Dude, I am a fly pimp. There is no way I'm a 'nerd'
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Dude, I am a fly pimp. There is no way I'm a 'nerd'
I'm DjLoTi =) Liveontheisland =) I live on an island =) It's my island =)
I can't figure out why Darwinism is the ultimate evil when applied to racial politics or economics but not when it's used to deconstruct Christianity (of course, I'm an advocate of the former but not the latter).
Ron Paul IS a nerd. What do you think-that all doctors are really Dr. McDreamy on Grey's Anatomy? Please.
I mean come on-no matter how right he is-you have to admit that we look really nerdy when we scream at the top of our lungs when he talks about the gold standard. I mean screaming at the top of one's lungs is usually reserved for the Sex Pistols, Tom Cruise, etc., lowbrow pop culture, not highbrow important ideas.
Embrace the nerdiness people! I would hazard a guess that nerds are more likely to vote than the average person anyway.
We will win this...
It's a disgusting article attacking the movement. Just more smear tactics from the controlled and biased main stream media.
Self-identified nerds love Ron Paul:
If you don't accept those stats as truth then all you non-nerds have to admit you are spammers.
We will win this...
"...It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere..." -- Voltaire
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." ~~ D. James
Ron Paul! I BELIEVE!!
There is a subset of Paul supporters who believe 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government. And there are anarchists as well: they've picked Nov. 5, Guy Fawkes Day, for a fund-raising drive.
It just completely angers and frustrates me that people take this kind of thing with a grain of salt. The media is controlled by the wrong people, but people here just won't admit it
They say we are all unstable nerds. It pisses me off. If they can't say nothin bad about him they bash the supporters
Stop disparaging nerds. Probably 1/3 or more of the posters on this forum consider nerdliness as part of their identity. Ron Paul is the #1 candidate for true nerds.
I am a very stable nerd.They say we are all unstable nerd
Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
Ron Paul 2004
Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
It's all about Freedom
Fu*k Frank Frank Luntz.
Well this nerd is laughing that Joel Stein didn't remove himself from google phonebook.
[Admin note- don't post personal contact info]
Everything you need to know about communitarianism here:
Last edited by mconder; 11-01-2007 at 08:51 AM.
The one posted today by Joel Stein? Typical. What other way was he gonna go? We're talking about a guy who appears on "We Are The 70s" on VH1 who writes for TIME. And btw...who is he calling a nerd? Has he looked in the mirror lately?
Guess he's trying to overcome the shame of his own innate nerdiness by casting aspersions on others and being a quasi-celebrity. And he's not even that good of a writer.
On January 24, 2006, the Los Angeles Times published a column by Stein under the headline "Warriors and Wusses" in which he wrote that it is a cop-out to oppose a war and yet claim to support the soldiers fighting it. "I don’t support our troops....When you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you’re not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you’re willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism..." He prefaced his argument by stating that he does not support the troops in Iraq, in keeping with his views on the war. There was an immediate response—notably, Stein was the same day invited on The Hugh Hewitt Show, a conservative talk radio program that broadcasts from Los Angeles. Hewitt asked Stein questions about the breadth of his relationships and experiences with people in the military, his views on recent deployments, and how he acknowledges those on active duty—and also one who died on active duty.
Stein conceded a lack of personal relationships or interactions with military servicemen and women. Concerning Afghanistan, Stein indicated mixed feelings towards sending troops there and expressed doubt that invading the country had made Americans safer. As for other troop deployments, Stein acknowledged recent humanitarian interventions as being generally agreeable but expressed disapproval towards actions he felt station troops as a "police force." Stein stated that he honors the service of those who defend his country, but reiterated his view that he does not support troops in a military action he does not believe in, indicating that consenting to their involvement might only prolong their stay. He expressed sympathy for a U.S. Marine, cited by Hewitt, who died in Fallujah in 2004 and admiration for his bravery, but held that he felt there no purpose for his death. Concluding the talk, Hewitt asked if he would do it "over again," that is, write the column, and Stein said he would. Stein's Times column and subsequent chat with Hewitt were discussed nationally on talk radio and blogs.
I'm a geek (somewhat).
And I'm definately unstable.
But I'm a motivated MotherF'er too, and I don't take criticism well either, so guys like Joel outta be wise about what they say.
since we can post personal info, can I post the fact that joel stein didnt opt out of the google phonebook listing?
I didn't think the article was as bad as some people apparently think. I was the guy at the Ames rally wearing the three-corner hat and ringing the bell that he used as his primo example of a "weird Ron Paul follower" and even I'm not offended (indeed, I imagine I now join a fairly small group of people who have been explicitly called "weirdos" by Time magazine). Surely any publicity is good publicity at this point.
Personally I think that's a rather poorly written article (it seems like the writer came to it with the intention of painting Paul as a boring, one-issue politician, whose supporters are nerds), but the more name recognition the better.
I also find the Luntz quote an incredibly stupid addition, not only because it's offensive to us supporters (again, the accusation that we're idiots who don't know what Paul really stands for, and he flat out says that no one should care about what we think), but because of the conflict of interest. If I was writing a story on Clinton's support, would I care what an old Obama employee and colleague has to say and classify it was an unbiased, "expert" opinion?
And yeah, when has Paul ever said he doesn't plan to win the Presidency?
Oh well, shake it off. They'll be declaring Paul Man of the Year in 2008. Though if they have any sense, or if NH holds their primary in December, Paul should be one of the 100 influential people for this year.
I have the magazine version. It's very similar. The caption underneath the title says: "Voters throng to hear longshot G.O.P. preach about Austrian Economics and the Gold Standard. Seriously."
And the end does say the LIE about Ron not expecting to win the nomination. He said on the Tonight Show that "there's a risk I could win," and that was about two weeks ago. A week after that his campaign got a $4.3 million boost, so I think he feels that risk increased.
They should've included the supposed "interview" they did with him. And why do they only have a small picture of him in the lower-right hand corner? The article before his is about Mitt Romney, and they have one whole side of a page for his face.
"TIME - in partnership with CNN." I guess Wolf Blitzer thinks we're nerds, too.