Vincent Price Fans Will Get it Instinctively
December 20th, 2007 - 12:54 pm
Available on newsstands or by subscription today.
(For those not in the know, here’s IMDb to the rescue.)
UPDATE: I put this cover up hours ago, but the Paulbots have yet to spam me. What am I doing wrong?
UPDATE: My boss is even more shameless than I am.
Niiiiiice. Read it with organ music on the stereo.
Steve,
It’s probably not showing up in their Google searches yet.
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul
There, that should do it.
Because you didn’t include the magic words – Paul-Nuts.
Nice job, Stephen. I see you got his good side.
-I’m with Fred!
The proper term is Ronulans.
Some Technorati juice for Ronulans staying up all night looking for a blog post to pounce on with their cut-n-paste spams:
Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Neocon. Neocon. Ron Paul. Zionists. Zionists. Ron Paul. Ron Paul.
Although Phibes was nominally the villain of the movie, he was presented in such a way that he was actually more sympathetic than the people he was killing. Plus he had a bitchin’ clockwork band.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: I’m Reminded of….
Dada da dun dun;
Dada da dun dun;
Dada da dun dun;
Dun Dun Daaah.
With eerie electronic quavering music in the background.
Images of skull-like faces under big brains that can’t breath Earth’s atmosphere. Starring Jack Nickleson as the president.
But this guy you’ve got on your cover doesn’t seem to have anywhere near the ‘brains’ of the villainous Martians.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I never did get into the Dr. Phibes thing.
Robert,
What you say is true. and I actually do have quite a bit of sympathy for many of Dr. Phibes’ — er, Dr. Paul‘s — positions. But on balance, I think he’s bad news for those of us with libertarian leanings.
All of which is made clear in my article. I guess you’ll just have to pick up the new issue of TNI.
So Paul believes the U.S. was founded on the principles of individual liberty; anyone who believes that must be a real nut!
So basically you feel neglected and you beg for some attention from the Ronulans.
So Paul believes the U.S. was founded on the principles of individual liberty; anyone who believes that must be a real nut!
If Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, then I’m adamantly against it.
Hee hee, this is fun!
ron paul aggro +5
Two photos of Ron Paul now surfacing meeting with notorious Nazi StormTrooper Front leader Don Black and his son at a South Florida event last September.
It’s now up at LGF.
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Sure Enough….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you build it, they will come.]
Thank the lord you showed up Eric to weigh in on this controversy. Now it will finally go away like it should.
Odd how you suddenly appear every time there is a dubious smear campaign going on against Dr. Paul.
You are a sleazeball. Everyone knows you are a sleazeball. When you finally reveal your fingerprints are on this stuff, everyone backs away like it is the plague.
So, thanks, I am glad you have punched in and are on duty.
To the original OP. Maybe the “Paulians” are not attacking you because either your blog is completely isignificant or, like me, I just thought it was a little funny – no harm.
I got another one. Stephen Green in his own movie!
“The Man with the low IQ”
Your post was withoutout meaning about the level of someone in the second grade.
I just want to reiterate what the last learned poster said:
And ask: WTF? Alanis Morisette irony, or real irony?
This insightful post has convinced me. My vote is for the status quo. If the founding fathers wanted the federal government to actually obey the Constitution, they would have put it on a full-color poster.
I just don’t understand why people who don’t like Ron Paul are so angry. I think it’s because you really can’t argue his points. The only thing you guys can do is mean-hearted pieces that never discuss his policies. When there is some sort of retort to a policy of Ron Paul, it’s usually “He’s crazy!” or some other personal feeling, or a poke at him through discounting his followers, but never a well reasoned reply refuting the policy.
He doesn’t try to please people, like the other politicians. It’s almost as if you think elections should be like they were in high school.
Ron Paul ate my balls.
I’m sorry but I can’t support Ron Paul, because he’s not specifically prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.
I might add, he didn’t sign it either.
“The only thing you guys can do is mean-hearted pieces that never discuss his policies.”
