Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,898
25%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 25% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Jokelahoma

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Lolita at 50

    08/18/2008 12:26:40 PM PDT · 26 of 72
    Jokelahoma to Borges
    One of the most emotionally draining books I've ever read. A heartbreaking story of a man who desires the one thing he cannot keep, for she cannot stay a child forever. As he completely unravels emotionally as she gets older, it's almost painful to read.

    It's a great work about an incredibly uncomfortable subject.

  • Top 5: Knob-twiddlers (Music Producers Extraordinaire)

    08/03/2008 10:06:32 AM PDT · 3 of 39
    Jokelahoma to Recovering_Democrat
    Tough to limit to five. These five are good, although I'd replace number five with Alan Parsons, whose signature sound made Pink Floyd.
  • Ignorance tries to sneak into schools

    08/02/2008 7:31:38 PM PDT · 19 of 29
    Jokelahoma to wintertime
    Given that you feel that way, I am certain you would have no objection to the government Taliban forcing your children into madrassas.

    Right! And I'd be perfectly fine if teachers were executing students because parents can always teach their children they're not actually dead!

    Sheesh. Overreact much? There are lines, obviously. where teachers overstep the boundaries between being a teacher and overtaking parental control. Whether or not they teach your particular version of history isn't one of them, or shouldn't be for rational thinkers. If my children were to come home telling me the earth was only 5000 years old, I'd work with them to dispel them of that notion. If they told me they learned man couldn't possibly have walked on the moon because they would have sunk in to the fine dust, I'd work with them to teach them how to approach that logically. If you disagree, teach your kids otherwise, or homeschool.

  • Ignorance tries to sneak into schools

    08/02/2008 1:36:30 PM PDT · 13 of 29
    Jokelahoma to \/\/ayne
    Public schooled students learn only one theory with no opposition or debate allowed.

    Not true. No debate is allowed in the school perhaps, but parents aren't helpless. If your child is being taught something in school, and you want them to see the argument from a different standpoint, teach them yourself. Don't rely on schools to be the only source of education for your children.

    I can't count the number of times I'd come home from school, be asked "what did you learn today", relate the stories of that days lessons, and be asked "Hmm... and what about...?", which led to alternate ways of looking at nearly everything. Some were simply from the devil's advocate view, just to improve my rational and critical thinking skills and teach me to defend what I believe to be true. Others were intended to make me see there is more than one way to approach nearly every issue.

    Point is, parents have more influence over their children than they believe. Disagree with what the school teaches? Fine. Tell your students that's what the school thinks, but challenge them to see things from another viewpoint as well.

  • WALL E dangerous brave new Disney World

    07/06/2008 8:52:10 PM PDT · 13 of 40
    Jokelahoma to Binstence
    Seems a bit of "seeing monsters under the bed" to me. I didn't notice any preaching in the film at all. Seen NYC three days after sanitation workers go on strike? Kind of looked like the world portrayed in the film, actually.

    Seems there's enough real issues to get upset about without railing against imagined bogeymen in animated films. I thought the movie was extraordinary, and will likely go see it again. I've also recommended it to all of my friends and family and will continue to do so.

  • McCain's Top Ten VP Picks

    02/15/2008 10:22:48 AM PST · 23 of 102
    Jokelahoma to GreyFriar
    How about former Congressman Watts.

    I could see this, to be honest. Wouldn't be a bad choice, but not a great one either. That said, I think that if Obama gets the nomination, we'll see a black VP for McCain, to help stave off any racism claims every single time anyone disagrees with Obama's position on anything. It's sad that in 2008 that still matters, but it does.

  • McNamee's lawyer predicts presidential pardon for Clemens

    02/14/2008 1:50:05 PM PST · 128 of 146
    Jokelahoma to bill1952
    Yet.
  • McNamee's lawyer predicts presidential pardon for Clemens

    02/14/2008 11:51:58 AM PST · 21 of 146
    Jokelahoma to bill1952
    Yeah! He's as innocent as Marion Jones, and she... oh, wait. Never mind.
  • Times Won't Run Vagina Ad

    02/13/2008 1:46:59 PM PST · 36 of 52
    Jokelahoma to Responsibility2nd
    Hmmm... perhaps my anatomy is off (I drank through most of those classea anyway), but based on the artwork, shouldn't the show be called the Vulva Monologues?
  • Romney bid was a crucible for Mormons

    02/10/2008 8:35:29 PM PST · 294 of 897
    Jokelahoma to svcw
    Wow, your evidence is overwhelming. Guess you told me.

