|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
posted September 26, 2011 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ron Paul will have no problem beating Obama, ...
Wait... who said... what? The OSM is making my head hurt again... Just doesn't add up, if you think about it and cary the 1000.
Obama may be unpopular, but I think that he has the support of more than 2% of the fringe of our country... if I am wrong, someone please correct me.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 26, 2011 06:09 PM |
|
|
This is similar to the 2004 election. It was the Democrats' election to lose and they did so. This time, it will be the Republicans' election to lose and they will do so.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 26, 2011 10:09 PM |
|
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
About the Paul vs Obama, look at the polls, not what the media wants the reality to be. Here is just a little treat:
Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%
Wait, that's just a random statistic. Give me a cold, hard, evidence backed fact. (Going through these one-by-one BTW. If any are really good for evidence, then I will address them as so.)
One month old...
Quote:
Poll: Ron Paul Could Beat Obama, More Electable Than Bachmann
second part of that statement is just so obvious that it made me Lol. Remember, I do dislike Backman more than Paul, I just said he was out there.
That being said:
Quote:
The interesting numbers in the poll seem to come from the party-affiliated respondents. A full 11 percent of Republican voters said they would vote for Obama if they had to choose between the two -- the highest percentage in the survey. The number, however, is offset by the number of Democrats who would defect and vote for Paul, which registered at 12 percent (also the highest percentage). Yet, among the important independent voters, those that candidates court more intensely due to their ability to shift an election (which would otherwise most likely remain fairly close and competitive along party lines), Paul also bests Obama by three points.
Minnesota Congresswoman Bachmann loses nationally to Obama by four points overall. She also loses the independent vote by six percentage points.
That makes him electable.
this is not evidence. Sorry, but these are the fringe voters who are so zealot-based that they would pay money to vote. They are the radicals of both sides. Also, look at the last two paragraphs. They have absolutely no correlation with each other, yet the author believes that the fact that Bachman looses to Obama somehow makes Paul more likely to be elected. Basic grasp of logic, lost on the author.
...
Oh, and 4 month old article.
Though he does get some things right:
Quote:
Still, the poll numbers do not say Ron Paul will win the GOP nomination or a general election against President Obama. But they do say he can. And that's more than could have -- or even would have -- been said by most -- especially in the national media -- just a few days ago.
I have a chance of winning against Obama. Not as high as Paul, but a chance.  I just need to be through college and in a major political party so that I have funding, age and education... Don't state it as a fact, please.
Quote:
Although the Gallup Poll, which was released on August 22, indicated that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had the best chance overall to defeat the incumbent Democratic president (Romney was the only Republican candidate to score better numbers than President Obama),
This is right too.*
Quote:
CNN Poll: Ron Paul Stands Best Chance Against Obama
Outdated site is completely outdated.  By 4 months.
Quote:
Gallup poll: Ron Paul trails President Obama by 2 percent
Again, 1 month old paper is out-dated! Give me today's paper, or a paper from this week!
Quote:
New poll shows Ron Paul-Barack Obama election would be close
The same thing, over and over. Also,
Quote:
Paul, a Libertarian Republican, would receive just two thirds of votes from the GOP, while Obama would earn 79 percent support from Democrats. 47 per cent of Independent voters would support Paul compared to 28 per cent who’d vote for the President.
It contradicts itself. The poll question was, "If you had to choose between only President Obama and only Ron Paul, who would you choose?" 79+28=107. 47+66=113. But again, these were given only two choices, and independents will likely vote independent. So without independents, the ratio is 79 to 66, a handy win for Obama if the zealots are to represent the rest of the US.
Oh, and this article happens to be 5 months old.
Quote:
Ron Paul Most Competitive Against Obama in Latest Poll
...
*cough*
Quote:
SOURCE: Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
What the heck are they supposed to say? "Oh sorry, we would loose hands down in an election race?" They would get fired!*
Also, Fringe newspaper is fringe.
*Personal opinion.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 05:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wait, that's just a random statistic. Give me a cold, hard, evidence backed fact. (Going through these one-by-one BTW. If any are really good for evidence, then I will address them as so.)
One month old...
That is in no way a random statistic. Do you even know what the Rasmussen Reports are? It's one of the most trustworthy statistical poll agencies there is. Your ignorance about them does not exclude them as a reliable source.
But don't take my word for it;
"Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today."
-Larry Sabato, University of Virginia
This alone I think has proven my point, but since you kept on going, why not do the same?
