I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

probably cuz he's ugly as sin and resembles an underpants gnome

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.

And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

(05-28-2011 07:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.
And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

I think the publishers put the author on the cover when they expect the book to sell more because of who wrote it than what it says.

Ron's books sell because of the ideas they express. BTW, I'm having cucumbers from his garden for dinner.

(05-28-2011 07:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

probably cuz he's ugly as sin and resembles an underpants gnome

And we're all about electing the pretty one. Yay.

(05-29-2011 08:11 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

probably cuz he's ugly as sin and resembles an underpants gnome

And we're all about electing the pretty one. Yay.

why do people always assume that's what i'm trying to say? I would certainly vote for Ron Paul, but I'm just saying maybe they didn't put him on the cover because he's extremely ugly. This has nothing to do with how i'd vote or how i'd like people to vote.

(05-29-2011 10:39 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 08:11 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

probably cuz he's ugly as sin and resembles an underpants gnome

And we're all about electing the pretty one. Yay.

why do people always assume that's what i'm trying to say? I would certainly vote for Ron Paul, but I'm just saying maybe they didn't put him on the cover because he's extremely ugly. This has nothing to do with how i'd vote or how i'd like people to vote.

My comment was less calling you out than an indictment of the general vapidity of our culture.

Fact is, we're both right.

(05-29-2011 10:53 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 10:39 AM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 08:11 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:06 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

probably cuz he's ugly as sin and resembles an underpants gnome

And we're all about electing the pretty one. Yay.

why do people always assume that's what i'm trying to say? I would certainly vote for Ron Paul, but I'm just saying maybe they didn't put him on the cover because he's extremely ugly. This has nothing to do with how i'd vote or how i'd like people to vote.

My comment was less calling you out than an indictment of the general vapidity of our culture.

Fact is, we're both right.

well in that case I agree with you

What were you doing in his garden?

Does he know the cucumbers are missing?

For some reason, I'm picturing that Geico commercial where the woodchucks are shucking the wood.

(05-28-2011 07:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.
And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

I think the publishers put the author on the cover when they expect the book to sell more because of who wrote it than what it says.

Ron's books sell because of the ideas they express. BTW, I'm having cucumbers from his garden for dinner.

(05-29-2011 12:17 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What were you doing in his garden?
Does he know the cucumbers are missing?
For some reason, I'm picturing that Geico commercial where the woodchucks are shucking the wood.

(05-28-2011 07:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.
And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

I think the publishers put the author on the cover when they expect the book to sell more because of who wrote it than what it says.
Ron's books sell because of the ideas they express. BTW, I'm having cucumbers from his garden for dinner.

No, they were gifts. Like the squash I'm having today.

(05-29-2011 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 12:17 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What were you doing in his garden?
Does he know the cucumbers are missing?
For some reason, I'm picturing that Geico commercial where the woodchucks are shucking the wood.

(05-28-2011 07:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.
And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

I think the publishers put the author on the cover when they expect the book to sell more because of who wrote it than what it says.
Ron's books sell because of the ideas they express. BTW, I'm having cucumbers from his garden for dinner.

No, they were gifts. Like the squash I'm having today.

So he is buying your vote. I thought you rightwingers were opposed to such tactics.

Btw, given the "love" for the man on this board, I was thinking you were snacking on Paul's "cucumber".

(05-29-2011 12:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 12:17 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  What were you doing in his garden?
Does he know the cucumbers are missing?
For some reason, I'm picturing that Geico commercial where the woodchucks are shucking the wood.

(05-28-2011 07:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 07:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.
And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

I think the publishers put the author on the cover when they expect the book to sell more because of who wrote it than what it says.
Ron's books sell because of the ideas they express. BTW, I'm having cucumbers from his garden for dinner.

No, they were gifts. Like the squash I'm having today.

So he is buying your vote. I thought you rightwingers were opposed to such tactics.

Btw, given the "love" for the man on this board, I was thinking you were snacking on Paul's "cucumber".

And you wonder why your rep is deep in the red

(05-28-2011 07:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-28-2011 06:43 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I believe gts' pic was pointing out every book but Paul's plastering the authors portrait on the cover. Though authors, usually I think, have little to nothing to say in the matter.

On the first part, correct. On the second, not so much.

And LOL @ Rebel helping prove my point.

How long has Paul been in office? What's he done?

Exactly. He does bring home the pork though.

(05-29-2011 02:57 PM)Rebel Wrote:  How long has Paul been in office? What's he done?

Exactly. He does bring home the pork though.

He has been a tireless defender of freedom, liberty, and small government constitutional principles. And he tries to bring back to his district about what they have to pay in federal taxes. Ron Paul turned down FEMA and aid $$$ for his district after hurricanes. His district includes Galveston. Oooo yea real big porker there buddy! (And btw, he has voted against every single unbalanced budget ever presented before him.)

(05-29-2011 03:14 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(05-29-2011 02:57 PM)Rebel Wrote:  How long has Paul been in office? What's he done?

Exactly. He does bring home the pork though.

He has been a tireless defender of freedom, liberty, and small government constitutional principles. And he tries to bring back to his district about what they have to pay in federal taxes. Ron Paul turned down FEMA and aid $$$ for his district after hurricanes. His district includes Galveston. Oooo yea real big porker there buddy! (And btw, he has voted against every single unbalanced budget ever presented before him.)

Sounds like the man and you are both heartles. If it is true that he turned down FEMA and $$$ aid then either his constituants are stupid for keeping him in office and/or they "think" like you and him and believe that asking for government help is beneath them because only they are responsible for their lives. I am going to guess it is both. It really is a sad day when people turn down help from the government to help rebuild the lives of their constituants. THe man REALLY needs psychological help. It seems to be a Republican thing though since that one a-hole basically did the same thing a few days ago. Compassionate conservatives my ass.

According to you, Texan Rick Perry accepts gov't aid he is an a$$hole. Texan Ron Paul turns down gov't aid he is an a$$hole. The psychic of the lefters is cycloidal insanity. Roberta is off his rocker...... again and again .....

(05-30-2011 12:37 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  According to you, Texan Rick Perry accepts gov't aid he is an a$$hole. Texan Ron Paul turns down gov't aid he is an a$$hole. The psychic of the lefters is cycloidal insanity. Roberta is off his rocker...... again and again .....

Um, no. I have no problems with him taking the money if he spent it where it would stimulate the economy. I guess one can argue that putting it towards the budget deficit would help. My problem with him is that he takes the money and turns around and bashes the program. THat is what makes him and a-hole-well that and he is a Republican. :) As for Paul, letting your constituants suffer is not my idea of compassion. I don't really have a problem with having government money go to those who are in need of help.

(05-30-2011 12:05 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-30-2011 12:37 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  According to you, Texan Rick Perry accepts gov't aid he is an a$$hole. Texan Ron Paul turns down gov't aid he is an a$$hole. The psychic of the lefters is cycloidal insanity. Roberta is off his rocker...... again and again .....

Um, no. I have no problems with him taking the money if he spent it where it would stimulate the economy. I guess one can argue that putting it towards the budget deficit would help. My problem with him is that he takes the money and turns around and bashes the program. THat is what makes him and a-hole-well that and he is a Republican. :) As for Paul, letting your constituants suffer is not my idea of compassion. I don't really have a problem with having government money go to those who are in need of help.

All 57 states put the money in the general fund. The stimulus money was political payoff. Those that don't bash it, are as ignorant as the day is long. It's a failure. When are lefters going to concede that it is fiasco.