Ron Paul’s “Insane” Internet Support

Last week I discovered I’d been quoted in an International Business Times story about Ron Paul’s loyal followers. The article actually quote me from a Wired article a few years old from back when I was running GOPStrawPolls.com.

Anyway, I followed up with the reporter and answered a few questions. The new story came out today.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul is the only 2012 GOP presidential candidate who has not won a primary or caucus while he continues to win each and every online poll by huge margins.

People who design online polls have alleged that Paul’s supporters spam the online polls and vote multiple times to ensure online victory for their candidate. “I would say there was enough evidence of well-coordinated efforts by Ron Paul’s supporters to vote in online polls,” Matt Margolis, who ran the GOP straw polls during the 2008 presidential election, told IB Times

There’s plenty more to the article. Feel free to discuss.

77 thoughts on “Ron Paul’s “Insane” Internet Support

  1. bardolf February 7, 2012 / 3:17 pm

    http://armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8904030

    The American people are tired of fighting in Afghanistan. The military spenders (not to be confused with defense spenders which is okay by the constitution) are not so tired.

    Explanation 1 why Ron Paul is not winning any primaries/caucuses.

    • Green Mountain Boy February 7, 2012 / 3:41 pm

      Explanation 2.

      The primary and caucus voters don’t agree with Mr. Paul’s more extreme views on islam and foriegn policy?

      Nah. Never.

      • bardolf February 7, 2012 / 4:51 pm

        The primary voters don’t have a clue what a consistent foreign policy should look like.

        I await your explanation for why the US invaded Iraq but not Saudi Arabia. Has problems with Iran having the bomb but is okay with Pakistan having the bomb.

        Helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran but allowed brutal repression in Egypt.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 7, 2012 / 6:26 pm

        Barking up the wrong tree here Bardolf. Neither the land of the pure or the desert kingdom is worth one drop of American Blood.

        Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

      • RDM February 7, 2012 / 7:47 pm

        Because there was a legal precedent for Iraq and there wasn’t for the Saudi’s. Duh.

        And Ron Paul is a 100% foreign policy loon. Sorry.

      • bardolf February 8, 2012 / 2:26 pm

        RDM

        “there was a legal precedent for Iraq” –

        That is insane.

  2. moron February 7, 2012 / 3:26 pm

    That’s how Democrats win real world elections! Also why they don’t want voter ID.

  3. ItsJo February 7, 2012 / 3:43 pm

    Skeptic that I am, I don’t believe that Ron Paul supporters are that many. I think there is Always an ‘anti-war, legalize drugs’ group out there, that is nostalgic for the “60’s hippie movement(as told by their parents/grandparents) and this, is what added to Paul’s popularity. I ALSO, believe that it is a “Dem Movement(Soros etal) that IS pushing for Ron Paul, as they would LOVE to have him face Obama-it would be a “guaranteed win” for Obama, JUST as the Lib Media/Dems picked OUR candidate, McCain last time. It was a guaranteed win for Obama. This time, they are trying the SAME SET UP, with Paul-
    Thanks very much, but WE will pick our OWN candidates, and NOT RINO LOSERS, LIKE McCAIN. To me, this is Another SET UP, brought about by Obama’s Minions(Soros)

    • James February 7, 2012 / 4:31 pm

      your own candidate is Mitt Romney? the guy who has flip flopped on every position important to your cause in the past 20 years?

      The guy who takes pictures with money in his mouth?

      The guy who is the epitome of elite….the same elite establishment you claim to hate? He isn’t a RINO?

      Good luck winning the election with that guy….

      • neocon1 February 7, 2012 / 4:34 pm

        james stooge

        our flip flopping, money eating,RINO against
        YOUR doper, pole smoker, marxist, muslim usurper never was.

        choices choices.

      • neocon1 February 7, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        “Ron Paul’s “Insane”

        with corrections……….Ru Paul IS “Insane”
        but for free dope even zerO would vote for him, well maybe if he had a turban….

      • James February 7, 2012 / 5:51 pm

        neostupid,

        the choice is this:

        a moderate republican governor from Massachusetts….or a Moderate Democrat from Illinois…..Hmmm…

        something about great minds discuss issues………you don’t discuss issues, you’re more worried that the President did dope….pathetic and sad. carry on old timer…keep collecting the social security off my tax dollars!

