diverborg

If I can't look at a dollar bill and see "In God We Trust" on it, then I don't know what to believe anymore. I'll probably end up turning atheist without this daily reminder.

I don't know your circumstances, but judging from your posts, I would sincerely recommend you relocate and find a different job. It might take some time and its a short term PITA to say the least, but life really isn't that bad out there in the rest of the country. I make what you make in a podunk town in south Mississippi where you can buy a recent 2000 sq ft home for 150,000. If you're as educated as you claim, you should be able to find a job anywhere in this country making what you make. I have plenty to pay the bills every month, have fun, donate to charity, and enough left over to invest in retirement of that income. I'm not super wealthy, but I still have money to invest and I want that money to grow and I don't want to pay anymore on taxes on it than I have to. You can be in those same shoes. Seriously though, finding people qualified to do white collar work and upper end blue collar work around here is tough, and if you're a hard worker and qualified, the sky's the limit my friend. My wife has only a 2 yr degree and within two weeks of hiring on as a sales manager at a retail store, they offered her the general manager position over 20 people that have been working there way before she ever moved to town. Consider it. If you hate your job and circumstances it will completely destroy the way you view the world. Time to change.

I just finished my taxes. My federal tax rate after all my deductions was 11%. I'm just your regular middle class fellow. I know some rich folks that pay A LOT more than that.

Gary Johnson would've been a good candidate IMO, but he got drowned out pretty quickly. He didn't have the grassroots following that Paul has to stay in the race at this point. I'm not a Ron Paul die-hard, but I think by far he's the best candidate for the job at this point. I really don't see any likeable traits in anybody else in the race. His foreign policy views are extreme, but he's not going to be a dictator and will only have 4-8 years in office to try and curb some of our military spending. I don't see any other candidate even touching the idea of miltary cuts and that's beyond ignorance at this point. If they seriously think they can balance the budget without a drastic decrease in our military, then they're not competent enough to hold office and make any improvements on our current budget crisis.

I'm not sure my local wal-mart ever quit selling them. At least not as long as I've been shopping there. ??? Why did this make the news?

I can't really disagree with anything you said. I was not fully aware of all the crimes committed and the motives behind them, but a mother and child killer should never be set free under any circumstance. I don't like it any more than you do. I was mainly speaking for the majority of the pardons. What were the prison officials thinking allowing a guy like this to serve at the mansion knowing full well he'd get a pardon? Somebody has some connections somewhere. Mississippi politics as usual. I've only lived here for 4.5 years and I've never seen as much political corruption at all levels of govt as I have in this state.

Don't want to take HB's side because I could start a whole other thread on what I don't like about the guy. If he didn't go through the proper legal procedures then screw him. But... this isn't the criminals gone wild scenario people think its going to be. I read somewhere that 187 of the 200 inmates had already served their full sentence. The pardons were given as a means of retoring some of their rights they otherwise wouldn't have like gun ownership, etc. The other thing like was stated above these are inmates that served at the governors mansion chosen by prison officials. Usually those no longer deemed a threat to society or have had good behavior and eligible for parole anyway. I really think this is more an example of media gone wild. However, he didn't follow the rules of the pardons as far as the 30 day waiting/review period, so he's wrong no matter which way you slice it.

This is fantastic news

My mom's in the same boat. She started having a bunch of problems when she started menopause, ended up with who knows how many different prescriptions from different specialists. She went cuckoo for a couple years till she finally realized she needed help and quit the meds altogether. She is slowly progressing and is almost back to her old self.

No worries.

I think you misinterpreted my post. There was no PA intended. I meant to add liar to the list of things Ron Paul was guilty of. ie negligent, racist, or liar. I had made the post that either he was negligent or racist. You mentioned that you were only pointing that he should've known about the letters, hence I added liar to that list instead of just negligent or racist.

