How the F*** is this news worthy dude? We are facing some of the most difficult times in this country politically and economically and you talk about China banning porn??? Let me guess your next "news worthy" thread: "Breaking News! Britney Spears caught milking a cat."
lol... noticed that lot of site banned on china... i also read that there are like 200mil internet user there... no wonder why baidu is so famous...
lol, the most difficult, why because your guy isn't winning the republican primary? The US has been through much worse then this and survived and will do so now. Bernanke cut interest rates almost 200 basis points in a matter of months, when those cycle through the system the economy will recover nicely. In 1992 While running for president Ross Perot said that this economic downturn is the worst since the great depression, when in fact at it was the shortest recession in history when everything was said and done. He turned out wrong about our economy and I have a felling so will you.
our economy is great are you kidding? who said anything about a bad economy? psh, screw you guys i'm watching hannity & colmes!
Unfortunately, even Bernanke admits that rate cuts won't do it, and just about everyone agrees with him. You can't cure inflation with inflation indefinitely, and you can't cover up mal-investment with over-investment. Perot was politicking. The difference now is that the economic downturn is coming with massively more debt (much of it foreign no less), government spending that is off the charts, inflation, a credit crisis and the dollar under siege. It's a perfect storm.
Did the "most difficult times" start just after the very important thread you started here about Tom Cruise a couple days ago? You are a hypocrite. And as such, you do such a disservice to Ron Paul and to the positions you claim to support. Your arguments are lame, your tone rude, and your facts often wrong. A real trifecta of ignorance.
The link to Tom Cruise was to establish a connection between sheeple and mind control techniques employed by our government to control sheeple. I see the relevance.
You didn't. GS and Nate are just being the quintessential Ron Paul supporters that they are. Kids will be kids. Some have better home training than others.
You lost me here. You give Ron Paul zero credit, and do him a disservice with your posts. If someone acts counter to Ron Paul, they would be doing them a "service" by the logic of your previous posts. Wouldn't that make the following applicable to you?
I don't give Ron Paul zero credit. I agree with many of his positions. I will try to make it clear for you. When posters like guru, who are proven hypocrites, chime in defending positions or people, he unwittingly hurts them by his association or meritless arguments. That is the disservice. I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding the concept. If you want to call me a hypocrite, fine, but at least back it up with something I said. Are you defending his post where he attacks the thread starter? Did you feel that was appropriate? Do you feel like his thread on Tom Cruise is somehow more worthy that this thread - so much so that his comment is not hypocritical? Don't pussyfoot around, come out and say how you feel.
If you have a problem with my posts or with me than guerilla has nothing to do with it. Why are you trying to guilt him by associating him with me? If I am a hypocrite and whatever else you can throw at me than it is your choice and opinion, leave others out of it. As I have stated before I could be the worst person in the world but just because I support Ron Paul does not discredit him. The crazy gang has nothing on RP so they attack his supporters. Typical.
And your candidate is? I'm interested to know who you support that has opposite positions. Honestly, if you agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, and understand the urgency behind them, you would be a lot less concerned with guru and a lot more concerned about voting in your own best self-interest. Sorry, but for the last year, I have put up with neos constantly railing against supporters of candidates and ideas. Not the idea, the supporters. You know what, I take it back. You're not a hypocrite. You're whatever you want to be, each time you post. And I'm ok with that. Do you feel that the attacks I put up with are justified? Do you feel they are appropriate? And yeah, I liked the Tom Cruise thread. I thought it was much more worthy than many of the "look at the christian priest who sexually assaulted kids" or "look at the crazy muslim who stoned his daughter" threads. You won't find me getting into the religion threads, most of which are less about knowledge and discovery, and more about assaulting someone else's personal belief system. Did that. Still waiting to hear who you support. The primaries are upon us.
I am in California, and our Primary is not for a few weeks yet. I do not actively support any of the candidates. None of them reflect my views enough for me to actively support them in the sense that I urge anyone else to vote for them. I certainly have my opinions and I will end up picking, in the general election, the candidate I feel best represents and has the ability act on those interests I agree with them and care about. Aside from the economy and the Iraq war one of my main concerns is that the next President is likely to appoint two Supreme Court nominees. Huckabee: He is a nice guy. He has no business being President of the US. His religious views being part of his policies is not something I would be comfortable with. I would never vote for him. Rudy Guiliani: I think he is an ego-maniac bully who has demonstrated poor judgment as mayor and a lack of morals. I think his temperament is horribly suited for President. I would never vote for him. Mitt Romney: I think he openly panders for votes, a quality I disdain. His pro/anti abortion issue being a prime example. He has shown an executive skill that would serve a President well. I do not agree with most of his positions and thus, would not vote for him, although I think he has a 50% chance of getting the nomination. John McCain: Of all the Republican Candidates, I respect him the most. I do not agree with many of his positions. I do think he has shown political courage in many of his positions and an ability not to be beholden to the Republican party. While I don't agree with his positions on Iraq, I do think he would protect the country and do right by our armed forces. I think he has a 50% chance of getting the nomination. Ron Paul: I agree with many of his libertarian leanings - end the war on drugs, personal liberty and privacy, the 2nd amendment. I do not agree with his monetary policies or his ideas about foriegn affairs. I think both would be disastrous for the country. John Edwards: I think he is focusing on a certain segment of America with his policies. I think he is a smart man, but I think he is running to be a President for some of the people, and not a President for all of American. I don't like the vibe. Hillary Clinton: She, contrary to my expectations, has performed well in the Senate. I do not support many of her positions, but I think she smart and would do the right things to protect our country militarily. I think her goals are well intentioned and generally good, but I think many of her ideas pander to the left. Barak Obama: I think he and Hilary have the same positions for the most part. I do not feel he has seasoned enough or has the network of national support to succeed as President. I think it is likely he will be President in 2016. I think, depending on who they were facing, I could see myself voting in the General Election for (in alphabetical order): Clinton, McCain, or Obama. I do not think I would vote for any of the others. I have shared my thinking on some of the candidates, but I am not a topic for discussion or a focus of the election, or at least my opinions should not be. I am not here to defend or promote any candidate, if I were I would be willing to defend them. I am here as a constituency of one, I speak only for myself. People may be curious, and that is fine, but usually the thinking of posters is just a distraction from a discussion of the candidates. Here are some of my positions for the curious: Personally, I think abortion is horrific. That said, I do not think the Government has the right or authority to ban it. I do think regulation is legal. I am for the 2nd amendment. I do believe in an individual right to own firearms and hope the supreme court rules that way on the current case. (yes, I know that a pro-choice, pro-2nd Amendment, court is not likely) I am for ending the war on drugs. I am for a strong US military. I think the war in Iraq has been horribly mismanaged and was poorly conceived. That being said, it is naive to say we can just walk out immediately. I agree with America's unequivocal support of Israel. They are a democracy, but more importantly, they are not a threat the to US and I think they are the proverbial canary in a coal mine. I am a fiscal and military conservative and a social liberal. I do not support Bush's policies in any way. I think he has been a disaster of a President. I think he has done great damage to the reputation of my great country. I never supported him and I think he has done many things that are in violation of the laws of this country. I do respect the office of the President. I do support my country. While I do not agree with Bush, much of the Anti-Bush talk here on DP is thinly veiled and is truly anti-American at its core and that is offensive to me. If you have other questions about me, feel free to PM me. I don't think I will be discussing my positions much more as I am not running for anything, nor am I supporting any candidate.