      • dbschmidt February 7, 2012 / 11:51 pm

        James,

        But you have it all wrong with your comment about “keep collecting the social security off my tax dollars” because your government is just looking out for you because you are too stupid to do it for yourself and thereby saving you from yourself. He is not stealing your dollars but reaping the funds from his forced investment just as you will one day.

        Sorry, ROTFLMAO…

      • ItsJo February 8, 2012 / 2:27 am

        I didn’t SAY I was for Romney, did I? For ME, it’s ABO-anybody but Obama. I will await Our candidate that does have a chance to beat Obama, as many are awaiting-then, we will ALL vote for that Repub. to oust Obama. Get it now?

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. February 8, 2012 / 1:40 pm

        James you have to admit that Romney is more conservative than Reagan ever was. The demigod of the Right was once a Democrat.

    • bardolf February 7, 2012 / 4:54 pm

      The anti-war, legalize drug group is the majority. It isn’t nostalgia for the 60’s. It is an awareness of the failures in the war on terrorism and the war on drugs.

      But the GOP loves failure. Welcome Mittens.

      • RDM February 7, 2012 / 7:48 pm

        James. . . Obama. . MODERATE? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      • James February 7, 2012 / 8:03 pm

        rdm,

        nice try, you’re a retread.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 7, 2012 / 8:12 pm

        “The anti-war, legalize drug group is the majority”

        Any proof of that or is this just your opinion?

      • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:45 am

        But the GOP loves failure.

        WTF?

        johnson, Karter, KKKlinton, Ochimpy, JFnK, murtha, bwany,mad maxine, hell the whole donk party… WTF.?
        a cave in tora bora?

      • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:46 am

        RDM

        zerO is as center as joe, mao, fidel, hugo…..

  4. Green Mountain Boy February 7, 2012 / 4:45 pm

    Any of the GOP candidtes will win. Mitt will have the hardest time but he will win. If Mr.Santorum can’t win the nomination I would love to see Mr. Paul somehow win it. It will never happen but I would love to see if the “anybody but barky” crowd is serious.

    My guess is a big fat no. They just want to replace a big government statist donkeyrat with a big government statist repub.

      • Green Mountain Boy February 7, 2012 / 6:40 pm

        Mitt Romney would shove a twixt bar up each of his nostrils. If it were the “will of the people” 😛

    • Sunny February 7, 2012 / 6:37 pm

      It is a long time til the elections. Lots of things can happen. Just a little early to make predictions.

  5. Green Mountain Boy February 7, 2012 / 11:13 pm

    Mr.Paul’s internet support is not translating into any victorys tonight. So far in early returns Rick Santorum leads all three with 50% + of the votes.

    Not looking so good, right now for Mr.Romney either.

  6. 6206j February 8, 2012 / 12:17 am

    Romney had a bad night tonight.

    • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:47 am

      1369

      GOOD!!

  7. Jeremiah February 8, 2012 / 2:08 am

    Thank you, Colorado! 🙂
    Thank you, Minnesota! 🙂
    Thank you, Missouri! 🙂

    • Green Mountain Boy February 8, 2012 / 2:23 am

      My thoughts exactly. Lets hope for 42 more results like this.

      • dbschmidt February 8, 2012 / 4:19 am

        This one might come down to a brokered convention after we get the results from all 57 states 🙂

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. February 8, 2012 / 1:43 pm

        Then all you would get is a brokered convention with Romney still getting the nomination and the TEA Party walking out to nominate its own candidate which would equal an Obama landslide.

  8. dennis February 8, 2012 / 2:31 am

    Jer and GMB – we’ve already got 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices who are Roman Catholics. Do we want a president who has professed fealty to an authoritarian human institution that claims infallibility in all spiritual matters and declared itself the sole intermediary between God and man?

    “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5. This isn’t trivial.

    • Green Mountain Boy February 8, 2012 / 2:40 am

      Little bit of prejiduice there dennis. Take your bigotry elsewhere.

    • Cluster February 8, 2012 / 8:18 am

      Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden profess to be Catholic. Enough said.

    • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:50 am

      dennistooge

      that claims infallibility in all spiritual matters and declared itself the sole intermediary between God and man?

      your ignorance of Catholicism is almost as ignorant of Christianity, and is equal to your ignorance of politics.

      The wolf in sheeps clothing continues to spew his BS and howling at the moon (not “rev”)

  9. Green Mountain Boy February 8, 2012 / 2:45 am

    I am not voting for Rick Santorum the katholic. I am voting for Rick Santorum because he will govern the most conservative of all the repub candidates.

