It is not an issue (for me at least) of which politician a person supports in uniform, it is that a service member supports someone while in uniform. It's unprofessional, legal ramifications aside. It's pandering. I'm in no way shape or form blaming Paul for this, and he does get crapped on by the media.

 

You have no arguments from me on this.

What I fail to understand is why McCain got a pass on this, but Paul didn't.

Even the Army says Cpl. Thorten was not on active duty. Even if Cpl. Thorten is the scummiest bastard that ever lived, if he was not on active duty, what is the problem? Why is this such a big deal when Paul gets it, but not when McCain gets it? Why is the Army trying to find something to punish Thorten with, but ignored Spears?

 

In this post I'm endorsing Tommy Hilfiger, Banana Republic, Gap, and Hush Puppies.


That is all.

 

Ron paul IS Tebow.

 

Oh, and I'm wearing J. Crew underwear.

 

@

 

every day they just start taking paul more and more seriously

 

and this is interesting
http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/...-mitt-drop-out
apparently RP's campaign is calling for all candidates other that mitt to drop out

idk what to think of that

 

The more media attention Paul gets, the better he will do. We've already seen this in Iowa->New Hampshire. Paul's real problem is the media refusing to report on him at all.

 

Honestly I haven't met anyone lately who is for anyone other than Ron Paul. I think the more people hear about him the more he is supported. And I think now that he was second in NH, the word is really getting out.

 

I think RON PAUL 2012 about that.

 

This.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. The "power brokers" in the GOP party hate Ron Paul. The Koch brothers, as an example, have made it pretty clear they'll do just about anything to ensure Paul doesn't get the nomination. Go check out the ---- their PACs and other thinly-guised fronts did to Paul in 2007/2008 even. From what I've gathered, a surprising amount would prefer Obama be re-elected over Paul being elected.

 

That is the only thing I'm a bit worried about. I want more than anything for Obamarama to not get reelected.

 

I'd prefer Obama over Romney, that's for sure.

Romney's already made his state a mini-Obama heaven while double-talking to try to make it sound like something else, and can't even make a moral stand. Gingrich got kicked out by his own party. Santorum got ran out of politics.

I mean, every problem I've seen people articulate here that they have with Obama you see two or threefold with Romney/Santorum/Gingrich. I know that at least 2 of the posters that go off on their rhetoric about Obama only do it because of the D and not an R next to their name, but FFS. Just because they have an R next to their name doesn't make them better or worse than someone with a D next to their name, you need to look at their stances on positions and their records.

----, Obamacare was a Republican plan. How much rhetoric do you hear about Obamacare being Republican in nature? As soon as Obama took up Obamacare, even the author of the bill suddenly denounced his brainchild as an example of what I'm talking about there. Romney denounces Obamcare, and yet at the same time created it in his state, with numerous glowing reasons for having it. The dude can't even remain honest within his own legislation.

Sources: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-of-obamacare/
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/v...ourceID=004182

 

(Sent from phone via capitalism)

Krugman. Nuff said. Your sources suck.

 

So, one source that references a neutral archive on legislation and where said archive is a primary source is automatically null?

That's awfully lulzy, Brainy. The legislation says what it says. Krugman cannot magically make what legislation Republicans created in the past change.

Frankly, I dislike linking Krugman as much as I dislike linking Heritage or Gallup (All ridiculously biased), but the only "bias" in this one is the bias in the legislation Republicans wrote.

(Edit) Cheap shot! It's like Romney crying about bias when people "attack" him with things he's said in the past.

 

I don't think I ever saw a response from you the last time I asked for an example of this.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._with_it_.html

Background.

Google a bit if you want. The Kochs hate Austrian Economics. My google-fu sucks and I can't seem to find much due to being super-tired, but it looks like I'll be getting zero sleep tonight, gfg. (https://www.miataturbo.net/engine-performance-56/full-retard-ed-engine-62763/ as to why, )

 

I spend my days reading about how full-on retard Krugman is...


plus your two sources dont prove a damn thing to support your claim, you are suggesting the author of the 1989 Hertiage bill is the same as the current...

The second link also notes that zero republicans voted for the current bill that passed, it also quotes Obama and gave me a good laugh--which is sort of on point:

There one huge difference with "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" right there: If you don't like what your insurer is doing in Massachusetts, you can get a new one.

 

I'd also like to post this video:




But please keep in mind: “In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false.”

So, by the words of Krugman, please ignore the video you just watched.