[Absolutely Nobama]

Ping!

[Eleutheria5]

I only got a few lines in, and I imagined Less Nessman, five-time winner of the Buckeye News Hawk Award from WKRP in Cincinnatti was speaking, and couldn’t continue.

[Apparatchik]

It is just me, or is this guy talking gibberish half of the time? He also seems to have a teensy weensy bit of an ego problem. His popularist views and absolutist approach (I am right about the whole issue!), plus his base of what can only be described as fanatics and zealots, make him resemble that other little demogogue that caused all that trouble in the middle of the last century.

No thanks, Dr. Paul.

[Plummz]

Why do you think Congress should write Obama a blank check with no specific instructions on how to spend the money?

Why do you support efforts to further consolidate Obama’s dictatorial power at the expense of Congress?

Are you some kind of Obamabot?

[GunRunner]

I honestly don't know why this is so hard to understand for the people that hate Ron Paul.

The money is already being confiscated and given out, he's against that. But after the government has already done that, why should Ron Paul's district be the only one that does not see a return of some of its taxation?

To put it another way, imagine a thief steals money from a dozen people. He then promises to return some of the money to the folks he stole it from if they ask for it. It looks like Ron Paul's critics would have him refrain from asking for some of it back on the principle that he doesn't support stealing in the first place, and stand by that principle as the other 11 people see some of their money returned to them (including his).

It doesn't make sense to me. Would be glad to hear someone explain "why" he should not ask for some of the money to be returned to his constituents. He's against the theft in the first place, but wants to make sure he gets as much back as he can when the thief offers to return some of it.