Quote:
- Long quoted text above -
You completely ignored the poll numbers and attacked the writers personal interpretation of the numbers.
"Although the Gallup Poll, which was released on August 22, indicated that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had the best chance overall to defeat the incumbent Democratic president (Romney was the only Republican candidate to score better numbers than President Obama), Ron Paul polled only two points back of the President among registered voters (45 percent to 47 percent)."
Again, the polls show he's pretty much head to head with Obama, not a 2% fringe.
Oh, and the article is only one month old.
Quote:
Outdated site is completely outdated. By 4 months.
I think you are missing the point. All the polls, done by different agencies and over a long period of time (I think these covered about 5 months) show the same results. If you've had any courses in statistics, you know that's a very strong indication that the numbers are fairly accurate.
Quote:
Again, 1 month old paper is out-dated! Give me today's paper, or a paper from this week!
Sure, here is one;
Ron Paul Most Competitive Against Obama in Latest Poll
And here are the numbers from that poll directly: Link
Quote:
The same thing, over and over. Also,
Quote:
Paul, a Libertarian Republican, would receive just two thirds of votes from the GOP, while Obama would earn 79 percent support from Democrats. 47 per cent of Independent voters would support Paul compared to 28 per cent who’d vote for the President.
It contradicts itself. The poll question was, "If you had to choose between only President Obama and only Ron Paul, who would you choose?" 79+28=107. 47+66=113. But again, these were given only two choices, and independents will likely vote independent. So without independents, the ratio is 79 to 66, a handy win for Obama if the zealots are to represent the rest of the US.
Oh, and this article happens to be 5 months old.
Let me correct the math for you. The article is comparing the percentages within the different groups. (percentages of different groups do not equal the percentage of the total group).
GOP: 2/3 (66%) will vote for Paul.
Democrats: 79% will vote for Obama.
Independents: 47% Ron Paul vs 28% Obama (the remaining 25% is probably undecided)
Oh, and yes the point is once again that over time the polls show the same thing, that Paul actually has a good chance against Obama, but getting through the primaries looks a bit harder.
Quote:
...
*cough*
Quote:
SOURCE: Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
What the heck are they supposed to say? "Oh sorry, we would loose hands down in an election race?" They would get fired!*
Also, Fringe newspaper is fringe.
It's not so hard to look up the polls they are referring to. It's a press release covering the three major polling agencies. I could give the sources to you, but you'd probably argue that they are too old.
So here are the latest poll results that compare Obama and Paul from the three major polling agencies:
Poll Watch: Reuters/Ipsos 2012 Presidential Survey - Reuters/Ipsos (September 8)
Obama 49% vs Paul 42%
Obama in Close Race Against Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul - Gallup (August 22)
Obama 47% vs Paul 45% (Registered voters)
Obama 45% vs Paul 44% (National adults)
Election 2012: Barack Obama 39%, Ron Paul 38% - Rasmussen (August 24)
Obama 39% vs Paul 38%
You don't get more "recent, cold, hard, evidence backed facts" than these 
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 05:56 AM |
|
|
And there we go, the right argument is presented.  What? You thought I was just trolling? That's what the VW is for. I wanted to see if you would make a good argument for your point, and well done sir, well done. I do not believe that Ron Paul will be able to win the Primaries, but you have at least given reasonable doubt to the statement that he could win, and you defended your sources rather well, if with the tiniest smidgen of bias towards them being right (natural, since you're a human being).
There we go, job done! HC subliminal teacher away!
BTW: This also helps counter future arguments people may have with you. If someone skeptically asks you why you have such faith in Paul, you have many, many sources to draw on right at your fingertips.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 06:59 AM |
|
|
All this research on a possible Obama v Paul campaign is interesting but one huge fact is standing in the way of this match-up: Ron Paul will never win the Republican nomination. He cannot make it through the gauntlet that is the primary process. So it's a nice thought but I wouldn't spend too much time arguing about it. 
I'm not sure who will come out as the nominee but I don't think the Republicans can field anyone that will beat Obama.
The only predictions I will make at the moment...apart from the Obama winning re-election I guess I just made..are that ROmney wins New Hampshire primary and Perry or Bachmann wins Iowa.
____________
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 08:17 AM |
|
|
So let me have another go at it then, focusing at the republican primaries. This should really have been covered by the media, but since that clearly has not been done I'll post it here.
