The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Gift horse

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Is this some kind of leader? (see in situ)

Gift horse

Apparently Red you have forgotten a wise old saying: "Never look a gift horse in the mouth." Since you seem to have forgotten that saying, let me remind you of exactly what it means. Back when trading/selling/buying horses was a common activity and probably still today, checking the horses mouth was a fair indicator of the horse's condition. You could tell quite a bit about the condition of a particular animal that way. A reasonable guess at age by the tooth wear, how it was maintained by the overall conditions in the mouth and by bit wear one could tell how hard it had been worked over its life. However, when someone GIVES you a horse for free, you don't go yanking open the horses mouth in front of the gift giver.

How does the above apply here you might ask? This "leader" is our "gift horse." We didn't recruit this person, the heavy lifting was done for us by the TSA and the screw-ups in government who support the loss of liberty. Therefore, she is in fact a "gift horse." And here you are, effectively yanking her mouth open by criticizing her grammar. Whenever someone criticizes my grammar or spelling in a debate, I always slam them with the saying, "yeah right, criticize my spelling, truly the last refuge of a scoundrel, cause you ain't got no game" (and the deliberate grammatical error in "'cause you ain't got no game" is just another jolt of electricity I jab into their snarky little mindset). It truly is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Maybe you laid into her because she took to long to "see the light" as it were. Or maybe you have an inferiority complex and making a post as unwise as the one you made here makes you feel better? But to pick on a person who is not a professional PR type, but a lay person who had the courage to step up and take the "reigns" (pun intended) and by doing so, preventing the fledgeling tea party, in one of the nastiest regions to form one, from galloping (lol) headlong into a ditch is lower than whale dung. If the second reason was what you were after, do you really feel better now? I hope this message wipes that feeling out of your snarky little brain with a vengeance. Who knows for sure what your reasoning really was, only you can provide that info.

In any case, bashing her upside the head in a public forum?? Not to bright Einstein. Where does any self-respecting, newbee paul-bot find the bestest (and if you slam me for that and I'll break it off in ya), latest and greatest news and info? The DP, that's where (thank you Michael Nystrom). And when she gets here, what does she see? She see's this kinda crap from you, thereby confirming all the B.S. out there about how Ron Paul supporters are a bunch of ungrateful, whiny, rude crybabies. Smooth move ex-lax.

To correct this colossal blunder you have just made, I strongly suggest you retract your posts on grammatical error before our new ally from the DC tea party spots it (and this goes for everyone who sided with Red in the discussion). Then, if you really DO care about what that statement looks like on the Ron Paul 2012 site (which I assume is where it resides since the original posting cites it as the source), you should contact her personally (or RP 2012) and give gentle, constructive advice and see if she can get her submission to the site edited.

Now go see if you can fix your screw up. Also, check up on your critical thinking skills because leaving a post out here like the one you made for our newbee to see leaves me in serious doubt as to their condition. Did I get my "their" correct in the previous sentence? Sheesh...