    Period.

    Take your garbage to kos or donkrat underground or to chuckie johnsons worthless website. They will apprieciate your “wisdom” there.

  10. dennis February 8, 2012 / 2:48 am

    Not my wIsdom or my prejudice GMB, it’s the Holy Scriptures.

    • Green Mountain Boy February 8, 2012 / 2:53 am

      What ever dennis.

      “we’ve already got 6 of 9 Supreme Court justices who are Roman Catholics. Do we want a president who has professed fealty to an authoritarian human institution that claims infallibility in all spiritual matters and declared itself the sole intermediary between God and man? ”

      Was this an attack on Rick Santorum or on kotholics in general.

      Whatever.

      Your bigotry is showing more and more lately.

      Go stick your nose back into thr niv and read more of your social justice.

    • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:53 am

      dennistooge

      lies, BL, leftist politics, and bible misquotes do not make you smart.
      they show you for what you are….a Wolf in sheeps clothing.

      Get thee BEHIND me Satan” is also a bible quote and fits you to a T

      • bardolf February 8, 2012 / 2:39 pm

        Neoconehead needs to read his bible.

        Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:23

        Peter misunderstood the meaning of the anointed one=Christ. He thought that Jesus was going to lead to an earthly kingdom and so obviously couldn’t be on his way to the cross as Jesus says in 16:22. Jesus rebukes Peter and places him behind himself as a pastor would place a sheep.

        Not agreeing with Dennis, but it is remarkable that no Protestant sits on the Supreme Court or will be the likely nominee of the GOP. Of course the current president is a Muslim so nothing new 🙂

      • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        baldork

        maybe at the moonies compound where you obviously “teach” scripture,

        dennis stooge (and I suspect you) are adherents of the social justice doctrine, thus the “Get behind me satan” would be very appropriate.as well as the verse a wolf in sheeps clothing.

      • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 5:41 pm

        baldork

        I believe JFK was the FIRST and ONLY Catholic POTUS.
        Maybe the supremes were appointed because of their politics and not their religion?
        but it makes a good slam by you and denny doesnt it?

      • bardolf February 8, 2012 / 6:12 pm

        Neocon

        I first saw the lack of a Protestant on the SC mentioned by Ann Coulter back when Sotomayor was being considered. I don’t care about the religious affiliation, just find it interesting.

        The social justice movement is exactly what Peter was expecting. My remarks clearly put me in the “my kingdom is not of this earth crowd”. That said Christians certainly are not called to contentment but to a life of service for others, anything else is Gnosticism.

      • neocon1 February 9, 2012 / 7:33 pm

        baldork

        but to a life of service for others, anything else is Gnosticism.

        so you work for free?
        so do 47% of Americans….work at Nothing.
        tell what does the bible say about sloth and those who do not work?

  11. dennis February 8, 2012 / 3:29 am

    It was a question, and you seem to have answered it, at least for yourself.

  12. Green Mountain Boy February 8, 2012 / 3:33 am

    Stop with phoney piety dennis. You are as transparent as the niv itself. Go somewhere else with your bigotry. It is not needed here.

    Why not start in on mormons while you are at it. Religious bigotry seems to be acceptable to you. Well except for islamics that is. Insult one of those and you might get your head chopped off.

    Tis easy to be a bigot against people who will tolerate it.

  13. dennis February 8, 2012 / 3:35 am

    It’s truly curious how the more outspoken supporters of Christianity here are so soft on what Jesus Christ and the Bible actually teach.

    • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 9:07 am

      dennistooge

      t on what Jesus Christ and the Bible actually teach.

      The Bible and Jesus teachings have a theme, a continuity through out both from the old law and into the NT
      It is the cults and fools who stand on one or two statements or verses to make doctrine.

      Sin is a theme carried from the OT through the new testament and the teachings of Christ.
      The SIN (not limited to) of HOMOSEXUALITY, LUST, THEFT, and MURDER are but a few of those.

      PS

      the Popes “infallibility” are limited to the Catholic church doctrine. It can only be PROCLAIMED periodically from the Papal seat during matters of doctrinal change within the church it’s self in the presence of the Cardinals and heads of the church.

      IE allowing priests to marry, or Nuns ability to serve communion, etc.

    • RetiredSpook February 8, 2012 / 10:48 am

      Dennis, it’s equally curious how you dare to judge the faith of people that you don’t know based on comments on an anonymous blog.