That is utterly false, as there are many articles out there on the web tearing apart Paul’s policies. ( this one, concerning the gold standard is my personal favorite.
Also, Ron Paul is nuts.
TO: Stephen Gunter
RE: Who’s ‘Angry’?
“I just don’t understand why people who don’t like Ron Paul are so angry. ” — Stephen Gunter
I’m not angry. I’m having too much fun watching the Ronulans going bat-s*** of anyone who criticizes their ‘fearless leader’.
Got one that lives down the street from me. She was spamming me with e-mail several times a day, earlier this year.
When I started asking succinct questions about ‘isolationism’ and how it was such a gross failure in the 1930s, she stopped spamming me.
These people, who REALLY get ‘angry’, are the ‘True Believers’, in the classical academic form.
Take, for example, our guest commenter ‘princeliberty’. Talk about sophomor[on]ic.
I’ve met and talked with Stephen Green; definitely 6th Grade…if you ask me.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I'll show you mine [Mensa membership] if you’ll show me yours.]
Ron Paul understands the fact that you can’t just change the currency back to a gold standard in one day. His plan is to allow competing currencies and let the best currency win. This is a central tenet of his campaign. He is an advocate for the gold standard, but will let the market decide which currency is better, fiat or one with an intrinsic value.
As for the isolationist remark. He is not an isolationist. There is no possible way to be isolationist in our modern global market. He is for open trade and travel but not for policing the world. He wants us to pull our troops out of the countries overseas. Getting our troops out of the countries overseas will not only save our country nearly $1,000,000,000,000 annually, it will take away the incentives from the terrorist organizations to attack us for being in their countries. This is his stance, non-interventionism, not isolationism. You would do well to learn the difference. Our policies are driving government to spend absurd amounts of money, which the fed has to then create when it doesn’t have the money to cover the costs. This the point I believe monetarists are missing when discussing the economy.
So are these crazy, whacked out ideas? No. But they may be different from what you believe.
TO: Stephen Gunter
RE: Yeah….
“As for the isolationist remark. He is not an isolationist.” — Stephen Gunter
….Right!
As some Wag put it, around 2000 years ago,
“There is no possible way to be isolationist in our modern global market.” — Stephen Gunter
There’s more to isolationism than paltry money matters, buckie.
US were the sort of ‘isolationists’ in the ’30s you Ronulans are today.
It got us WWII as a result.
I don’t know about YOU and your ilk. But being a retired military officer, I tend to learn from history.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Those who do not learn from history are doomed to relive it.]
@Chuck Pelto
You are very wrong. Our involvement in WWI brought us WWII. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=502732
Dude, we didn’t start WWII. I mean, I’m a product of the TX public schools too. I know what you’re up against, but trust me, we didn’t start that one. We didn’t start WWI either, fyi.
You must have read into my post other than what was posted…
TO: Stephen Gunter
RE: Alternate Realities R Ronulans
“You are very wrong. Our involvement in WWI brought us WWII.” — Stephen Gunter
I think I’ve studied a bit farther back than WWI.
Indeed, you might want to read about how our isolationism from the late 19th Century lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Check out Costello’s Pacific War.
So, in spite of your specious claim that our involvement in WWI lead to our involvement in WWII, you’re obvious…to the better educated….wrong.
Nice try, but maybe you should study a bit more. And from better sources.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ignorance is 'bliss', until you bump up against someone like me.]
P.S. I notice that you gave up on the business that we can’t be an ‘isolationist’ because of the global economy BS.
“His plan is to allow competing currencies and let the best currency win. This is a central tenet of his campaign.”
Uh, what?
The US was definitely isolationist up until the Barbary pirates started attacking our ships.
Sorry, but the idea that if we just don’t peek our head out of our border then no one will attack us is false. Other nations’ foreign policy is not merely a reaction to the US’s. That is a dangerous assumption.
“Our involvement in WWI brought us WWII.”
Nope, I re-read what you posted…it sounds like you’re claiming US involvement in WWI yielded WWII.
I really think Zee Germans can be looked to for both of them.