*Ron Paul has won most straw polls and comes out on top cumulatively. (Source)
*He has consistently been number 1, 2 or 3 in all the major scientific polls, with numbers from 10% and above. Here's the latest Gallup poll:
*He is number two in fundraising (behind Romney) and number one for individual donations. (Source)
*He has received more military donations than all other GOP candidates combined! And also has more than Obama! (Source)
*He is the only candidate who has accurately predicted the housing bubble, economic crises and the devaluation of the dollar, among other things. Video 1 Video 2 Video 3 Video 4 +++
There is nothing that indicates that it is impossible for him to win the primaries. He's in the top tier and his numbers are rising.
But while I'm at it, here are some other facts, suggesting that his number will continue growing:
*He has an extremely consistent voting record, saying and doing the same thing for over 20 years. He has not flip-flopped on issues as most of the other candidates have.
*He has been married to the same woman for over 50 years, and does not have the usual scandals that surround politicians.
*He is a doctor and has practiced medicine for many years besides being in politics.
*He served as a flight surgeon in the Vietnam war. And if I'm not mistaken I think he's the only GOP candidate that has actually served in the military (correct me if I'm wrong).
*Heard about auditing the FED? 4 years ago he was practically the only one in Washington that talked about it. After the 08 election he's shifted the whole nation on the issue!
And regarding Iowa, Ron Paul statistically tied the straw poll with Bachmann, so he has an equal chance of winning the primary there.
Note: I might seem biased, but the numbers and statistics don't lie.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 09:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My post was first cencored and then deleted. So it's not allowed to discuss candidates that don't represent the status quo?
Sorry, but the reason for that is quite different than it looks like on the first view 
I wanted to quote your post and add a comment. When done, I saw I didn't hit the "quote" button, but the "edit" button. So your post was "ruined", and the sense was gone. To my strong dismay, there is no way to reverse that fault with the current forum software. That's why I deleted that whole post. When I then wanted to inform you about that mishap, I got disconnected...murphys's law...
Sorry again....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 10:25 AM |
|
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 02:16 PM |
|
|
Too bad I can't watch either of those here in Canada.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 02:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Too bad I can't watch either of those here in Canada
I guess it would make sense to illegalise the watching of foreign political clips/shows/discussions/ and whatever else them ruffians get up to
(I didn't watch them either, due to the computer being on mute  )
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 27, 2011 09:15 PM |
|
|
Brukernavn,
The numbers don't lie, ok, but what are they actually saying? Paul came in a very close second to Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll. You do know this is a poll where the campaigns basically pay people to vote for them, right? It cost's like $30 or something to vote and the campaigns pay supporters fees to vote. It is the least democratic vote ever and effectively means that the straw poll means nothing.
I'm not saying it is impossible for him to win the primaries but I will say he has a one in a billion shot. (not a scientific approximation obviously)
He may be the top fundraiser for individual donations but he never really stopped running after the 2008 primaries. He has been raising ever since. And the military donations bit is a nice statistic, would be a nice point in a campaign ad maybe but it just isn't relevant.
The "extremely consistent voting record" is, again, just something for campaign ads but I haven't heard him bring that up in a debate. I've watched most of all of them but after a while it just feels like I'm torturing myself listening to them and I stop.
Been married for 50 years, good for for him. If the primaries come down to him and Gingrich maybe you may have something there. Otherwise, you're just saying he's old and John McCain already had that to contend with last time.
The military service thing isn't really relevant either. I haven't heard that brought up as an issue by anyone.
The Fed won't be audited so this is a non-issue. Who really cares about auditing the Fed anyway? People need jobs and despite all the promises made by the Republicans during the 2010 elections, nothing has been done by them.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 12:14 AM |
|
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 12:47 AM |
|
|
I wonder why I'm the one supporting all my claims with statistics and data, while the rest just can make unfounded statements. But here I am, still going at it
Quote:
The numbers don't lie, ok, but what are they actually saying? Paul came in a very close second to Bachmann in the Iowa straw poll. You do know this is a poll where the campaigns basically pay people to vote for them, right? It cost's like $30 or something to vote and the campaigns pay supporters fees to vote. It is the least democratic vote ever and effectively means that the straw poll means nothing.
The straw polls are not an accurate statistical tool, the scientific polls conducted by the major agencies are. Only three out of five winners of the Ames straw poll have won the nomination. But looking at all the straw polls together they do give you some information. Cumulative Results of all the straw polls through September 17, 2011 show: (Source)
#1 Ron Paul 19.74%
#2 Mitt Romney 14.27%
Quote:
I'm not saying it is impossible for him to win the primaries but I will say he has a one in a billion shot. (not a scientific approximation obviously)
But this is, as you admit, nothing more than subjective assertion. The latest Gallup poll shows he has 14% of the votes, in third place behind a declining Perry and a stagnating Romney. To be fair he at least has a 14% chance, that is continually increasing.
