If there is anything that I have learned about the Internet is that internet users do not reflect the general population and its mindset.

CSB:

Popular wrestling forum in 2006 pushed for a boycott for one night of Monday Night Raw. They pushed for it months in advanced. Now, this is a popular forum, mind you. The ratings for that raw actually dropped -- from 4.11 to 4.10

hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

So would you like some kind of, I don't know, let's call it a Fairness Doctrine, that would force the media to allow equal time?

GAT_00: So would you like some kind of, I don't know, let's call it a Fairness Doctrine, that would force the media to allow equal time?

I think a better law would be making it a federal crime for littering

If you get your news and political opinions from network television, you are too stupid and naive to vote.

what_now: If you get your news and political opinions from network television, you are too stupid and naive to vote.

In other news, the voting population has now shrunk to about 5 million people.

Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Weaver95: the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Huntsman?

abb3w: Weaver95: the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Huntsman?

I don't think the GOP considers Huntsman to be a candidate at all. Nobody wants to listen to the guy. which kind of makes me think he's even more reasonable than Ron Paul.

As an aside, I hit up freeperville last night to see what they thought of the debate. apparently, they hate Rommeny (they consider him a RINO) but figure they're gonna have to hold their noses and vote for him against Obama. they'd much prefer Santorum but don't believe he'll carry the moderate vote.

Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Are you sure about that? I mean, Ron Paul should probably be in a straitjacket 99% of the time.

Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Roemer > Huntsman > RON PAUL

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Are you sure about that? I mean, Ron Paul should probably be in a straitjacket 99% of the time.

would you rather have Perry and/or Santorum running the show? Plus RP biatch slapped Gingrich rather effectively last night. the guy might have the occasional weird idea but he's far more mainstream than the rest of that pack.

Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Well, on some of the issues.

Aarontology: Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Well, on some of the issues.

Considering who Ron Paul has to share the stage with, the man is practically a paragon of virtue.

Sorry, Paul. The free market has spoken.

Weaver95: Considering who Ron Paul has to share the stage with, the man is practically a paragon of virtue.

I still think I'd prefer Huntsman, who had a pretty good smackdown on Romney last night, at least if the translation from Chinese I read is correct.

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Are you sure about that? I mean, Ron Paul should probably be in a straitjacket 99% of the time.

would you rather have Perry and/or Santorum running the show? Plus RP biatch slapped Gingrich rather effectively last night. the guy might have the occasional weird idea but he's far more mainstream than the rest of that pack.

1) Doesn't support CRA
2) Wants the gold standard or 50 competing currencies
3) Wants to eliminate the Fed, plus most other government agencies

No, no I don't think he's more mainstream at all. Most of his ideas are insane, it's the sanity that is "occasional"

SilentStrider: Weaver95: Considering who Ron Paul has to share the stage with, the man is practically a paragon of virtue.

I still think I'd prefer Huntsman, who had a pretty good smackdown on Romney last night, at least if the translation from Chinese I read is correct.

yeah, but Huntsman will NEVER get the nomination. the freepers can barely stomach Romney. Huntsman and Ron Paul are considered apostate traitors to the cause.

Weaver95: hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

Because there's a LOT of pants wetting people on both sides who fear his ideas. He sure smacked Newt last night, hard.

Weaver95: yeah, but Huntsman will NEVER get the nomination.

i know, but he's the only one, at least to me, of the republicans running who's even remotely palatable. Romney's a used car salesman, Perry's an idiot, and Paul, while he's right on some things, is too far wrong on others for me to feel good about voting for him.

Not that I could anyway, but you get the idea.

GaryPDX: Weaver95: hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

Because there's a LOT of pants wetting people on both sides who fear his ideas. He sure smacked Newt last night, hard.

Of course we fear his ideas. His ideas are batsh*t insane.

cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Weaver95: hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

Because there's a LOT of pants wetting people on both sides who fear his ideas. He sure smacked Newt last night, hard.

Of course we fear his ideas. His ideas are batsh*t insane.

Santorum and Perry are worse tho. I *really* don't want Santorum ever put in charge of anything more important than say...the office supply cabinent at a large corporate law firm.

cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: Weaver95: Aarontology: Maybe it's just that CBS knows that the GOP will never, under any circumstances, allow RON PAUL!! to be their nominee.

the scary part is that Ron Paul is the sanest and most reasonable of the GOP candidates.

Are you sure about that? I mean, Ron Paul should probably be in a straitjacket 99% of the time.

would you rather have Perry and/or Santorum running the show? Plus RP biatch slapped Gingrich rather effectively last night. the guy might have the occasional weird idea but he's far more mainstream than the rest of that pack.