    I heard it with my own ears. Saw it with my own eyes. There are far too many bigots who were willing to vote against Romney solely due to his religion. You condone that?

  • Romney bid was a crucible for Mormons

    02/10/2008 6:06:13 PM PST · 98 of 897
    Jokelahoma to Zakeet
    Absolutely a major reason in Romney never "catching fire" was the bigotry of so-called "Christians" against Mormonism. There are far too many on here and out in the "real" world who have stated they couldn't vote for a "cult member", or that Mormons aren't Christians so they could never vote for Mitt.

    Saddest part are the apologists who will deny that ever took place, and will do everything in their power to place blame elsewhere. Yes, there are other reasons Romney wasn't "the" choice. But to deny the "he don't look like me, do he?" bigotry of supposed Christians against Romney is to justify their actions. It's disgusting, and I'd hope that eventually these holier than thou types will gow up and grow out of that. I'm not holding my breath, however.

    And I wasn't even a Romney supporter.

  • What Romney Has To Do At Tonight's Debate

    01/30/2008 1:37:35 PM PST · 247 of 286
    Jokelahoma to HoustonTech
    The fact that you think a persons' religion is an "irrelavant factor" shows that you have an intolerance for those who do not consider it irrelavant.

    You're stretching now. Is that fact I don't think a candidate's soda choice is important somehow bigoted towards those who drink Coke every day? Or does his soda choice really, really matter in the grand scheme of things?

    As I said, your definition is a lot different than mine.

  • What Romney Has To Do At Tonight's Debate

    01/30/2008 1:00:02 PM PST · 224 of 286
    Jokelahoma to HoustonTech
    Your definition of bigotry is a little different than mine, to say the least.

    Yes, perhaps you missed the context or my text in parentheses where I say that supporting a candidate based on religious preference or any other all-but-meaningless reason is also bigotry. I should perhaps clarify that I'm stating that meaningless reason for support or opposition should be a dominant factor in the decision. The text of many on here (and thankfully thus far this does not include you) makes me believe Romney's Mormonism is the driving force behind their decision to support someone else. That, in my opinion, is bigotry, where a political decision is made not on the merits of the candidate, but on how much he looks like you (you used in an overall sense, not directed at you personally).

    Absolutely I would vote for a Muslim, if that candidate had policies that I believed were the best for the United States, understood and promised to uphold our laws, and had no character issues that lead me to believe he or she is unqualified for the position. I judge the character of an individual by their actions, not by some label they give their beliefs.

    My position on bigotry is not "knee-jerk", as you would label it. I believe that any time anyone takes irrelevant factors into a decision making process, they are exhibiting bigoted behavior. What church Romney attends has such a minuscule bearing on how he'll perform in the office of the President that using that as a decision making factor is ridiculous, in my opinion. If his religion has an impact on his policies, and you disagree with those, fine. That's all well and good. Those who use solely his choice of religion as a determining point in their decision as to who to support for President are bigots, same as if they voted based on the candidate's race, or the brand of suit a candidate wore at a debate, or whether his middle name starts with a vowel or a consonant. There are plenty of ways to distinguish between candidates without having to resort to petty, useless and bigoted methods of doing so. Watching members of a forum made up of mostly informed and intelligent people resort to such bigotry is disgusting to me, and makes the rest of us look like undereducated, unthinking reactionary hicks by association.

  • What Romney Has To Do At Tonight's Debate

    01/30/2008 11:34:08 AM PST · 158 of 286
    Jokelahoma to HoustonTech
    Legality has nothing to do with it. Several stupid things people do are perfectly legal.

    When you choose to oppose (or support) a politician based on things that have little to do with policy or actions they take that reflect on character, you're displaying bigotry. Opposing someone due to their religious affiliation is no different -- in my opinion -- than opposing them on basis of their sex or race or hair color or favorite soda brand. It's silly and shows lack of thought. The scariest part is these people will go to the polling booth full of the self-righteous attitude that they're perfectly right to keep those evil Moooooooooooormons out of office.