Quote:
He may be the top fundraiser for individual donations but he never really stopped running after the 2008 primaries. He has been raising ever since. And the military donations bit is a nice statistic, would be a nice point in a campaign ad maybe but it just isn't relevant.
The important thing is that people (not corporations) are donating, and more individuals than any other candidate. This is more a testimony of the faithfulness of his followers, but it also shows he's a serious contender, and not to be dismissed lightly.
The military donations are important because of his foreign policy, wanting to get the troops home. In light of the criticism he has received because of his position I would say it's a very relevant statistic. It shows that the troops themselves actually support his message.
Quote:
The "extremely consistent voting record" is, again, just something for campaign ads but I haven't heard him bring that up in a debate. I've watched most of all of them but after a while it just feels like I'm torturing myself listening to them and I stop.
That's the point, it doesn't show up in debates. All the other candidates accuse each other of changed positions, and being asked questions on their flip flopping. Paul is never asked these kind of questions simply because he hasn't flip flopped. The downside is that it gives him less appearance time in the debates
But the issue has been mentioned several times in the debates, his consistency that is, with the record to prove it.
Quote:
Been married for 50 years, good for for him. If the primaries come down to him and Gingrich maybe you may have something there. Otherwise, you're just saying he's old and John McCain already had that to contend with last time.
You have to remember who's going to vote in the primaries. It's republicans. This is actually a very strong argument for them.
Quote:
The military service thing isn't really relevant either. I haven't heard that brought up as an issue by anyone.
I agree, and I think he should make a bigger deal out of this. When did the commander in chief not need to have been in service? But even if it might not be a big deal, it sure isn't negative, with the high respect Americans have for veterans.
Quote:
The Fed won't be audited so this is a non-issue.
Since Ron Paul became the leader of the Federal Reserve Oversight Committee much information has been given already. Showing that secret loans have been given to foreign banks. More information has been requested, but it takes time. Although both republicans and democrats are supporting the idea, shown in the support given to the Federal Reserve Transparency Act that was introduced by Ron Paul in 2009.
How is this a non-issue? It's become a major topic in all economic discussions. And economy is, as you might know, important for people at this moment.
Quote:
Who really cares about auditing the Fed anyway?
75% Favor Auditing The Fed
Those who care about the purchasing power of their dollar? Those who lost their home during the financial crisis and saw the banks being bailed out? Those who are a little educated in monetary policy, the business cycle, inflation and fiat money systems?
There are many countries that have gone through hyperinflation already because of artificially low interest rates and a printing press. I believe Zimbabwe is the last example.
Quote:
People need jobs and despite all the promises made by the Republicans during the 2010 elections, nothing has been done by them.
It's because Republicans and Democrats alike follow Keynesian economic theory. All those who didn't see the bubble coming, and kept reassuring people nothing was wrong. Those who prolonged the crisis and are making the country worse every day. Those same people are still in Washington, while the Austrian free market economists who warned about the bubble, who warned about the crisis, and who are now warning about inflation, they are ignored.
Unless you understand what caused the problem in the first place, how do you expect to fix it? Isn't it more logical to think that the ones that actually warned about the bubble are the ones that know what they are talking about? Did you even see any of the videos I provided?
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:18 AM |
|
|
Now let's look for a scientific poll that shows where Paul defeats Romney, then you have your good chance of Paul winning the primaries.
No, Straw Polls really don't count, since you have to pay $30 to enter a single vote. Completely biased to the extremist sides that would actually pay to do something that they could do for free in a few months.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now let's look for a scientific poll that shows where Paul defeats Romney, then you have your good chance of Paul winning the primaries.
Yeah, that's not the case yet. But things can change quickly, just look at how Perry jumped to the front, and now is loosing his numbers just as fast. But the gap between Paul and Romney is not that great.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 01:43 AM |
|
|
I don't know man, looks kind of far when Romney has almost double Paul's support.
Oh, on a completely separate side note, I found out why I do not like Paul (or most of the candidates on either side) very much...