1) Doesn't support CRA
2) Wants the gold standard or 50 competing currencies
3) Wants to eliminate the Fed, plus most other government agencies

No, no I don't think he's more mainstream at all. Most of his ideas are insane, it's the sanity that is "occasional"

If Paul is nominated you only have one choice in this election: GW Bush. You can either A) have Bushes view on civil rights (Obama) or have his view on the economy (Paul)

Dusk-You-n-Me: Sorry, Paul. The free market has spoken.

Is it November 7th already? My how time flies.

GaryPDX: Weaver95: hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

Because there's a LOT of pants wetting people on both sides who fear his ideas. He sure smacked Newt last night, hard.

yup. if nothing else, imma sit back and enjoy that for at least two more days.

GaryPDX: Is it November 7th already? My how time flies.

ok

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Weaver95: hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

Because there's a LOT of pants wetting people on both sides who fear his ideas. He sure smacked Newt last night, hard.

Of course we fear his ideas. His ideas are batsh*t insane.

Santorum and Perry are worse tho. I *really* don't want Santorum ever put in charge of anything more important than say...the office supply cabinent at a large corporate law firm.

Well, yeah, but I don't want Paul in charge of anything, at all, ever. Either he's a racist or he's really bad at managing things that have his name on them.

cman: If Paul is nominated you only have one choice in this election: GW Bush. You can either A) have Bushes view on civil rights (Obama) or have his view on the economy (Paul

George Bush was for DADT. Obama repealed it. George Bush "didn't care" about Osama bin Laden. Obama killed him. George Bush didn't deport illegal immigrants. Obama does.

Obama is NOT George Bush.

Weaver95: GaryPDX: Weaver95: hmm. wonder why CBS decided to hate on Ron Paul?

Because there's a LOT of pants wetting people on both sides who fear his ideas. He sure smacked Newt last night, hard.

yup. if nothing else, imma sit back and enjoy that for at least two more days.

What's interesting is www.bluerepublican.org. Young college kids across the land, who voted for Obama, are registering republican for a year to vote up Paul in the State primaries. My two college age sons turned me on to them.

Paul is gaining traction quite nicely. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Individual Liberty and Freedom. He sure wouldn't have signed the NDAA, that's for sure. And do we really need 900 bases in 140 countries? I don't think so.

cameroncrazy1984: Obama is NOT George Bush.

Aside from signing the Patriot Act, the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy, warrantless wiretapping and tellecomm immunity, expanding the power of the executive, expanding the war on drugs, and all the other security state nonsense.

There's a lot of overlap between the two in some rather significant policies.

cameroncrazy1984: Well, yeah, but I don't want Paul in charge of anything, at all, ever. Either he's a racist or he's really bad at managing things that have his name on them.

I don't think ANY of the GOP potentials have a shot at beating Obama. so as far as the Presidental election goes, who gets the Republican nod is largely irrelevant. That said, this primary race is an important indicator of trends within the GOP. Ron Paul doing well would tell me that the evangelicals are losing their death grip on the Republican party. Even if you hate Ron Paul's ideas on how to run the government, you have to agree that seeing the evangelicals weakened to the point where they couldn't shut down a Ron Paul nomination would be a good thing for the rest of us.

Aarontology: cameroncrazy1984: Obama is NOT George Bush.

Aside from signing the Patriot Act, the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy, warrantless wiretapping and tellecomm immunity, expanding the power of the executive, expanding the war on drugs, and all the other security state nonsense.

I'm not happy with Obama right now but a lot of it was his not reversing what Bush did. And Obama didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan. If fact he even ended one of them

Aarontology: cameroncrazy1984: Obama is NOT George Bush.

Aside from signing the Patriot Act, the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy, warrantless wiretapping and tellecomm immunity, expanding the power of the executive, expanding the war on drugs, and all the other security state nonsense.

There's a lot of overlap between the two in some rather significant policies.

all that tells me is that the President is powerless to shut down the secret police who've started to take over the machinery of government.

Mugato: I'm not happy with Obama right now but a lot of it was his not reversing what Bush did. And Obama didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan. If fact he even ended one of them

Every single one of those examples exists as legislation with Obama's signature on it.

He isn't the complete retard W was, but in some ways he isn't any better.

Weaver95: all that tells me is that the President is powerless to shut down the secret police who've started to take over the machinery of government.

Maybe. I Just think when it comes to governmental power in regards to the war on terror and the security state, Obama is all for expansion. I mena, the folks running for GOP would go along too, except for Paul who thinks it should be done at the state level.

