election, you might want to do it now. Gonna be pretty embarrassing a month from now if they're hanging around the 1st page. aratus revolution3.0 Going with Other: "Bloodbath for 1000" oh, Daily Double.

There are those of us who vaguely see a bigger picture. Those of us who are reading into Trump too much (taking him too seriously). Those of us who don't agree with him but respect and, well, sort of envy his political savvy. And there are those who get on here and rage because we are not moving towards liberty quite in the same way they had perhaps envisioned in their minds. —Not moving fast enough. —Stumbling along the way. Perhaps we thought 300,000,000+ Americans were gonna all collectively get up to make coffee one morning, slip on a kitchen floor, bump their heads and wake up moments later with a case of amnesia and a profound understanding of liberty. Rather than taking advantage of (real) opportunities where we can get them (meaning, sorry, Rand wasn't gonna be president, at least not this time around), we're just supposed to sit on the living room floor and pout like a kid at Christmas whose parents bought the wrong toy. And if you don't agree with doing that, well, F. U. I personally, am having fun. This is the craziest god-damn presidency we've had in ages. There's nothing this president is doing wrong that we wouldn't have had to fix later if anyone else had won in 2016, given the options. And he is, accidentally, getting some stuff right.

Technically, He's an egotistically-motivated populist president. He's gonna listen to whoever helps him win. If Kanye gets him to change his stance on stop-and-frisk, he'll win hands-down. Frankly, he's an idiot if he doesn't. And, you're right, it wouldn't be a principled and heart-felt change of stance for the sake of liberty. Rand Paul would have to play a hell of a lot more golf with Trump if you're looking for that sort of break-through. EDIT: I actually posted that before I read down to eleganz's reply and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who made the analysis. (Damn you eleganz, you beat me to it :p)

If I knew how to design a website I'd make one called politicallyincorrectbook and the only way you'd be banned is if you're caught trying not to offend anyone. I'd have a filter that finds words and phrases like "Sorry" and "I didn't mean to"

It's also possible this could have dragged on beyond the elections. Anything could have happened if the Dems retake a majority, and likely nothing good. I don't really care if Princess Murkowski gets drummed out of office by angry republicans for dicking around on close votes, but I'd rather the same not happen to Rand. Weren't you stripped of a GOP position for not shaking someone's hand in 2009? How much effectiveness and power did you get from doing that? Not saying you were wrong, but you seem to be holding Rand to an unreasonable standard that you sort of blew yourself when you were in a similar situation.

I don't think I've ever in my life seen a hurricane reach middle Georgia and still not have been downgraded to a tropical storm. I know folks in Florida probably walk their dogs in 75 MPH winds, and would laugh at me saying that. Kinda like how people up north laugh when a snowflake lands on the windshield and we reach for the eject button in our cars. Having said that, I wasn't worried about the hurricane. The tornados they bring with them, I could do without.

As someone who doesn't worship at the altar of consumerism, I think I will survive the tariffs. Obamacare, on the contrary, was essentially unavoidable.

We'd all have to move to California just to have any ounce of say in the federal government. (not that we have much now, but . . ) I think I'll pass on this suggestion.

This is almost good enough to be a CNN poll. Your options are essentially, "democrats don't lose" or "democrats win." Would you like to turn 90 degrees left? Or 270 degrees to the right?

Indeed. Suppose the democrats had managed to drag this out past election day, retaken a majority (I don't think it's likely, but . . ), and put someone in place of Kavanaugh who was 10x worse. And Rand Paul was a deciding vote in a 50/50 split. If only we could do more to support our few liberty candidates in D.C. other than setting up swords for them to fall on.

The real question is: Did he shake the man's hand?

I find myself torn between the implications had Kavanaugh not been confirmed, versus the reality that he has been sworn in. I suppose it doesn't really matter. No amount of the 10 of us b*tching at each other on Ron Paul forums would have had any effect on the outcome.

If only they'd stick.

Well, when you subsidize something, you get more of it. No matter how "feel good" your intentions are, this is the consequence. And with all the government aid programs that California is dumping money into, it's not so surprising that the state has become a "promised land" for homeless people.

November will very much be a referendum to pass judgement on the antics of the Democratic party. If the election goes the way I predict, we will see mental instability in degrees that the author of the quoted article cannot even begin to fathom. But it won't come from Kavanaugh.

It's plausible. Frankly I think they got a terrible actor for their money.

They've got their work cut out for them. they could spend a few lifetimes trying to chip away at Trump's ego and not even scratch the surface.

If it had been an A-10 Warthog the earth would have moved out of the way.

I recall a rather fishy election where a republican in SW Georgia was on the verge of ousting the long-serving Democrat Sanford Bishop and miraculously after the absentee ballots (which were not proportional to the regular ballot results as you might expect them to be) were cast, the final count flipped to support the incumbent. I don't trust absentee ballots worth a damn, but I understand some folks (like the military) can't just come home and vote in-person. If anything we should be trying to find ways to make voting harder. I say that jokingly.

It's interesting that they have it scheduled. Apparently you can wear whatever you want before 8 PM and on most days of the week. It must be an area prone to gang activity. It's racist if you don't like gangs.

Is that a question posed out of legitimate curiosity or do I sense some sarcasm there? Because honestly if you are still in doubt, you haven't been paying much attention.

Lifting sanctions would have to be our next move. There aren't a lot of "bargaining chips" left. 1) Stop war games 2) Lift sanctions 3) Remove US troops from South Korea 4) Formal peace treaty? (this one would be essentially symbolic because it doesn't mean much if the other stuff remains) The sanctions don't work anyway. Kim himself doesn't look like he's starving.

If you were attacked would you: A) Immediately call the police B) Wait until one day your attacker runs for a political office and then say "oh by the way, this guy attacked me." That's why I will NEVER believe any of these stories that follow this pattern. It doesn't seem rational to me that someone would just sit on a case like this until it becomes politically convenient to do something about it.

I've seen lefties get upset about tax cuts before but, let me ask you a question: If taxes weren't cut, maybe, even increased, do you honestly think the government would: A) Make a conscious and determined effort to pay off the debt or B) Say, "Oh man look at all the tax revenue! let's spend it on stupid sh*t."

He's here for 6 more years at most. What's your long term plan other than helping democrats get more people over the border?

That makes no sense. Because they're angry at people who 'really love liberty' they're voting democrat? Just WTF is the angle? What's that supposed to accomplish? Folks who "really love liberty" maybe comprise 0.5% of the voting population but if we apparently have the power to drive a whole race of people to vote a certain way, how the hell did we lose the 2008 election? LOL. I'll try to smile more, but if we have to give away free sh*t to compete for votes, these folks can go to hell.

Another 'we're losing votes to the left because we're not smiling enough' thread.

That was quite an ambush interview. Don't get me wrong the lawyer is a prick, but the quality was lacking. I'm saying that as someone who thinks Tucker is probably the best host on Fox right now.