Time Magazine Articles

His supporters are the equivalent of crabgrass," says GOP consultant Frank Luntz. "It's not the grass you want, and it spreads faster than the real stuff. They just like him because he's the most anti-Establishment of all the candidates, the most likely to look at the camera during the debates and say, 'Hey, Washington, f____ you.
Click to expand...

You are part of that fetid beltway establishment, Duntz.

FUCK YOU FRANK!
 
I like the #2 article caption, describing Giuliani as "increasingly seen as the GOP frontrunner."

They forgot to finish the sentence: "...by corporate-owned shills in the corrupt media and polling industries, and no one else."
 
The TIME article is nice in general and good publicity, but do you think that it's worth trying to push for a retraction of "Paul doesn't expect that he will win the nomination" in the last paragraph, maybe it will increase the campaign credibility if we get a retraction for that?
I think the reporter just made up that line because it fit into his ending paragraph, so maybe if we can get someone from the official campaign to contact TIME and demand evidence or retraction, he will comply and write a correction (both online and in the next print edition) saying that it's an error and he meant to write the he personally doesn't expect Ron Paul to win the nomination.
I think that it's worth pushing for retraction only if this story is in the print edition of TIME magazine. Anyone knows if it is?
 
It's always bittersweet isn't it ?(lol)

Anyways, pretty good article and not overtly unfair, we'll take it! Great exposure.
 
Crabgrass, huh?

One characteristic about crabgrass that he forgot to mention is that you can never get rid of it...you can only hope to contain it.

I'm a zoysia-man myself.

What an idiot. He even LOOKS like an idiot.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible. :cool:
 
iddo said:
The TIME article is nice in general and good publicity, but do you think that it's worth trying to push for a retraction of "Paul doesn't expect that he will win the nomination" in the last paragraph, maybe it will increase the campaign credibility if we get a retraction for that?
I think the reporter just made up that line because it fit into his ending paragraph, so maybe if we can get someone from the official campaign to contact TIME and demand evidence or retraction, he will comply and write a correction (both online and in the next print edition) saying that it's an error and he meant to write the he personally doesn't expect Ron Paul to win the nomination.
I think that it's worth pushing for retraction only if this story is in the print edition of TIME magazine. Anyone knows if it is?
Click to expand...

:mad: Time to contact TIME.
 
The article is merely saying Ron Paul is rising BUT only weird people support him.

Seems that they are trying to scare would-be RP supporters out of doing so. Being labeled "weird" or a "nerd" is more scary to the majority of people than lost liberties.
 
yea, they called us nerds way too many times...wtf is up with that.

they basically called every single one of us nerds... if you support ron paul you are a nerd according to time.

a good article overall, but they are trying to isolate us i think.
 
ClayTrainor said:
yea, they called us nerds way too many times...wtf is up with that.

they basically called every single one of us nerds... if you support ron paul you are a nerd according to time.

a good article overall, but they are trying to isolate us i think.
Click to expand...

If you will recall, the nerds always get the last laugh...at least that's what happened in the "Revenge of the Nerds" movies.
 
I can't figure out why Darwinism is the ultimate evil when applied to racial politics or economics but not when it's used to deconstruct Christianity (of course, I'm an advocate of the former but not the latter).
 
Ron Paul IS a nerd. What do you think-that all doctors are really Dr. McDreamy on Grey's Anatomy? Please.

I mean come on-no matter how right he is-you have to admit that we look really nerdy when we scream at the top of our lungs when he talks about the gold standard. I mean screaming at the top of one's lungs is usually reserved for the Sex Pistols, Tom Cruise, etc., lowbrow pop culture, not highbrow important ideas.

Embrace the nerdiness people! I would hazard a guess that nerds are more likely to vote than the average person anyway.
 
It's a disgusting article attacking the movement. Just more smear tactics from the controlled and biased main stream media.
 
Gimme Some Truth said:
The article is merely saying Ron Paul is rising BUT only weird people support him.

Seems that they are trying to scare would-be RP supporters out of doing so. Being labeled "weird" or a "nerd" is more scary to the majority of people than lost liberties.
Click to expand...

Actually, I prefer 'geek' to 'nerd' and let 'em bring on the labels in any case - I'll gladly wear a label if it will help get Ron Paul elected! Heck, I've been called worse by better than this putz!
 
It just completely angers and frustrates me that people take this kind of thing with a grain of salt. The media is controlled by the wrong people, but people here just won't admit it :confused::confused::confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jct74
Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Endorses Trump: ‘Best Candidate for Libertarians’
Replies
8
Views
855
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Debate: libertarians should vote for Kamala Harris (Eakle vs. Fitzgerald)
Replies
3
Views
4K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
The Overton Window
Replies
14
Views
4K
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
PAF
The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate
Replies
5
Views
130
TheTexan
TheTexan
Brian4Liberty
Zuckerberg Now Identifies As A Libertarian
2
Replies
24
Views
8K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top