Coffee Machine Beats Hillary in Indiana
"My triple espresso mocha latte frapuccino tastes like hot water"
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically






















Comment by Dugg— 2008/05/01 @ 10:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by riffran— 2008/05/02 @ 04:49 AM — (Reply)
It's like GHWB's amazement with the grocery scanner.
Comment by Brooke— 2008/05/02 @ 08:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/05/02 @ 08:23 AM — (Reply)
When America had just settled into the Obama vs. Clinton vs. McCain political equation, Ron Paul proved Monday night that his message still has a place in the fray.
Earlier Monday, Clinton said she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. She elaborated on that statement in later interviews, saying her goal was to reestablish a Cold-War-style deterrence.
The Chronicle asked Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul about Clinton’s statement during a press conference immediately before his rally at the University of Montana.
“She doesn’t understand the presidency if she’s making this type of commitment,” he said, launching into a discussion on foreign affairs.
Paul explained his core position through the lens of the current Iraqi conflict. He asserted that we are in the midst of an unconstitutional war that was never declared by Congress. He also expressed his distaste of treaties under which America is obligated to go to war.
When asked what his response would be under the same circumstances, Paul said Israel is safer without our presence and could sufficiently wipe out Iran on its own. He pointed out that Iran ‘may’ have been working on ‘a’ nuke since 2003, while Israel possesses 300.
“Iran is the peacemaker over there right now,” Paul said. “We wouldn’t do anything unless Congress says we should declare war.”
Paul would promote non-interventionism, focusing on self-reliance and seeking to “avoid entangling alliances” to prevent unwanted conflict. He also felt that because of the U.S. acting as the “world police,” we have fewer allies and more enemies than ever before.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/05/03 @ 04:21 PM — (Reply)