Rebutting the paulist meme that he didn't know what was being published under his banner. I guess I should've added liar to the options as well. There's no doubt Paul is trying to do some damage control at this point, and some inconsistencies have arisen, whether intentional or unintentional. I just feel they are very petty, and of all the mistakes we've made that we could have dug up on us over 20+ years in the spotlight, this is nothing. Unless one really feels they can conclude that he's racist based on this stuff. Which if he really was racist I think we'd be seeing some different policies he'd be touting.

What part of "he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95" did you miss? He certainly had enough time to write his own parts of the newsletters, but not enough to scan over what other people had written? Really? Just say it then... He's a goddamn racist nazi asshole. The last refuge of someone losing the argument.... Godwin's law. Can you clarify then what point you are trying to make exactly? Because I can't really come to any other conclusion why someone would think this is an issue. I've taken my stance it hasn't changed. I'm not going to debate over some giant timeline dating back 20 years everything he's said to find some ridiculous inconsistency to hang the guy on. Can you remember everything you've posted on here in the just the last month, and if you've ever contradicted yourself. I know I can't, let alone the last 20 years. In fact I found one of my own inconsistencies in the past week. Our memories are only so good. So either you're trying to make the point he's negligent (which he already admitted), or that he's actually a racist. Which are you getting at?

Deleted this post because I feel I did a very poor job of paraphrasing GeorgiaDon's post.

What part of "he was certainly able to converse about the content in '95" did you miss? He certainly had enough time to write his own parts of the newsletters, but not enough to scan over what other people had written? Really? Just say it then... He's a goddamn racist nazi asshole.

For the record, I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic like some. I don't think he's the perfect president. I think he screwed the pooch with his comments on Manning. If anything costs him the election that will be it, IMO. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he's the best guy for the job for the conditions we are facing. You've got the same propaganda that led us to an unfounded, and incomprehensibly costly war in Iraq, now being touted for Iran. Will it take another 4,000 dead soldiers and $4 trillion and finding no nukes in Iran for Americans to realize maybe this isn't "worth it". The fact is most of Ron Paul's claims regarding 9/11 and other attacks regarding blowback and such have came directly from the CIA reports. He's not pulling this crap out of his ass. But the time we were actually attacked on 9/11 he backed military action in Afghanistan. So to sum it up, he's the only candidate that gives a shit about the constitution and personal liberties. Without cherry picking the rules to suit his personal opinions and the opinions of his voters. And he's the only guy that's suggesting we don't start another war we cannot afford. All foreign policy issues aside, we aren't going to even scrape the surface of this budget crisis without scaling back our military intervention let alone start another war. How any of these candidates will actually do in office is a complete crapshoot. Ron Paul, IMO is a worthy experiment at this time, because he's the only one suggesting we actually change things. Newt and Romney will be 4 years of the same crap. Maybe not as bad as Obama, but they certainly haven't said anything that alludes to them fixing the mess they'll be handed. Plus I think of all the candidates he has the best shot at beating Obama.

He admitted he was negligent. So what? He had ob practice at the time and his full attention wasn't dedicated to reading the literally thousands of pages of editorials that were written. You really think those mistakes hold any relevancy to how he'll be as a president? If you don't like the guy, you don't like the guy. I'm cool with that. I understand his foreign policy views drive people crazy. But these latest accusations are pretty silly. They're no secret. This came up last election, everybody knows about his stance on this, yet rather than debate him on the issues, everyone grabbing at straws on this one. I think folks are starting to feel threatened by him and the fact there is a very large portion of GOP voters that don't have a problem with his foreign policy views. You're never going to find a political candidate out there that doesn't have some baggage. His is pretty minor in comparison, in my opinion.