Aarontology: Mugato: I'm not happy with Obama right now but a lot of it was his not reversing what Bush did. And Obama didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan. If fact he even ended one of them

Every single one of those examples exists as legislation with Obama's signature on it.

He isn't the complete retard W was, but in some ways he isn't any better.

do you REALLY think that either party is going to just give up the power they've grabbed from us and the states...?

Weaver95: do you REALLY think that either party is going to just give up the power they've grabbed from us and the states...?

Weaver95: Aarontology: Mugato: I'm not happy with Obama right now but a lot of it was his not reversing what Bush did. And Obama didn't invade Iraq and Afghanistan. If fact he even ended one of them

Every single one of those examples exists as legislation with Obama's signature on it.

He isn't the complete retard W was, but in some ways he isn't any better.

do you REALLY think that either party is going to just give up the power they've grabbed from us and the states...?

Nope, not at all.

Weaver95: do you REALLY think that either party is going to just give up the power they've grabbed from us and the states...?

If Paul is elected, they won't have any choice.

Man, if only Ron Paul had strapped a dog to the top of the car, for "emotion-free crisis management."

GaryPDX: Weaver95: do you REALLY think that either party is going to just give up the power they've grabbed from us and the states...?

If Paul is elected, they won't have any choice.

I think that we're beyond the point of no return. short of massive civil unrest, we're stuck with creeping authortiarian government agencies and less freedom. the worst part? it's all more or less flying on autopilot now. people will just 'follow orders' and not think too much about the consequences.

Weaver95: do you REALLY think that either party is going to just give up the power they've grabbed from us and the states...?

Historically, no. But despite the right wing talking points, most people didn't vote for Obama because of race or because he's a "messiah". Most people who voted for him did so because the alternative would have been a lot worse. And that's how democracy usually goes.

Weaver95: people will just 'follow orders' and not think too much about the consequences.

This was a video in the late 1990's.

Society has shifted so far that the context or humor in this scene is just inconceivable now.

Weaver95: I think that we're beyond the point of no return. short of massive civil unrest, we're stuck with creeping authortiarian government agencies and less freedom.

Which is never going to happen. Never. You say "never say never"? I'm saying never. I don't care what the gun nuts and Tea Party "We came unarmed THIS TIME" have to say. No one is going to do shiat.

Mugato: Weaver95: I think that we're beyond the point of no return. short of massive civil unrest, we're stuck with creeping authortiarian government agencies and less freedom.

Which is never going to happen. Never. You say "never say never"? I'm saying never. I don't care what the gun nuts and Tea Party "We came unarmed THIS TIME" have to say. No one is going to do shiat.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing. Don't underestimate people who have tasted freedom and liberty. They won't give it up easily.

here's an example - almost everyone agrees that we've lost the war on drugs. by any standard you'd care to use, our attempts to stop the flood of illegal narcotics into this country. law enforcement officers admit we've failed. drug addicts admit we've failed. teachers, kids, priests, even local and state politicans all admit that our current anti-drug policies are abject failures.

...but we don't change our drug policies. in fact, anyone who stands up and says 'we need to discuss this issue' is slammed for being 'weak on crime' and either laughed at or hunted down and their career destroyed. why? lots of little reasons...but a big one is that our culture can't admit defeat and it's killing us. we'd rather thousands of people a day keep getting hooked on drugs than stop the madness and rethink our entire strategy.

And its the same thing with the war on terror or our budget crisis. we can't admit that we've got a problem and that how we're doing things might be wrong. it's more important for 'our team' (whichever team it is you happen to root for come election season) to win.

that's why I think we're going to become more authoritarian. not because 'Obama isn't stopping it'. Obama *can't* stop it. Ron Paul can't stop it either. nobody can, there's just too much inertia behind the push to become authoritarian dickholes. we're heading towards a very large cliff and the best any of us can do is to hopefully get the hell away from the rest of the herd before they plunge off into the abyss and take us with 'em.

GaryPDX: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing. Don't underestimate people who have tasted freedom and liberty. They won't give it up easily.

You can spout off all the platitudes you want and I understand your idealism but I just don't see it happening.

Mugato: GaryPDX: The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing. Don't underestimate people who have tasted freedom and liberty. They won't give it up easily.

You can spout off all the platitudes you want and I understand your idealism but I just don't see it happening.

by themselves, no. people just don't wake up one day and all say 'gee, lets change the world for the better'. That said...you make people cold and hungry and they'll get upset. then punch them in the face and tell them to STFU and you'll see the start of civil unrest. smash them down without recourse to the law and you'll tear the country apart in no time flat.

we're not cold and hungry yet tho. if the GOP gets their way, then it'll be the beginning of the end.