Now, the Germans getting their asses handed to them in WWI and the following bitterness and embarasment bringing on WWII? I might be able to buy that, at least in part.
TO: Stephen Gunter
RE: Additional Information
“Indeed, you might want to read about how our isolationism from the late 19th Century lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.” — Chuck Pelto, to Stephen Gunter
Just to speed thinks up, I’ll give you the ‘Cliff’s Notes’ version….
Somewhere around the 1880s, Congress decided that we didn’t need a good Navy that would cover both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
As a result, when the Japanese Expansion began in the early 1900s, i.e., the Japanese-Russian War, we didn’t bother trying to meet the blossoming challenge. Why? Well, because we were isolationists from the late 19th Century. And we would not build our Navy up the way it needed to be built.
As a result, the Japanese misconstrued that we were weak and spineless. This despite the evidence provided by their Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Yamamoto.
So….they bombed Pearl Harbor.
THAT, which had NOTHING to do with World War I, got US into World War II. The Germans and Italians piled on because of their obligation under the Tri-Partate Treaty between themselves and Japan.
“Check out Costello’s Pacific War.” — Chuck Pelto
If World War I was involved, it took a ‘back seat’ to our isolationism of the period.
Hope that helps….
….but I have serious doubts that it will.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Chuck,
What’s interesting is, Germany and Italy had NO obligation to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The Tri-Partite Pact, as written, only required G & I to come to J’s aid in case the US attacked J, not the other way around. But Hitler, in all his brilliance, was so excited to get the US involved that he declared war anyway — thus allowing Roosevelt his Germany First, Japan Second formula for victory.
Which, really, only reinforces your point. Hitler was convinced of American weakness, thanks to American isolationism during the ’30s.
TO: Stephen Gunter
RE: Your Stupidity Is Showing
“What’s interesting is, Germany and Italy had NO obligation to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor.” — Stephen Gunter
Why is it your refuse to recognize that Germany and Italy declared war on US two days after Pearl Harbor?
We did not declare war on Germany or Italy until after they did so towards US.
And yet you continue to insist that US involvement in WWI lead US to WWII. When all the evidence indicates otherwise.
I suspect the reason for your continued hold to your argument is either a specific agenda and/or a form of ignorance blended with pride.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Stupid, n., Ignorance with pride.]
TO: Stephens Green & Gunter
RE: My Apologies
Didn’t recognize that Mr. Green had published the item preceding my 4:25 PM item.
Merry Christmas,
Chuck(le)
hey chuck(le), as if that parenthetical interjection in your name wasn’t proof enough of your oh so witty cleverness, you sealed the deal on being a tool with your signature.
[I'll show you mine [Mensa membership] if you’ll show me yours]
TO: anonymouse
RE: Well…
Nobody has ever proven Mensans are perfect.
As a matter of fact, having dealt with them for 25 years now, I know better.
But if you feel ‘inferior’ because you aren’t one, it sounds like a personal problem.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. The only Guy I know who was ‘perfect’, got nailed to a tree. And in three days, we celebrate His birth.
P.P.S. Merry Christmas!
> He is an advocate for the gold standard, but will let the market decide which currency is better, fiat or one with an intrinsic value.
I don’t look forward to having to do currency conversions as a daily thing. But I doubt that’d happen, as Gresham’s law indicates that fiat currency would remain in circulation, while those inclined towards holding metals would, in fact, hold such currency, rather than circulate it.
p.s. Hi Chuck.
TO: Jed
RE: Bro!!!!
How ya been? Where ya been?
If you find yourself in our current AO, feel free to drop in unannounced. Susan would love to see you again.
Regards, compadre….
Chuck(le)
[Little Red Riding Hood was walking through the woods when suddenly the Big Bad Wolf jumped out from behind a tree and said, "Red, I'm going to screw your brains out!" To that, Little Red Riding Hood calmly reached into her picnic basket and pulled out a 44 magnum, pointed it at him and said, "No you're not! You're going to eat me, just like it says in the book."]
Desperate for attention are we? Jealous of the rEVOLution?