sigmtnman

Stockholm syndrome comes to mind here.

Take away: Damn, you are old. Seriously though, I can hope.

While I do agree, just being red aint enough. I sure hope Corker does not win the primary.

Yes we do get stuck with what we get stuck with. I'd put off watching this video and finally did. Having watched it now, I'd point out that yes the primaries are over, but the nomination has yet to happen. It appears to me to be the R's who keep trying to drag the supporters of Dr. Paul in to support Romney, as is the case here on TGO. While I understand the R's wanting their guy to win, it will not be the fault of Paul's Supporters if Romney does not. It will be the fault of the R's who wanted Romney. When Rand endorsed Romney he was identified as a turncoat by the Paul supporters so, I don't see his being added as VP having much sway. If Dr. Paul were to endorse Romney, it is my belief that he would not sway too many of his supporters, as he would be identified as a sellout. We supported Paul based on his unwaivering stances throughout his tenure. We may not like all of his policies, but at least we feel we know what he would do based on his history. If we (folks who support Paul) use the previous actions, stances and policies of Romney and Paul, while elected, to determine which candidate to support during the election, most Paul supporters would line up with Johnson, based on his actions, stances and policies which were proven during his time as Governor of NM. You can only ask a man to fall in line then kick him in the nuts so many times before he says no thanks. I'd rather die with my boots on.

I'll up you one. I believe TGO is a bunch of closet Democrats who are happy with the direction and that's why they support Romney. Cause he is a mirror image.

As though the Dems have a corner on that market... http://www.washingto...igger/?page=all

But if you don't vote for him DaddyO, remember it's your fault and not the folks who picked him in the primary because he was the most palatable according to MSM and could pull from the Obamanites.

A government funded scientist is no different than a government funded artist. So, tell me which grant funded electricity? Or radio wave transmission? Oh, that's right they were privately funded. How about the myriad of other inventions that occurred prior to the massive expansion of grants under the New Deal and FDR. When the government steps into the market, it causes issues and drives out private money. It amazes me that the same people who despise the nanny state wanting to hold one hand can't imagine letting go of it with the other.

So you are saying it's because of government grants we don't live in the Stone age, eh? Thankfully yours don't matter much either.

While my comment was intended more as a joke, the government has no business giving grants out. Why the hell should I be taxed to give my money away to other people to do research on something I may not agree with. Just another form of welfare.

So, it was a government funded affair. Your tax $$ hard at work.

It just takes a decent size monkey wrench on the track.

I'd argue that society has caused the extension of childhood into adulthood. Look at David Farragut and other's like him throughout history. Heck there has been talk recently of extending high school. It may seem like a stretch, but it sure does help the unemployment numbers the longer the .gov can keep folks out of the workforce.

Lester, you put it well. I've not always done so, but I do use religion as an acid test, only because the politicians have become so full of crap that at least I won't have to worry about a non believers beliefs being shoved down my throat, which seems to be the trend of late. That does not mean I would blindly support a Christian candidate and quite the opposite is true. Santorum is a good example of a Christian who I could not support because I feel he would push his religious views onto the masses. If I could be 100% positive a politician would not do as 6.8 points out, I could probably vote for a him even if he was not a Christian, but I trust most politicians about as far as I can throw them. Pragmatism get's thrown around way too much and is used incorrectly much of the time in my opinion. Waffling because of mass stupidity or because you want votes is not pragmatic. Lying to accomplish a goal is not pragmatic.

Blaming crime on alcohol and drugs is no different than blaming guns. It places blame on things rather than the person who commits the crime. What we need is more personal responsibility and real accountability.

My understand is that you can PM the seller as a non-benefactor and that the idea of only benefactors being able to reply was to cut down on the negative posts. Eh, yall are quick. I've never understood the PM sent thing anyways.

Yet folks will patronize a place that searches the women's purses. Soon we will have TSA type searches anywhere more than 1 person congregates.

Thanks for keeping me honest regardless of your tenets. I should have just said Christianity. Everyone must pay the rent when it comes due.

Well my apologies if I misunderstood your post directly after mine. I don't hate anyone. But that does not mean I have to agree to everything, everyone or anyone for that matter. I'm not sure how you define Christianity, but the Trinity is a basic tenet. http://www.nytimes.c...stian.html?_r=1

I didn't see this posted. It's a funny take on a sad thing. http://didntbuildthat.com/

Huckabee touched on something there, but I'd also ad that it has a lot to do with the move toward no family values. The federal government is raising the majority of kids these days while both parents work to keep up with the joneses, pay for cable, cell phones for everyone in the family or to just keep food on the table and the lights on in some cases. Why were there so many young children at this event? First of all, it is a very dark movie and second of all, it was midnight. It makes me ponder the lack of family and morals in today's society.

What? The war between the States was portrayed as civil.

You mean the foreign policy where we support the Taliban in the 80s, then have them turn on us? Or the foreign policy where we support Saddam Hussein in the 80s then have him turn on us? Paul believes that if need be, you declare an enemy, declare war, win, then return home. What we do now is nation building and control countries so that multi nats can gain access to sell goods. And don't give me the whole new age nebulous terrorist enemy crap either. If another country came into our country and setup shop, we would terrorize them, or at least true patriots would. My understanding of Johnson's policy is that it is pretty much the same as Paul's. Besides, with trillion dollar deficits from Tarp1 (Bush) and the other bailouts (Obama) we won't have a foreign policy before long.

Actually, it doesn't piss me off. I just feel sorry for the irrational thinking that being sold up the river helps you out somehow.

Yeah and the Repub-bots, their false conservatism and blaming other's for the results of the previous lesser of two evil choices are really pissing me off. You say the same crap the dems said about Bush while he wiped his butt with the Constitution and stood around letting it happen. Wash, rinse and repeat.