I bet if the coin was reversed and it was Obama who pulled of successful moneybombs (which he didn't, his supporters tried and failed, raising ~4k), we wouldn't get these "maybe we should wait for the FEC" warnings, we'd be getting, "This is great, look how Obama is resonating, he will be our next president!"

That's the nature of true believers.

And no, I'm not a true believer.. I just look at things from a perspective that is considerably different than almost everyone one else.

Since I'm an autodidact my personal philosophy has evolved almost entirely on its own. Without someone to guide me in the "correct" interpretation of my readings and musings I have obviously gotten many things all wrong.

And to be fair, it's not just limited to the ALP. The Greens have their own problems. Most third parties do.

Do you wish to claim that the two "real" parties are free from fund raising peculiarities?

True enough..

However it does imply that the candidate is not beholden to the big money interests..

And, in my mind anyway, there just aren't enough white supremacists and fringe economic whackos out there to contribute the sort of money that Paul is raising in small donations.

My brother follows economics with the same passion I devote to politics.. He tells me the economic fit is about to hit the Shan big time.. The subprime bubble meltdown, plunging dollar, soaring deficits, negative US savings rate, et terrifying cetera.

What my POINT is is that if you believe in ANY significant intangible (Love) you can't argue that belief in a significant intangible renders a person insane.

The atheist (generally) considers love to be a significant intangible.

On the other hand, the atheist (generally) considers a God or gods to be an insignificant, indeed a nonexistent, intangible.

That is my point, to the atheist believing in love is not a hard thing to do, the evidence for the existence of love in the human mind is all around.

The evidence for the existence of a God or gods though is not in evidence at all. Just as the evidence for the IPU or the FSM is not in evidence.

This doesn't mean we implement the Luddite Ron Paul approach of smashing the economic machinery of the modern industrial economy and sit back and see what happens.

It takes multiple kilometers and considerable time to change the course of an oil tanker.

The economic system we have now has an inertia which makes an oil tanker look like a neutrino.

Paul is hardly going to "smash the economic machinery of the modern industrial economy", so give the disaster scenarios a rest.

And it gets worse. The Austrian school along with Ron Paul believes that we need to eliminate banking as it has been practiced for 500 years.

Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that is the optimal way of doing things.

I reiterate, give the disaster scenarios a rest, LWM has regaled us with plenty of reasons not to vote for Paul.

You see the evil bankers have been defrauding us all along through the system of usary on money they don't own. This is scary stuff. Ron Paul believes this. Thank God he is at the snowball-in-hell level of support.

Do you disagree with my position that a vote for any candidate who supports the drug war is a vote to continue the slide of America toward a sort of fascism?

I predict that you will not answer this question.

Can you give me any "proof" that cannot be explained away by hormones, social expectation, and brainwashing?

Apparently you have never raised children.

Your mother didn't kill you before you were three years old.

Think how shocked we are when a mother kills her children.

Why are we shocked?

Because the vast majority of mothers would sacrifice their own lives to protect their children.

It takes intense cultural pressures to overturn that behavior in women, as in cultures which practice female infanticide.

Now a question for you: Why are Christians afraid of death?

If you are sure you are going to heaven, a perfect place, then it stands to reason that you should be eager to pass on to the next life.

The US is overwhelmingly Christian, yet most Americans seem to want to live forever.

Nonetheless, if the standard is (as Goldstein suggests) that, regardless of any other considerations, anyone who is pro-life ought to be removed from good company -- along with those who support any such individuals -- then that standard ought not to be applied selectively.

You knocked that one out of the park, Glenn.

I hope you follow up with some MSM responses, this ought to be good.

Was the BAC aware that his/her boss was an atheist?

Most BACs are shocked if they find out a caring, gentle person is an atheist, they have been indoctrinated to believe all atheists are baby eating monsters.

Of course. I fully understand why liberals don't support Ron Paul. It makes perfect sense to me. Ron Paul isn't a liberal and it's perfectly natural that most liberals wouldn't vote for him.

From what I've seen the majority of "liberals" fall on the leftist libertarian quadrant of the Political Compass.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

If you look at the chart I link to above you will see that every single "mainstream" candidate for president is more authoritarian than Paul.

Liberalism, as I understand it, is fundamentally opposed to authoritarianism.

I would love to hear from those who disagree with me.