Meanwhile, my point about selective, paranoid, conspiratorial, unfair criticism of every other candidate remains, unchallenged.

Yep, par for the course!

You know, if some of you worked just a bit to channel that rabid, existential enthusiasm into remotely even-handed debate, you might change a mind or two. Probably not, buy you might. Alternately, you could just keep screaming.

Are we convinced Ron Paul isn’t winning the nomination yet, by the way? Have we now shifted into “he’ll win as an independent, you can’t stop this movement” mode? And where do your passions go when he’s relegated to the dustbin of history in a few months?

Ron Paul is Pro-Choice. How is that liberty for women?

Um, I hate to say it but you just did what you said you didn’t do. You played the game and you lost.

I think you’ve hit it. We’re not listening to the same things.

You are subjectively invalidating every candidacy but Paul’s on unproven and conspiratorial grounds.

Obama, whose politics I don’t care for at all, purchased a small plot to enlarge his property at above market rate, and then later openly regretted and apologized for doing business at all with Rezko, at least according to the Chicago Sun Times. Oh, and he tried drugs, which apparently invalidates him (and God knows what other percentage of American citizens) from running for President.

Giuliani, according to, uh… you - is a serial philanderer, which invalidates him (and God knows what other percentage of American citizens) from running for President.

Hillary Clinton, whose politics I don’t care for at all, stays with her cheating husband which you have determined with absolute certainty is a cynical political move and decreed from on high that all of this is unethical. Believe me, I’m no Hillary fan, and I don’t think she’d make a good President, but as to why, there are about 800 better reasons than that. Nevertheless, you believe these actions invalidate her (and God knows what other percentage of American citizens) from running for President.

So, let’s cut to the chase and take your intensive, guilty-until-proven-innocent character test and we get to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul created some newsletters that eventually spouted paranoid, nonsensical, racist diatribes and this invalidates… nothing. No, his word that he knew not of the content in these newsletters that went out for years with his name on it - a flimsy excuse that begs further questions even if you believe it - passes your intensive, guilty-until-proven-innocent ethics test.

Talk about cherry picking. You’re right, we’re not listening to the same things. Nor understanding what we hear.

Believe me, it’s much easier if you just duck out now and call me a troll or tell me I’m complicit in the rape of American citizens or something.

If you ever had a way to make money in a certain fashion, wouldnt you want to protect it?

A new dummy is as good as the old dummy. They both won’t understand what is going on.