Steven Colbert pulls ahead of Ron Paul in Polls

37 percent of voters prefer Colbert over to 32% for Kucinich.


And in a two way match up, it's pretty silly to include "one of the other candidates" in the poll.
 
Last edited:
It isn't fair to compare Colbert to anyone other than Obama, Clinton, Guiliani, Edwards, and McCain.

Most Americans don't KNOW who the others are, many don't know these, and some don't even know who the CURRENT President is.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
It isn't fair to compare Colbert to anyone other than Obama, Clinton, Guiliani, Edwards, and McCain.

Most Americans don't KNOW who the others are, many don't know these, and some don't even know who the CURRENT President is.
Click to expand...


c'mon, I'm just poking fun at the Ron-bots.


However, Ron Paul has a 5 million dollar campaign chest, and ten months on the campaign trail. As far as I know, Colbert has zero dollars. And is Steven Colbert really a household name? To poltically savy people like us, yes. But, c'mon, how many viewers does the Comedy Central channel have? A few hundred thousand? :)
 
Kucinich would be a great choice, I don't suppose he has much of a show though. Maybe Colbert might have him as a running mate? Or would that be against the rules?
 
I once tried to read "Atlas Shrugged", because a female that I was kinda into dug said text. I TRIED and I TRIED to find something other than UTTER STUPIDITY in said piece of fucking drivel.

Oddly, I don't completely disagree with Ms. Rand's philosophy. I just think that she was a TERRIBLE WRITER.
 
The situations fall too perfectly into ways that she obviously wants them too. None of her main characters ever have any flaws, they're all rich, never having to worry about money, the girls have sex with all the men in the novel without contraception and never get pregnant, and every damnable event in the world happens because people just want to get back at their "betters". I don't think I've ever read a book as radically paleo-monarchist and elitist as Rand's.
 
I'm told that it is her worst book, and that I should read "The Fountainhead". You know what? I've tried to read exactly ONE book written by Stephen King..."The Tommyknockers". I put it down after roughly 50 pages.


If I'm not willing to give King another chance, even after all the movies I've enjoyed which were developed from his books, Rand doesn't have a fucking chance.

MAYBE, I'd read a straight philosophy book, authored by her, but I cannot believe that she'd ever be a better writer than anyone othr than Ann Coulter.


For those of you who take umbrage with my statement about Coulter, I DARE you to read her contributions to USA Today. I've never seen such a waste of fucking wood pulp.
 
I get confused between Rand's "objectivism" and good, old-fashioned ethical egoism.

But I suppose I get easily confused.
 
I always found her writing extremely angry. Apparently, her first book, "We the Living" was autobiographical, and she actually did escape Russia during the Bolshevik revolution. She was vehemently anti-communist, which no doubt helped keep her in favor on this side of the ocean during the sixties, etc.

WM mentioned something about her sex scenes; I found that they were always violent, including in her first book, and I suspect that she had been a victim of rape and generally was angry about sex as well as everything else. Certainly there was an undercurrent (well, not always so "under") of anger in all her work, and of protest and in the persistently unfailing achievements of her main characters.

I think that her "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" was non-fiction, but doubt that her writing style would have been much improved above her fiction
writing. I had that book at one time, but also had difficulty getting into it and ultimately decided that it probably wouldn't be worth the effort.
 
Thorn said:
WM mentioned something about her sex scenes; I found that they were always violent, including in her first book, and I suspect that she had been a victim of rape and generally was angry about sex as well as everything else. Certainly there was an undercurrent (well, not always so "under") of anger in all her work, and of protest and in the persistently unfailing achievements of her main characters.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was this chapter in the Fountainhead. Whenever the main character first meets the female lead, they are very violent towards each other, and the main character RAPES her. I thought I had misread, but it spells out very clearly, later in the book, that he did RAPE her. And she "liked" it. I'm like, bullshit. A few people may fantasize about being "overcome by a man they are unable to resist", but no one has ever enjoyed an ACTUAL RAPE, and it's certainly nothing to be made lite of. The whole thing was disgusting.

He then leaves, but throughout the book, their relationship is of a violent nature. The female lead is clearly antisocial and abuses and lies to people, sometimes in completely ridiculous ways (like marrying someone and becoming a prop wife in order to punish herself, you really have to read it to see how she rationalizes that). The male lead is shizoid and has delusions of gradeur. And, for some odd reason, they all had "special knowledge" into how the world worked, they were all great and abused because no one would worship them for it, and there were only two or three people able to "understand". Ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top