      • Cluster February 8, 2012 / 11:03 am

        judge not lest ye be judged

  14. Cluster February 8, 2012 / 8:33 am

    In my opinion, Santorum is the conservative equivalent to Obama. He is a Senator with very little other experience, and idealist rhetoric. He does not have executive experience, and his “pure” conservative credentials are questionable as well. I hardly think that someone who has voted to raise the debt limit every single time, voted to increase the Dept of Ed., and voted in favor of big labor can be called the pure “consistent” conservative. We already elected an inexperienced Senator – let’s not do it again.

    denny,

    I am humored by your sanctimony. Your support for a party and president that champions the murder of innocence, the restriction of religious liberties, and the approval of a cult that beheads infidels and stones women to death undermines the pious role you choose to play here on this blog. You remind me of that old advertisement line – “I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV”. In your case that would be – “I am not a Christian but I play one on B4V”

    • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:56 am

      cluster

      @ dennis……..“I am not a Christian but I play one on B4V”

      BINGO…….100% ON the money!!!!
      a true wolf in sheeps clothing as in the Bible (dennis)

  15. Mia February 8, 2012 / 10:37 am

    The Fed Reserve/Banksters are robbing us blind, and Ron Paul is the only one demanding accountability. Congress gives the president the authority to arrest, detain, and kill citizens without due process, and Ron Paul is the only one demanding a repeal. Both congress and the president trample all over states’ rights, and Ron Paul is the only one demanding a return to Constitutional rights. Congress continues to spend us into oblivion, and Ron Paul is the only one promising to balance the budget and cut spending by $1 trillion in his first year. The president continues to wage war in more and more sovereign nations without even a declaration of war, and Ron Paul is the only one demanding military restraint… If we keep voting how we’ve always voted, we’ll keep getting what we’ve always gotten. Ron Paul 2012.

  16. bardolf February 8, 2012 / 2:24 pm

    Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress
    By Shaun Waterman-The Washington Times Tuesday, February 7, 2012 U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses qualified pilots to operate Predator drones for surveillance along the border. Under the FAA Reauthorization Act, drones eventually could be used by police agencies and private companies across the U.S. (Associated Press)

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/

    Don’t forget, Ron Paul is crazy!

    • Cluster February 8, 2012 / 2:45 pm

      It would be hard for me to forget that Ron Paul is crazy, it’s just matter of degree.

      • bardolf February 8, 2012 / 6:16 pm

        Are certain opinions signs of a “disease” that has physical manifestations too or only a disease whose symptoms are the opinions themselves?

        Can a liberal say you are crazy for believing that taxes are too high with the same level of consistency as you offer? Is “crazy” an emotional lib word used to cut off discussion?

    • Cluster February 8, 2012 / 3:10 pm

      Don’t forget, Ron Paul is the one that believes had we not bombed and raped the ME that AQ and Islamic jihadism wouldn’t be an issue or a threat.

      A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

      • bardolf February 8, 2012 / 6:05 pm

        Nope

  17. dennis February 8, 2012 / 3:49 pm

    Spook, whose faith have I judged?

    Faith is a personal matter and I can’t see into anyone’s heart. I don’t call anyone here a bigot, phony, hypocrite or wolf in sheep’s clothing. I don’t do name-calling. I don’t recall accusing anyone here of a “ridiculous lie” for speaking of their faith, or touting “fake humility”, as Matt felt free to do with the president.

    What I do occasionally is point to things the Gospels teach or the Bible says. Sometimes I use those things as a template to help me understand the validity of things other people say. That’s one way I learn and try to discern between right and wrong.

    You take offense that I find some people here soft on Christ’s teachings, and maybe that’s the strongest thing I’ve said here.

    Let me try to explain by just one example. Christ challenges us all by saying “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who treat you badly.” I haven’t attained anything resembling perfection; however I do recognize that teaching, repeated elsewhere in Scripture as well as from the mouth of Christ, to be a valid ideal. To me it’s a standard of behavior to strive for, for anyone claiming to be a Christian.

    When that standard itself is ridiculed when applied in a real-world context, it calls into question whether the person ridiculing it actually respects the authority of Christ. They might be seen as soft on the teachings of Christ. I refer to a conversation yesterday regarding the Geneva Conventions and the way we treat all human beings.

    Last week a thread over the issue of Bible translators changing a nuance of Scripture regarding the Incarnation of Christ produced over a hundred posts. The matter was called “sickening” and Wycliffe Bible translators were characterized as spineless, appeasers, etc.

