Who will be the Republican Nominee for President (post Cain)

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe grabon meant it was inconsistent. 

[garbon]

And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning.  "Repugnant"?  Come on.

I think it's pretty repugnant and I think Michelle comes across very well.

Yeah, I clicked on the link thinking that it was going to be something where she looked bad but she actually seemed pretty decent.

[Eddie Teach]

Oh, well, let's trade places then, since Britain is sooooo boring.

Too cold and wet.

[Razgovory]

"Is likeable" and "would make a good president" are, as we learned with GWB, not of necessity correlated.

And how.  I think Andrew Sullivan said his favourite thing about Ron Paul is his walk and I think I'm the same.  If you ever watch one of the debates its always great because all of the other candidates have big-swinging-dick-Alpha-male walks - it's all very 1950s - and then you get Ron Paul who just has this diffident shuffle onto the stage.  It's wonderful and in many ways I always think it a more assured and confident statement than the rest.

But I can barely stand anyone I actually agree with.  I almost always find conservatives more likeable - in the US at least, over here there's noone with enough personality to like.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

[fhdz]

Familiarity breeds contempt.

What is "Languish", Alex?

[Razgovory]

I like Ron Paul

I liked him too, until he turned from being a protest candidate to being a candidate taken seriously, and a candidate whose ideas zombify countless youths.  Then he and his cult started really, really scaring me, mainly due to their limitless ability to completely ignore the reality.

I think when you dig deeper on Pauls stuff it gets really scary.  Conspiracy theory nonsense and Militia bullshit. His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds.  He later denied writing them.  He's an excellent example of how Conservatives have used "libertarianism" and "smaller government" to court the racist vote in the south.  That doesn't come up so much anymore, but it good to remember where a movement has been and what it's roots are.

Fortunately, Paul comes across as simply a kooky old man.  Which is what he is.  His son has some charisma and might be able to get much larger following.

[Razgovory]

Familiarity breeds contempt.

What is "Languish", Alex?

Enough with the Jeopardy stuff today.

[fhdz]

Familiarity breeds contempt.

What is "Languish", Alex?

Enough with the Jeopardy stuff today.

Poor baby

[Habbaku]

His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds.  He later denied writing them.

Probably because he didn't write them.  Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?

[fhdz]

His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds.  He later denied writing them.

Probably because he didn't write them.  Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?

Did Lyndon LaRouche ever write for his own newsletter?

[Habbaku]

I don't know, did he deny writing for it?

[Ideologue]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/michele-bachmann-vs-8-old-192125455.html

Kinda repugnant that the mother clearly forced the boy to do that.

And the words of the English language finally lost all meaning.  "Repugnant"?  Come on.

Definition of REPUGNANT
1
: incompatible, inconsistent
2
archaic : hostile
3
: exciting distaste or aversion <repugnant language> <a morally repugnant practice>

Teaching your children a proper moral code is no more repugnant than teaching them to count.

I mean, I guess it's kind of overbearing to make your kid do that in public, but no more so than the various flavors of overbearing that I doubt you would find particularly repugnant.

[fhdz]

I don't know, did he deny writing for it?

I don't think so. I was just curious.

[Habbaku]

I don't know, did he deny writing for it?

I don't think so. I was just curious.

I was just making a crack.  I have no idea if LaRouche wrote for his own rag.

[Razgovory]

His "Ron Paul Report" from the 1990's full of bizarre racist screeds.  He later denied writing them.

Probably because he didn't write them.  Or are you of the school that says if someone denies something, they must have done it?

Why would you have it in your news letter in the first place?  Did he bother to read his own newsletter?  It's not like it only happened once and then he apologized.  It would be really fucking strange if a Congressmen published a newsletter that promoted views he disagreed with out saying who wrote them.  In fact, most of them contain no bylines (though some are in the first person so they were either written by Paul or someone wanted to give that impression.  It would seem rather difficult to distance yourself from a newsletter that you publish that has your name on it.