    Oppose a candidate's policies? Great, vote against him or her. Oppose a candidate due to a lack of character? Fine, vote against him or her. Oppose a candidate because they don't go to church in the same building you do, have skin with a different melanin content than yours, or dissed your favorite restaurant? You're not all that bright, and would do us all a favor by forgetting what day the election happens to fall on this year. Sure, it's legal for you to think that way. That doesn't justify it, however. After all, the three-fifths decisions I mentioned earlier was legal as well.

  • What Romney Has To Do At Tonight's Debate

    01/30/2008 11:00:44 AM PST · 101 of 286
    Jokelahoma to Sola Veritas
    ...The fact that I’m ready to point out Romney’s psuedo-Christian beliefs is not bigotry...it is truth.

    And a good number of people actually believed that blacks were three-fifths as valuable as whites. Does that make that true, too? Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much the bigot believes themselves to be right.

  • What Romney Has To Do At Tonight's Debate

    01/30/2008 10:52:26 AM PST · 82 of 286
    Jokelahoma to DannyTN
    Posted by DannyTN

    I do have a big problem with the notion of a Mormon in the White House, and I don’t really see Romney as being any better than Hillary on abortion gays. Romney congradulates them on Pride week and then acts all conservative when he’s running for president. Please, Huckabee is really conservative on these issues. Romney is as liberal as they come.

    I was thinking how to respond to this when it occurred to me there's no need to add any of my thoughts at all. This post in and of itself pretty much sums up why I'd never, ever vote for Huckabee.

  • Chicken Wings. Where are the best?

    01/27/2008 11:30:10 PM PST · 35 of 113
    Jokelahoma to Hoosiersailor
    Never heard of a "Captain Morgan" sauce at Buffalo Wild Wings. Sure isn't listed on their web site, and I've never had it in person. But I will say for a chain they're not bad. The Blazin' hurt, twice if you know what I mean, but I'm a big fan of the Jerk, and "Wild" works okay too.

    Then again, there was a barbecue place here in KC that used to offer "atomic" wings that were absolutely lethal, and fan-freakin'-tastic.

    Of course, homemade works best every time.

  • Quotes from the Republican debate

    01/24/2008 9:24:03 PM PST · 25 of 36
    Jokelahoma to jdm
    I love the quote against Romney.. as though raising money were a bad thing, which, I guess, to commies like the newspapers, it is....

    I was a Thompson guy. Now, I'm a Romney guy. If he doesn't get the nomination, man, I'm kinda like Rush. I can see me not voting Republican this time, because it we're going to have a liberal government that fails, it would be better to have that under the Democrat watch than under what was supposedly an (R). It sucks to even have to say that. It really does.

  • Why Huckabee is Like Reagan (Real Clear Politics Title)

    01/22/2008 9:04:13 PM PST · 20 of 63
    Jokelahoma to hsalaw
    You hit the nail right on the head. Linder (and Neal Boortz) support Huckabee because he's committed to the Fair Tax. I happen to like the idea of the Fair Tax in principle, but I have never been and will never be a single issue voter. There are far too many reasons not to vote for Huckabee, regardless of his stance on taxation.

    I'm praying at this point that we nominate anyone except Huckabee or McCain (I don't include Paul in that, because I have as much chance of being nominated as he does, and because no one in their right mind takes him seriously)

  • Rush Limbaugh LIVE Radio Thread - Friday 1/18/08

    01/18/2008 10:20:08 AM PST · 294 of 561
    Jokelahoma to arturo
    Nice! Now, take that article and make it corrolate to your claim that Thompson wants the states to make abortion legal. Come on, give it the ol' college try.
  • Constitution Party Courts Ron Paul as Candidate

    01/17/2008 5:11:23 PM PST · 123 of 151
    Jokelahoma to ksen
    And they're not in the best of shape either, hence the fact Fred is relying almost completely on a good showing in SC, and Rudy has put all his eggs in the Florida basket.

    The comparison is weak at best. It's like going out in the first round of a spelling bee, yet telling everyone how great you did because a whole lot of other people went out in the first round as well.

  • Constitution Party Courts Ron Paul as Candidate

    01/16/2008 10:43:55 PM PST · 72 of 151
    Jokelahoma to Santa Fe_Conservative
    And will not vote, as evidenced by his primary totals.
  • Constitution Party Courts Ron Paul as Candidate

    01/16/2008 10:40:38 PM PST · 71 of 151
    Jokelahoma to VirginiaConstitutionalist
    In New Hampshire, they had their own to worry about. They abandoned Paul, as they'd do in the generals. In Michigan, the majority of Paulbearers voted for McCain, in spite of marching orders from KOS that they vote for Romney.