Quote:
My problem with Ron Paul is that he falls into the same mistake that many have made. This system is not good, so therefore, we must create an entirely different system. This is the same flaw that plagued the socialists, who formed out of opposition to the flaws of the private sector. Ron Paul makes this same mistake...albeit...in reverse. I empathize completely with Jon Stewart's comment, "Is our choice really between these two extremes? Is there no middle ground?" If people really want to craft a better society for themselves, really want a better world, then we as the people need to educate ourselves, and elect the proper people to congress and the white house. One man pointed out the problem splendidly. He stated that, when he was a child, he looked up the professions of the lawmakers. Nearly all of them were lawyers, people whose job it is to argue. He asked, "Where are the professors?! Where are the Scientists?! Where are the economists?! Where are the people who know the issues and what to do about them?!" This is the problem with our society...the ideal government is one, not run by Idealogues, but those of great intelligence, and pure intentions, put firmly in control of the people through a representative democracy. And as for those of you who argue against that, claiming that it contradicts our founding fathers. Remember this, our founding fathers were as diverse in their ideals and intentions as we are today, they were simply unified by a common enemy, the tyranny of Britain. There were those, who like Ron Paul, wanted a limited government, though even Thomas Jefferson, the figurehead of this belief system, made his own exeptions to the rule, such as the Louisiana Purchase, which was a breach of constitutional authority, but also a deal that was too good to pass up. Expanding our borders and granting us access to the abundance of resources that made us the nation we are today (unfortunately displacing the American Indians though in the process). Additionally, major turning moments in our history were institued by government. For example, the problems with states having too much power is best exemplified by two main points in our history, the Articles of Confederation, and the Civil War. The Articles of Confederation delegated too many powers to the state, resulting in a system in shambles and dissaray with no unity or comraderie. The Civil War was a result of the southern states allowing the buying and selling of human labor, and being strictly opposed to any change, or any "regulation" that would allow their livestock to have equal rights. An old political cartoon detailing the south's opposition was an Abolitionist supporting a black man, a chinese immigrant, and an indian on his shoulders, with a "proper" southern democrat chastising him from the sidelines for not "understanding the principles this country was based on." Government may not always work, but it has given us many things, and many freedoms. The freedom to vote if you are black, the freedom to vote if you are a woman, the freedom to purchase food without worry of it being polluted, the freedom to recieve education if you are too poor to afford it, and the freedom to unionize if you feel you are being repressed. Ultimately, it is not the fault of government that it does not function well, but the fault of the people who control government. The founding fathers promised us three things in a government: Of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our govenrment is run by people, we are the ones who vote the politicians into office, and we expect them to work on our behalf, as any public servant should. Instead of blindly trying to limit government. We should simply educate ourselves and elect the proper people to government. People who know what they are doing, and who answer only to the people. If certain regulations aren't working, or if the government isn't working as well as it could, then it is the responsibility of the people to make their voice heard and change govenrment accordingly. States, Corporations, and the Government all have one thing in common, they are run by people. Ultimately, the flaws in our society are not spawned from any one established entity, but from human beings. If we are ever to shape our country and our world into a better place for all, then we must overcome our own personal demons, educate ourselves, and run government accodringly, not with idealism and campaigns, but with intellect, good intentions, and action.
Got that from a comment on This video.
... [/off-topic]
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 04:10 AM |
|
|
The government works poorly, so the solution is more government? If you don't trust people in markets, who have no coercive power, why would you trust them with the coercive power of government?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 28, 2011 05:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The government works poorly, so the solution is more government? If you don't trust people in markets, who have no coercive power, why would you trust them with the coercive power of government?
... Where? No, this guy is saying that you need to elect the right people into government, the people who will get things done and will get them done well. The ones that you don't need are those who don't have any idea about what they are arguing about (... Most people in power...). So the solution? Educate your people to make the right choice, and educate your politicians as well. Chose from the best, not "He Who Has The Prettiest Face."
Also, there is no mention of putting more people in government in the quote I made, the closest thing I could find to what you said was, "Our govenrment is run by people, we are the ones who vote the politicians into office, and we expect them to work on our behalf, as any public servant should. Instead of blindly trying to limit government. We should simply educate ourselves and elect the proper people to government."
...
Yeah. [/off-topic, with emphasis]
Edit: Or do you mean Ron Paul? Because in that case I most heartily agree. I do not trust corporations and my neighbors to care about the state of my lawn when they stand to gain vast resources. I live in Minnesota, one of the states with the highest education ratings, health systems and one of the lowest crime ratings in the US, and I do not trust these people (Minnesotans) to rule my life properly. And no, I'm not a raging paranoid, I'm a realist. Companies couldn't care less about individuals.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
