| Author | Message | ||
     Hootowl |
"American Cuisine is a mix of all the stuff people brought here from the Old Country" The New Colossus, ammended. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Bring food." | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
American Cuisine? Mmmmmmmmmmmm Waffle House,  Sorry bout the digression, now back to your regular subject...... | ||
| Strokizator |
Here you go Grumpy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgLmx_FcWPs | ||
| Whistler |
Thanks Strok, Bernadette Peters is definitely a dish. | ||
| Aesquire |
Multiculturalism should NOT mean the balkanization of America! It means Salsa! Mongolian Barbecue! Smoked Norwegian Salmon with Kimchi on the side! Siberian Depth charges! Bangers and Mash! Wattle and Daub! no...wait... skip that last one.... Waffle House! Hashbrowns... Smothered, Covered, Chunked and Country! and 2 Lipitor on the side please. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
I miss Waffle House  | ||
| Moxnix |
Joe Rogan of 'Fear Factor' Endorses Ron Paul December 16, 2011 RSS Feed Print Rep. Ron Paul has picked up the endorsement of the baddest reality show host on TV: Fear Factor's Joe Rogan. Back on NBC, Fear Factor is the show that puts competing couples in ugly and sometimes scary situations, like in a bed of snakes. This week, in an interview on nationally syndicated America's Morning News, Rogan was talking up his return when co-host John McCaslin asked what scary situation would he like to put the Republican presidential candidates in. Without hesitating, Rogan said, "the stunt would be elect Ron Paul." Rogan called Paul "the only guy who is saying anything that makes any sense whatsoever." Rogan might be on to something. Paul continues to surge in polls. But Rogan added that voting might just be a waste of time in today's politics. "At this point in my life, I feel like voting for president is a lot like rooting on professional wrestling. It might make you feel better, but I'm not sure it effects the outcome that much." | ||
| Pwnzor |
Waffle House is awesome. Cheese Steak Omelet over super-smothered hash browns, and a pork chop on the side. Biscuits and jelly. Pass the steak sauce. | ||
| Two_seasons |
Ron Paul is a moron when it comes to foreign policy. I cannot support anyone who doesn't see the obvious when it comes to world affairs. And on the subject of Waffle House's... Jax FL, Airport Road, used to be cockroach city  And up the road in St. Marys GA was the famous Majestic Oaks Motel, known to my crew as the Majestic ROACH Motel. I can't stand cockroaches. (Message edited by two_seasons on December 16, 2011) | ||
| Moxnix |
I miss crêpes at a transit cafe at 2 am in France. I don't miss watching the roaches scurry when the Torremolinos barista making my morning coffee fix pulled out the drawer below the machine to knock out spent grounds. Waffle House. "I'll have the unsalted salted rather than the salted salted, thanks." he said to the waitress with her name in rhinestones above her apron as she swatted flies with a spatula. I do appreciate a decent breakfast waffle or two on road trips, but my wife won't let me ever stop at a Waffle House again. | ||
| Moxnix |
American presidential candidates generally fall into three categories. Those who are obviously incompetent. Those who are scalawags. And those who are jackasses. The job of the voters is to choose the defect most suited to the time. ~B. Bonner | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Ron Paul's a unicorn. According to his followers, he's the ONLY candidate who can get the job done. They have a "if it's not my guy, I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality. The really dangerous development would be another Perot style third party candidate. I fear that from either Paul or Trump. Can SOMEONE please get Ron Paul a suit coat that fits?   | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Before GWB both sides said Iraq had wmd's and saddam was a growing threat. UN inspection protocols are not fully met and Bush eventually invades. Our Rules of engagement showed the world the level of faggotry politicians impose on our troops and the democrats use Iraq to crucify Bush and elect what we have now....and Ron Paul is a moron because he doesnt want the same situation with Iran?i | ||
| Pwnzor |
 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Why do we care who Joe Rogan would vote for? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Exactly Jeremy, it's like Simon Cowell endorsing a Prime minister in the UK, you know where he stands but so what. | ||
| Moxnix |
Rogan. Rogan? Doesn't he put regular folks into containers of snakes and other icky things to measure their tolerance? Sounds like politics to me. | ||
| Buellifer |
Quote... "The guy's a quack. He has a few good points punctuated by sheer lunacy." Yeah whatever. Like the current and last President has done anything good for us. Shoot in the past 30 years I can think of only one President that did any good for the country and our economy. (WJC) If you think any of the other candidates are better than Paul then your living in a fantasy! Everyone keeps saying wee need change or someone who can turn the country around. Paul could do the job as well as any of them and the stuff he talks about is fine with me. If that make me a loon so be it.  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Bill Clinton was the BEST in the past 30 years? You, sir, have low standards, are misinformed or both. I might back Ron Paul if his foreign policy views weren't so completely off base.  They even kind of look alike. Whether it was right or wrong to intervene in foreign affairs or not, what is done is done. The blood is spilt. To act as though it never happened and that the United States shouldn't defend itself or our allies against the result of decisions decades in the making is naive and foolish. Paul would have disagreed with declaring war against Japan after Pearl Harbor citing that we had brought the attack on ourselves due to decades of Imperialistic expansion in the Pacific and the fact that we diverted resources away from Japan. Nearly ALL his ideals and decision making processes are in a vacuum. End the Fed? Great, I'd like to see that happen. What do you replace it with? Nuclear Iran? Great, what do we do when they actually use those weapons as they have VOWED to do? End Social Security? I agree with that completely. What do we do with the people currently on it? His answers demonstrate a lack of next level critical thinking I require of a President. Strangely enough, the same lack of critical thinking skills seems far too apparent in Paul's followers for my liking. Reminds me of the last quack to come down the line:  Oddly enough, they share the same initials. | ||
