Analyzing the New Hampshire Republican Debate

7 Responses to “Analyzing the New Hampshire Republican Debate”

Comments

Read below or add a comment...

  1. William Drake says:

    Sickening. The aberration of truth of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy argument is so predictably neo-conservative…so far from the truth it devalues the entire article and any shred of credibility to the observations.

    Specifically, the: he would “provide blueprints of our nuclear reactors online” ….WHAT?!?! How is that accurate? Since when is following the U.S. Constitution anti-American?

    What process of LOGIC has been used?

    None? Oh, ok…I thought so….

  2. That’s called “hyperbole,” Mr. Drake. Not everything I write is logical. I use hyperbole and understatement frequently. They’re called rhetorical devices.

    They get people’s attentions. Thanks for over-demonstrating their effectiveness.

  3. Oh, and I’m a paleo-conservative. Read my book.

  4. Stan Gustafson says:

    You comments on Ron Paul sicken me. Are you required to write this poor excuse of a reponse because you have to kiss the ass of the neocons who hire you. I quess you will do anything for a buck, including selling out the American People. You my friend are a pathetic excuse of a writer, and really should find some other line of work more suited to you IQ like a greeter at WalMart.

  5. Stan,

    Thanks. It’s words like these, from people like you, that keep me going on bleak evenings in January. Like my old dog, Molly, who stretches her arthritic legs to greet me in the evening, readers’ endorsements grip my heart and lighten my step.

    Please keep it coming.

    Yours,
    Bill Hennessy

  6. Oh, and, I am paying for this website, Mr. Gustafson!

Trackbacks



Share Your Thoughts...