    Paul's support is mainly anti-war lefties. But they either cannot (closed primaries) or will not (other options, can't bring themselves to actually vote Republican ever, or dude it's a long drive and the bong is full, etc.) vote for him. His big straw poll wins were driven by those who either will not or cannot vote for him in primaries. He's done. His campaign has choked like Mama Cass at a Kretchmar convention.

  • Constitution Party Courts Ron Paul as Candidate

    01/16/2008 1:22:58 PM PST · 9 of 151
    Jokelahoma to kdot
    I completely disagree. I think he gets a lot of his support from anti-war lefties who don't see the Democrats as willing to surrender fast enough. I see him as much Nader as Perot.
  • The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul

    01/16/2008 9:23:12 AM PST · 10 of 14
    Jokelahoma to forkinsocket
    Many of the concepts of libertarianism are great. It's a shame that the majority of the people who get the spotlight for championing them are such absolutist loons.
  • RINO or Conservative: Who Scores Best?

    01/15/2008 11:55:29 AM PST · 119 of 301
    Jokelahoma to Man50D
    If electability isn't an issue, then screw messing around with Hunter. Vote your convictions and write in Reagan. You can do it! After all, actually getting your candidate into office isn't important is it?
  • Why I Believe Mike Huckabee Should Be President

    01/15/2008 10:18:34 AM PST · 37 of 46
    Jokelahoma to AuntB
    Then explain to me where I'm mistaken.
  • Why I Believe Mike Huckabee Should Be President

    01/15/2008 10:05:34 AM PST · 34 of 46
    Jokelahoma to AuntB
    Is this the latest ploy by Hunter supporters? To try to somehow associate the Thompson campaign with McCain, as though the two were inseparable? If so, that's pretty weak.

    I have lots of friends. I'd support them in their efforts to accomplish their goals. That doesn't mean I agree with them 100%, or that were I to do the same thing they do that I would do it exactly the same way.

    Bottom line: Thompson isn't McCain, and that sort of tactic will gain Hunter exactly zero votes. I'd hope, seeing as how he is a good man, that his supporters would be above that sort of thing. I might be misreading this latest little push by Hunter folks, but I don't believe I am.

  • Rush Limbaugh calls Hillary SEXY

    01/13/2008 5:55:32 PM PST · 92 of 99
    Jokelahoma to penowa
    And this is bad how, exactly? :-)
  • Rush Limbaugh calls Hillary SEXY

    01/13/2008 9:41:56 AM PST · 12 of 99
    Jokelahoma to rface
    The author supports the idea of drafting Jeb Bush to run for President as the only way to save the GOP. That right there is a sign of someone who isn't quite "with it", as one might say. Add to that the fact the author apparently needs to have a humor transplant, STAT, and you come up with this silly little tripe.

    He says Rush is clearly for Romney? Hooo boy. It scares me that so many clueless people actually vote. Can't we require a civics test and a current events test of some sort before giving people a ballot?

  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/10/2008 11:28:06 AM PST · 295 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    Fred likely will be next, if he doesn't perform better. And if his campaign continues along the lines its going now, he'll deserve it. Elections, unfortunately, aren't based on merit, or we'd have a Thompson/Hunter ticket.

    As for the RINO comment, that wasn't for you. That was for others on this thread who have made thinly veiled threats not to participate in the election process because their guy didn't make the cut. You know, others whom you've requested add me to some strange list you have yet to explain. HINT: Not everyone who does not actively support Hunter is a RINO.

  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/10/2008 11:21:52 AM PST · 294 of 298
    Jokelahoma to bushfamfan
    I'm celebrating nothing. I like Hunter. I'm merely stating the criteria are reasonable, and throwing a hissy fit because your candidate didn't meet them is not terribly effective.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 8:59:26 PM PST · 255 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    Should the NFL decide who gets in the playoffs based on the results of the exhibition season and the first three games?