| Boltrider |
Okay, then vote for the "reinvented" Newt Gingrich, same as the old Gingrich, or that other guy who's a conservative when it suits him. | ||
| Oldog |
Okay, then vote for the "reinvented" Newt Gingrich, same as the old Gingrich His accomplishments are worth noting 4 balanced budgets with a dem in the wh ( Clinton ) reformed welfare very much in the regan mold the lessons of history are not lost on him, we know that he will stand his ground, he is seasoned, and intellegent the liberal media will be all over him if he mis states or mis quotes, IMO a debate between him and zero will be rather one sided. we need a change the retoric, missed steps and inaction, cant go on......} On RP did any one catch the Fox Debate? the question on Iran and nukes should be enough, to tell you that he is not suited for the office. he sorta reminds me of Pelosi logic disconnect...... (Message edited by oldog on December 18, 2011) | ||
| Aesquire |
Frankly I'll vote for anything warm blooded over Obama. What are the odds that any random jerk could even think of spending 5 trillion dollars more than the guy before, and all on "shovel ready" projects? How about Ron Paul as VP with Condi Rice as Prez? Pretty much a guarantee to make a lot of people angry. It would be amusing to see how sexist and racist Obama's minions really are. ( Or Newt and Condi, nearly as much fun ) Any Rep front runner is going to be attacked, fairly and unfairly. Cain got hammered by the Chicago machine, and he's gone. Bachman got universally branded looney, and is a non starter, while Perry just doesn't look like he's actually running. Huntsman is Obama's attempt at a spoiler... Newt can't win, of course. His name is Newt. Do we really want a President named after the only survivor of the colony in the movie Aliens? ( actually, since the current guy is named after a criminal revolutionary and a royal family.... why not? ) It's pretty damn obvious that that D's want Mitt. Just like they wanted McCain. And for the same reasons. | ||
| Boltrider |
True, but didn't those balanced budgets include the raiding of the Social Security fund? | ||
| Oldog |
How about Ron Paul as VP with Condi Rice as Prez? Condi wont run, she said that she served and is done, heard her say it on fox.... } | ||
| Oldog |
I thought that the raiding started before Newts term.. Welfare reform is a biggie in my mind | ||
| Boltrider |
I don't see that at all. He supported going after those responsible for 9/11, so it's safe to assume he'd have agreed to go after Japan. However, he did not agree with going into Iraq. As for a nuclear-armed Iran, that seems to be the go-to statement for those that don't support Paul. I'm not sure on that one, but let me turn that around - what would you do? If Iran had a usable nuclear weapon right now, would you authorize a bombing? A nuclear bombing? What kind of delivery system does Iran employ? How far does it reach? The consideration of a backpack bomb makes that question even tougher. I need a ton of answers before I can even begin to formulate a response to that one. What I'm very leery of doing is knee-jerk bombing them. (Message edited by boltrider on December 18, 2011) | ||
| Milt |
I think Ron Paul is mad as a hatter except for one thing: He is outspoken about his opposition to the "Patriot Act" and the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I don't see that at all. He supported going after those responsible for 9/11, so it's safe to assume he'd have agreed to go after Japan. However, he did not agree with going into Iraq. As for a nuclear-armed Iran, that seems to be the go-to statement for those that don't support Paul. I'm not sure on that one, but let me turn that around - what would you do? If Iran had a usable nuclear weapon right now, would you authorize a bombing? A nuclear bombing? What kind of delivery system does Iran employ? How far does it reach? The consideration of a backpack bomb makes that question even tougher. I need a ton of answers before I can even begin to formulate a response to that one. What I'm very leery of doing is knee-jerk bombing them. I think the WWII comparison does work. Ron Paul would have supported attacking Japan but would have patently been against the US joining the effort to fight Germany and free Europe. Germany didn't directly attack the US. They weren't our enemy. See the similarities? It's easy to take a purist view and say that unless there is a particular event against our country we have no reason to take any sort of action. Ron Paul would also have been against our involvement in any of the proxy wars during the Cold War. He's also currently against NATO and would have been against it's creation. The problem with his views is that they are not based in reality. NONE of his ideas are based in reality. NONE of them have practical applications. He is a unicorn. I believe he would be more out of his depth than Obama. At least Obama understands politics. | ||
| Boltrider |
Nope, I don't. We were isolationist back then but eventually entered the war anyway. Contending that isolationism would have continued under the leadership of Paul is a big stretch that I don't see. I believe he would have eventually agreed to enter the war, so I see no revisionist history there. To be clear, there are stances Paul takes that I disagree with. But considering the alternatives, I'm not against him one bit. (Message edited by boltrider on December 18, 2011) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
So what you are saying is that you are advocating an isolationist direction in our President and our country? I can't imagine ANYTHING more dangerous for our nation. In WWII, the isolationist granted Germany the time needed to create Fortress Europe costing thousands of additional American lives and providing the capacity for Germany to murder 9,000,000 jews. How many Americans and Jews is Ron Paul willing to sacrifice in the next round of isolationism? Or do you believe Ron Paul doesn't really believe what he is saying? |
