Bob Barr Announces for President

Originally Posted by Toxick

I don't want common sense. I want someone to tell me what I want to hear! I want someone who's going to promise me all kinds of goodies. I want someone who will make me feel good about myself, without making me actually do something.

That's what I want in a leader, and dammit - I deserve it!




Pshhh... common sense.

That's the spirit!

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Don't forget that he only had the most favorable candidate status from the media because of his stands against the war.

WTF?

Originally Posted by Toxick

WTF?

Why are you confused?

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Why are you confused?

Ron Paul had most favorable candidate status from the media?


I'm confused as to which flavor of LSD you must have been taking.

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Winning 70% of a small population that is 98% white is worse than winning 40% of a huge diverse population if you're hanging your hat on vote count totals. She'll probably win by 30-40 points in WVA, but she'll be winning very little.

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

Why are you confused?

Why are you confused about who the Dems will nominate in Aug.?
They want the WHITE HOUSE and the odds of getting it with a radical black socialist that hates America is slim. Much better chance with the carpetbagger who's goal is personal prosperity and glory.

The deal for the SDs was done last year, Hillary's in

Originally Posted by Toxick

Ron Paul had most favorable candidate status from the media?


I'm confused as to which flavor of LSD you must have been taking.

My "most favorable candidate" status was a play on the our most favorable nation trading status, which overlooks a lot of a countries flaws in order to do business with them. That was the deal the MSM had with Paul. Nobody looked "under the rug" at all the racist and loopy comments the guy had made in his little newsletters, and no one challenged him on his stands on the issues. They just sent jets and limos to pick him up and ferry him to The Daily Show, The Today Show, and any other Lib media outlet he could make the time for. They would let him make his anti-war anti-Bush rants for as long as he wanted, and never ask him about his worrisome rantings.

Other candidates for much more coverage, but it was much more balanced. Paul always got the kid-glove treatment from everyone but FNC.

Originally Posted by aps45819

Why are you confused about who the Dems will nominate in Aug.?
They want the WHITE HOUSE and the odds of getting it with a radical black socialist that hates America is slim. Much better chance with the carpetbagger who's goal is personal prosperity and glory.

The deal for the SDs was done last year, Hillary's in

Who says I am confused? I've been certain Obama was going to get the nomination since Iowa!

As for your "radical black socialist that hates America" assessment, you might want to remember that most Democrats agree that being a radical black socialist that hates America is a good thing, and they are the folks voting in the Dem primaries... not you or I.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

If the money rolls in enough to make him a viable candidate, this could get interesting. It makes me wonder though, as Perot looked like a decent third party candidate, and then look what happened. Eight years of a President who only got a plurality of the popular vote. UGH

I hope this candidacy can get traction. I admire the guy and hope he's got the money and folks on the ground to make it happen. He's far better than the other candidates from which to choose.

Hate to see Oslama get elected because some of the votes for McCain went to Barr.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

As for your "radical black socialist that hates America" assessment, you might want to remember that most Democrats agree that being a radical black socialist that hates America is a good thing, and they are the folks voting in the Dem primaries... not you or I.

I think that's what people forget - WHO will actually be voting in the primaries. But Hillary's a nutjob, too, and she has the political machine behind her. So who knows.

One thing I would be willing to lay money on is Howard Dean getting ousted the second the general election results are in, regardless of who wins. Of course, I was stunned when they made him chairman in the first place, so what do I know.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

My "most favorable candidate" status was a play on the our most favorable nation trading status, which overlooks a lot of a countries flaws in order to do business with them. That was the deal the MSM had with Paul. Nobody looked "under the rug" at all the racist and loopy comments the guy had made in his little newsletters, and no one challenged him on his stands on the issues. They just sent jets and limos to pick him up and ferry him to The Daily Show, The Today Show, and any other Lib media outlet he could make the time for. They would let him make his anti-war anti-Bush rants for as long as he wanted, and never ask him about his worrisome rantings.

Other candidates for much more coverage, but it was much more balanced. Paul always got the kid-glove treatment from everyone but FNC.

...a well established pattern of talking to people in these forums as though they were someone else. You focus comments and replies as though we said something the media said or something a talking head said and then you project those thoughts and comments on us. I've seen you do it far too many times to be just an occasional, random disjointed reply.

There was a veritable war in here over Paul a long time ago when his campaign just got started over those very issues you cite.

Guess you missed that month of class?