    Piss poor analogy. Has Hunter not had the same amount of time (as in all summer, and even back into the spring) to get recognition? Had he not had the same opportunity to campaign? That was the regular season. We're in the playoffs now, and the Super Bowl is in November. You want to blame the NFL for the performance of the Dolphins? HINT: The Dolphins were excluded from the playoffs. Perhaps a bunch of folks should get together and ask why, if the Dolphins aren't allowed in the playoffs despite their record, Miami should even agree to take part in the NFL next year. That'll show those mean, nasty and unfair NFL executives that they can't pick our playoff teams for us!.

    Hunter didn't run a good campaign. He. Did. Not. Run. A. Good. Campaign. He himself, those running his campaign, and to a lesser extent his supporters are responsible for where he is now. No one else. It's not the media. It's not Fox News. It's not the evil Tree Zombies from Planet Woogiesnookums. Stop blaming others, and own up to the fact a very good man ran a very horrible campaign and that he doesn't meet what by any standards are reasonable and rational criteria for inclusion in a debate this late in the campaign (albeit early in primary season). We laugh at the left when they claim vote fraud any time they lose, but then turn around and see bogeymen because out candidate couldn't garner enough support to be viable? The reaction then is to get all huffy and say, in effect, well we're just taking our ball and going home, calling anyone who failed to support your guy a RINO and ask why the should expect your vote? Seriously? Geez, what would you do if you had to face real adversity? Drown it in tears?

  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 4:23:39 PM PST · 219 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    Except the South Carolina Republicans didn't mention "nationally recognized", did they? And how does that get measured? If one person in each state recognizes your name, you're in? After all, that's "recognition", is it not? That "one person" rule would explain the 1% in the polls, but does it qualify one for a debate? I'm afraid if "natioally recognized" is your criteria, you'll have to further define what "nationally recognized" really means.

    As I said to pissant, I understand that you're peeved Hunter is left out. But there's little in their criteria that would count as "dirty tricks" or any other conspiracy. If, after campaigning for months and having completed three state races, you can't poll better than 5% nationally, you haven't a prayer. All Hunter had to do to make this a moot point was finish in the top five in NH, OR -- not and, but OR -- poll at 5% in the polls nationally. He didn't.

  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 4:00:31 PM PST · 214 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    No, it isn't, which is why I wonder why you're stalling. I've already stated I would stick with exactly the criteria they used - prior primary finish OR national polling percentage. Your turn.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 3:00:20 PM PST · 200 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    And what list would that be?
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 2:58:14 PM PST · 199 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    No, thank you. I'm happy with what they chose, and I'm not questioning it. If you would choose to allow anyone who paid their $35K to participate, it's you who needs to find reasonable criteria for paring the field, not me.

    And the schedule means a lot. If they don't have the debate scheduled (or this year, the primary itself) it's rather hard to determine what other primary within which a candidate must finish in the top five, since you don't know what primary will immediately precede yours. Plus, it matters because that's the question you asked.

  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:55:46 PM PST · 175 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    I have no idea. Was the debate even scheduled at that time? If so, does that mean $35K will buy anyone into the debate? Anyone? If not anyone who pays $35K, then what criteria do you use to pare the field?
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:30:25 PM PST · 156 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    And not being in a debate does not prevent them from voting for him during the primary, if they so choose. Other states have voted, and the results of the most recent of those elections were but one criteria used. National polling numbers were also used. All of this is unfair how, exactly?
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:26:05 PM PST · 151 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    Well, technically speaking, the people made the decision, judging by poll numbers.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:19:36 PM PST · 144 of 298
    Jokelahoma to pissant
    By the way, I sincerely wish you and the others luck in getting him reinstated onto the debate roster. That sort of grassroots thing would be helpful, to say the least.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:18:38 PM PST · 142 of 298
    Jokelahoma to pissant
    Perhaps, although Fred has delegates, so only Paul and Rudy would be left out. But they didn't simply make it one criteria. They made it one of two. Either A or B, neither of which seems irrational or arbitrary, and both of which, I believe, have been used in the past to pare down debate rosters. Hunter met neither, unfortunately.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:12:36 PM PST · 135 of 298
    Jokelahoma to Little_GTO
    Fred is underperforming as well. If he continues to slip, he'll start polling lower, He'll finish lower in primaries preceeding debates. And he'll either drop out voluntarily or be excluded. Rightfully so, I might add.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:11:02 PM PST · 132 of 298
    Jokelahoma to pissant
    No, but come to think of it, Pat also didn't poll 5% or above nationally, nor did he place in the top 5 in NH. So I guess we can exclude him too.