    The doctrine of Christ as sole mediator between God and man is at the very heart of Christianity, of at least equal importance with last week’s topic. Why would anyone be a bigot this week for noting that the denomination of one of the presidential candidates teaches what some see as a competing doctrine?

    However awkward it might be to acknowledge, the Supreme Court is stacked 2:1 with adherents of that denomination, quite disproportionate to their numbers in our population. Equally awkward but relevant, it’s an authoritarian institution (“big religion” as cluster aptly noted on another thread) with a centuries-long history of enmeshment with politics, which claims the authority to dictate over the conscience of all others. We have seen an inclination toward that attitude on the part of Santorum already, regarding the matter of contraception. It would be more useful to hear someone rationally address those facts, than attack me as a bigot for merely noting them.

    • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 5:27 pm

      Matthew 10:35-45

      35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father,
      a daughter against her mother,
      a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
      36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]

      37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

      40 “Anyone who welcomes you welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever welcomes a righteous person as a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”

      The Greek words translated “divide” and “division” (diamerizo and diamerismos) mean exactly that. They mean division, disunity.

      In Matthew’s gospel Jesus expresses the same thought in even more colorful terms

      “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). I do not think “sword”, in this text, implies bloodshed. I read it as a reference to the fact that the word of God is ” sharper than any double-edged sword”; it “penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). God’s truth is a sword which divides truth from falsity, right from wrong, good from evil, and much else. It confronts us and requires us to make decisions. The way we make those decisions can divide us.

      ” New American Standard Bible (©1995)
      “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?

      nor a wolf in sheeps clothing

      The Lord Jesus Christ warned His followers, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15). The warning was important because Jesus later said to them: “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). The apostle Paul, with a deeply troubled spirit and in tears, penned a similar warning: “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:29). Throughout church history these warnings concerning professing Christians who deceive even the elect have seldom been taken seriously. How can the church be so easily deceived? According to Webster’s Dictionary “deceive” means “to lead astray or to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.” Could it be the church has not only lost its ability to discern truth from error but also to discern wolves from sheep?

      • Albino Luciani February 8, 2012 / 7:33 pm

        FINALLY!

        Our evil plan to remake America into an Italian-Vatican Protectorate is coming to fruition.

        I was just telling Father Boaz and Sister Mary-Contusion that I heard the Pope make a mistake once; calling his prosciutto ”bacon”! Well, thank God nobody else heard that, Huh? That would blow our whole 2,000 year scheme and we’d look as foolish as that Heaven’s Gate crowd.

        I mean, if we don’t have a leader capable of perfection in everything what the hell do we have to get these sheep to give up their money? They give less than Mormons now, and that’s while they think the old Kraut is always right. Imagine how much they’d give if they knew he sleeps with a light on.

      • Albino Luciani February 8, 2012 / 7:35 pm

        Wait … did I say that out loud?

      • neocon1 February 8, 2012 / 8:36 pm

        I thought it was a Phart…..

    • Jeremiah February 8, 2012 / 11:03 pm

      Dennis,

      You say a lot to say nothing at all. There is no content to what you write.

      You just need to man up and say that you don’t like Santorum because he is for the God-created & ordained, time-honored, definition of marriage between a man and a woman. And he is a true conservative as it relates to economics. He is for life/against abortion. He cares. You want somebody like Obama who doesn’t.

    • tiredoflibbs February 9, 2012 / 7:11 am

      denny: “Spook, whose faith have I judged?”

      denny: “It’s truly curious how the more outspoken supporters of Christianity here are so soft on what Jesus Christ and the Bible actually teach.”

      ’nuff said.

  18. watsonredux February 8, 2012 / 11:44 pm

    RetiredSpook said, “Dennis, it’s equally curious how you dare to judge the faith of people that you don’t know based on comments on an anonymous blog.”

    Given that this is an anonymous blog, it’s not like he’s judging the faith of anyone, since the comments are anonymous and the commenters are unknown by definition. Even you, a B4V author, have chosen to remain anonymous.

    But speaking of judging faith, I find your statement about Dennis rather rich considering Matt’s post a few days ago in which he rejected President Obama’s faith as nothing but a stunt calculated to be “politically advantageous to tout fake humility before a God higher than him.”

    Matt also said, “Does anyone truly, honestly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly believe that Obama wakes up each morning to say a short prayer and spend even a half a second in scripture or devotion.”