Surely you realize how ridiculous this is. So 22 years ago someone else wrote some articles that RP says he didn't write and disavows. Move on. But, when debating him on the issues fails, its time to result to character attacks and this is the best they can come up with? I wouldn't necessarily call that "storming out" either, like every headline read. He answered her same question the same way about 5 times and decided that was enough, and ended the interview and even said thank you at the end. For all we know he had other things to do. Smear tactics at their best right here. Who cares though, this pales in comparison to the baggage and inconsistencies that Newt and Romney are carrying around, yet this is the one topping the headlines everywhere. "RP storms out of interview over questions about racist articles". Please. If anybody isn't going to vote for RP based on this, they weren't going to vote for him anyway. I also love how they try to spin it like hes lying because he said he never read these specific articles back then, and in another sentence said he reads some of the publishings. So reading some of the publishings equates to reading the specific racial articles? Then the quotes that they're hanging over his head that he didn't deny writing. Have you seen the full context of those articles? Showing that little snippet is about as dirty and slanderous as it can get. He was criticizing the justice system for ratios of prisoners and said based on their ratios that would lead us to conclude that 90-95% of black people are criminals (which obviously isn't the case). Gupta needs to be called out on that BS. If Ron Paul was such a dangerous racist he wouldn't suggest pardoning all prisoners that are only in prison because of non-violent drug crimes.

I go back and forth from Omaha, NE to Laurel, MS a couple times a year and its usually 16 hours with fuel stops only. Done it several times through, but bad weather one trip made it closer to 19 hrs. Thats the most I've done and its really not that bad until about the last 4 hours, then I about go crazy, and almost start seeing things. The last few times I've done it though I do it in two days because I bring the wife and dog. If its just me, I go straight through with the help of one well timed 5 hr energy. More than one of those is dangerous.

While I understand the fears. I have a slightly different interpretation of his foreign policy than you do. Not that its going to change your opinion of him, but you do realize that he voted in favor of going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I don't see him as a pushover, I just see him as one who wants to avoid a rerun of the Iraq war, which IMO is eerily similar to the Iran situation. I guess I just disagree with your conclusions. I don't see avoiding meddling in other country's affairs as risking anybody's lives. When retaliation or defense is on the line, I haven't come to the conclusion that RP would hesitate to take action based on anything he's said so far.

Personally I would be more than willing to pay this extra amount in taxes, IF, It were coupled with big enough spending cuts to actually come close to balancing the budget. However, if we aren't going to actually be realistic about our budget woes, then I most certainly don't want to pump one more penny than I have to into a system where it will get swallowed up and not even noticed.

Just out of curiousity... I'd like to know from the servicemen and women on here. Is it just Ron Paul's foreign policy that you dislike mostly about him, or are there other issues? Are there other reasons you don't want him in office that are being disguised by merely as his foreign policy qualifications. Assuming its just foreign policy since that's mainly the discussion on here from you. What is it most you dislike about his foreign policy? a. Find it insulting to those serving that have put their lives on the line for what he believes are unjustified wars? b. Afraid to lose your job? c. Think his ideas will actually be a threat to America and cost us more lives than the current wars are? d. All the above e. None of the above. I'm asking this out of curiousity not necessarily to debate, because they are all legitimate fears as far as I'm concerned. I'd just like to know what exactly you think will be the "downfall" if he gets elected.

Good question. There in lies the problem and solution. We won't have any other option but to either cut spending or increase taxation or both (at least thats responsible). I like to view it as a good motivator for congress to "pull their heads out". Unless your goal is to bankrupt the country which it seems an alarming amount of people seem to be perfectly fine with.

Who isn't defensive of thier candidate? I have no problem with him being called out and challenged on any issues. I don't view it as a smite. In fact I thoroughly enjoy it because when given the chance to talk he typically schools his naysayers. I feel like he's done a good job defending those questions. He's an outstanding debater, thats not just a perception. I don't agree with 100% of everything he says either, but if folks want jump up and say he's an "out of touch with reality idiot", then they're the ones with the blurred perspective. Disliking a guy's ideas does not make him an idiot, folks calling him one is usually the first sign that they don't have the intellect to debate him on the issue.

I understand that, and did allude to that in one of my previous posts that donation amount alone is not telling. If anybody can find a breakdown of these figures at all to see perhaps the number of donors that'd be great. Until then, without polls there's no way to know the true support he has. However, based on this we can say that the "likely" scenario is he has the more support than the other gop candidates. You definitely can't make a case that he doesn't have their support, unless you take a poll.