    Look, I understand the frustration. But the wailing and gnashing of teeth, the blanket accusations of the media, Fox, the Republican party, and Free Republic as a whole..., well, it's all a bit much. A better campaign, and none of this would have happened.

  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:07:56 PM PST · 127 of 298
    Jokelahoma to AuntB
    Blame sohuld fall to his campaign. It's rather easy to blame outside forces for any ill which befalls us. It's easier still to make excuses. But had he run a better campaign, he'd be doing better.
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:06:00 PM PST · 122 of 298
    Jokelahoma to pissant
    Your opinion and you're entitled to it. Doesn't read that way to me, though. Seems to be fairly common procedure. Otherwise, we could invite Pat Paulson to the debate too. Sure he's dead, but really, is that a realistic criteria to exclude him?
  • Six candidates to participate in historic 2008 S.C. GOP Presidential Candidates Debate (No Hunter)

    01/09/2008 1:00:19 PM PST · 112 of 298
    Jokelahoma to pissant
    Jeez.. I like Hunter and wish he'd done better, but he didn't. Stone cold fact. He didn't. And yes, that's past tense.

    Read the thing again, Folks. It's the SC Republican Party who laid down the criteria for invitations to this debate.

    For those of you who either rushed through the article without reading the whole thing, were so angry after reading the headline you overlooked pertinent details, or are somehow incapable of processing information that doesn't match your preconceived notions, I'll cut and paste the invitation criteria again here:

    Candidates who received invitations to participate in the debate have announced formal campaigns for president; filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and the South Carolina Republican Party to run for president; paid all candidate filing fees associated with their candidacy; met all U. S. constitutional requirements; and garnered at least 5% of the national electorate as determined by an average of the most recent national telephone polls of registered voters conducted by non-partisan public opinion polling organizations leading up to the registration deadline as determined by the South Carolina Republican Party and FOX News Channel; or, place in the top five in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary on January 8, 2008.

    Running them down one at a time, in case you still didn't get it:

    have announced formal campaigns for president: Hunter: Check

    filed the necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and the South Carolina Republican Party to run for president: Hunter: Check

    paid all candidate filing fees associated with their candidacy Hunter: Check

    met all U. S. constitutional requirements: Hunter: Check

    Additionally, to get an invite candidates must meet at least one of the following two criteria:

    garnered at least 5% of the national electorate as determined by an average of the most recent national telephone polls of registered voters conducted by non-partisan public opinion polling organizations leading up to the registration deadline as determined by the South Carolina Republican Party and FOX News Channel Hunter: Ch... d'oh!

    place in the top five in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary on January 8, 2008 Hunter: Ch... d'oh again!

    So while the righteous indignation is fun and invigorating, in reality, all your candidate had to do was either get past 5% in national polls or place in the top 5 in NH. He failed in both those criteria. If a candidate can do neither by this point, it's time to pack it in. He's a good guy, and I hope he runs again after working to get better name recognition. But he's done in 2008. No amount of clicking the heels on your ruby slippers or threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue will change that.

  • Paul: US inching toward 'soft fascism'

    01/09/2008 8:52:07 AM PST · 126 of 130
    Jokelahoma to Beelzebubba
    Turning down the dollars is not the same as saying "no, we don't want a SWAT team" with the feds replying "oh, but you must have a SWAT team! Unt you vill use it to break into ze homes of your citizens!".

    Again, offering the grant money is not the same as creating, manning, directing and deploying the force.

  • Paul: US inching toward 'soft fascism'

    01/08/2008 7:07:47 PM PST · 112 of 130
    Jokelahoma to Beelzebubba
    Created? I think that might be pushing it. They help fund them, yes. But there are no SWAT teams in cities that don't want SWAT teams, to the best of my knowledge.

    Besides, by that logic, GM is responsible for every motor vehicle accident involving a Chevy. Smith and Wesson is responsible for every shooting involving a Model 19. Chicago Cutlery is responsible for the medical bills of every idiot who cuts themselves preparing dinner. They didn't use those products, or even order them used. But they CREATED them.

    Not sure how we got here from "Military Industrial Complex", but there you go.

  • Paul: US inching toward 'soft fascism'

    01/08/2008 3:43:10 PM PST · 105 of 130
    Jokelahoma to Beelzebubba
    T'ain't the feds that ordered them in, though, is it?