    And, “Does Obama really expect us to believe that? I guess if you still believe the earth is flat you might believe him.”

    I realize, spook, that these were Matt’s words, but you clearly had no problem with it, and joined in the fun. If it’s that easy for you all to question someone’s faith–someone you don’t know nor have ever met–then making similar statements about anonymous posters should cause you no concern at all.

    • Cluster February 9, 2012 / 7:58 am

      watson,

      Coming from someone who subscribes to an ideology that uses a crystal ball to demonize nearly everyone they oppose, I unfortunately have to consider your indignation to be laughable at best. Most liberals, including yourself, have been able to, on many occasions, peer into the hearts of conservatives and determined them to be selfish, heartless, homophobic racists. So tell us again how one can not judge anonymous posters – I found that line to be especially ironic.

    • RetiredSpook February 10, 2012 / 11:38 am

      Watson,

      I’m on vacation visiting my grandkids in Kansas, so I’ve haven’t been on a computer since Wednesday. In Dennis’ case, he’s less anonymous that you or I because he uses his real name, and I’ve read some of what he’s written in other venues. Dennis is as close to a religious narcissist as I have ever run across in my lifetime.

      In Obama’s case, he’s a public figure, and a great deal is known about the role religion has played in his life, much by his own words. In fact, one of the few elements of his past (and present) that he and his handlers have been unable to hide is his religious training and background. Anyone who wouldn’t question his motives WRT spiritual matters is either hiding under a rock or so partisan that they’re willing to overlook his words and actions over a prolonged period.

  19. dennis February 10, 2012 / 12:46 am

    Cluster, spook, Jer – you can’t name anyone I’ve morally judged. It’s like Harry Truman said, I just tell the truth and it feels like judgment to some poor souls. My biggest fault here, and it’s a hole I keep falling into, is that I keep thinking I’m writing for objective, thinking people.

    Meanwhile the regulars here seem to be pretty comfortable with name-calling, insults, character defamation – business as usual at b4v. If not on this thread, pick any one at random. Carry on – you always do.

    • RetiredSpook February 10, 2012 / 11:23 am

      My biggest fault here, and it’s a hole I keep falling into, is that I keep thinking I’m writing for objective, thinking people.

      No, your biggest fault is that you’re a closed-minded, egotistical twit who thinks that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

  20. Jeremiah February 10, 2012 / 2:08 am

    The main thing you do wrong here, Dennis, is you butcher the Word of God to suit your own desires and wants…and that in and of itself is an insult to the very character of the Creator who inspired the very penning of the Greatest Book ever written, the Holy Writ. It is a sickening shame!

    My best advice to you, is find someone who can teach you the very basics of Scriptural meaning, and a good start there, would be … for earlier times, Adam Clarke, and for more up-to-date knowledge such noted theologians as R. Kent Hughes and Ravi Zacharias.

    • dennis February 10, 2012 / 2:53 am

      Jer, I allow myself to be instructed by the Word of God without political influences. I pay attention to linguistics as well. As for noted theologians, my father, uncle and brother all were divinity school graduates – theologians by definition. Although I love and respect them I never relied on them for biblical interpretation, just on the unadulterated Scriptures.

      The work of the Holy Spirit is wholly sufficient and does not require human assistance. Your problem seems to be that you’ve relied on human interpretations for too long to be able to listen to the still small voice for yourself.

      That’s the only reason I can think of that you would subscribe to all the un-Christian right wing skubala that you do. For the interpretation of that word see Philippians 3:8 in the old King James Version – one of the few authorized translations not afraid to use the literal meaning of Paul’s word. (That’s for all you scriptural purists out there in b4v land, ref. the absurd “Game.Over.” thread… see also http://skubala.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/no-skubala-sherlock/)

      • neocon1 February 10, 2012 / 11:55 am

        dennistooge

        Jer, I allow myself to be instructed by the Word of God without political influences.

        WHERE? sun yon moons “church”?
        or are you a sociologist?

        does killer tiller collect donations and do you have lesbians as “*priests”* in your “*church?”*

      • neocon1 February 10, 2012 / 11:57 am

        sociologist? = Scientologist?

      • neocon1 February 10, 2012 / 12:01 pm

        dennistooge

        and you are the KING of BS = BULL SKUBALA

        ps the small voices in your head are telling you to kill your self by marxism and islam…have at it Skubala king!

Comments are closed.