Your views do not disturb me. I can't even tell what they are. All I ever see from you are insults and accusations unsupported by any rational argument.

Your rudeness and acrimony annoy me and the fact that you do it from behind the safety of a pseudonym, as a coward unwilling to standby your words, disgust me, but you do not rise to the level of disturbing me.

Using your standard for participation, almost everyone on these boards should stop posting and just listen to you.

Oh God, I think I scared myself.

Sorry that my opinion has disturbed you so, but I have to tell you, "Generallissimo Ron Paul's presidential bid is still dead."

My apologies to Chevy Chase.

I am glad you clarified your response. Thank You. I am sorry that I do not use my name but in this day and age when a simple google search gives out all manner of information, I prefer to stay anonymous for a number of reasons. But I can honestly say that I do not get acrymonious with others even when they get that way with me. I will call some out for their obvious lack of compassion, understanding, etc but I will not get "down in the trenches" dirty. I agree with you on some points but not on others, but that is how our country works best. Allowing all sides to be repsected and heard and give serious consideration to all input. Today however it is one side trying to best the other and them ramming its ideology down everyone's throats. Heck with what is best for country, it is what is best for one's political party. Party loyalty usually does not lead to premium leadership over all.

If you are offended, at least you know who has offended you, I don't hide behind a pseudonym. I believe that a lot of the incivility on the Internet stems from anonymity. That's why I require real names for Authors (though not to leave comments) at TidewaterLiberty.com

But to be more clear, I do not regard everyone who did not support Ron Paul as ignorant or apathetic. I pointed out that I was not a strong supporter of Ron Paul myself. I have differences with him on foreign policy and on the value of incremental improvement.

The ignorant and apathetic I refer to are those who do not get involved or take part in the process and make their choices based on ads, sound bites and prejudices instead of studying the issues and taking stands based on that effort. Though you and I often disagree, you are engaged in the process and do not fit that description.

You said: "It is hard to have any respect for someone who hides behind a pseudonym to hurl insults at a lot of sincere people who worked hard for a different vision and failed to win over enough of the apathetic and ignorant to prevail." While I agree that the commentary may be harsh it is no different than much else said here about other politcians. But my point here is how you ended. I take offense at being called apathetic and ignorant because I do not buy into much of what Ron Paul states. I agree with some of his tenets but overall have many concerns with his tax stance and his vision for the role of govt. You show a distinct disrepsect for many people by calling us uninvolved and lacking the ability to discern what we feel is best for the country. I am sorry that I am not intelligent enough for you. I have to go now I am drooling from my ignorance and messing up my keyboard.

It is hard to have any respect for someone who hides behind a pseudonym to hurl insults at a lot of sincere people who worked hard for a different vision and failed to win over enough of the apathetic and ignorant to prevail.

For a number of reasons, I was not an avid supporter of my fellow
Libertarian, Dr. Paul, but he was a lot better choice than what either of the dominant parties came up with. His supporters worked very hard and accomplished a lot, mostly spending from their own pockets to promote their cause.

If you need to be nasty and insulting toward good people who participated in the process, win or lose, then why don't you use your real name instead of hiding behind the name of someone worthwhile who has passed away?

Where do you right wing nuts get this stuff?

The guy is history. Toast. A pimple on history's butt. Give it a rest.

He performed his unnatural act in front of the American people and all but a handful of loonies ignored him.

You can dress up what Ron Paul believes until the laggard cow comes home and the result is still the same.

Nobody cares what the nut thought. Except a few people like you.

From wiki: "Ron Paul ....advocates a foreign policy of nonintervention, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, citing the dangers of foreign entanglements to national sovereignty. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax, scaling back government spending, abolishing most federal agencies, and removing military bases and troops from foreign soil; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, and gun control. Paul is strongly pro-life, and has introduced bills to negate Roe v. Wade, but affirms states' rights to regulate or ban abortion, rather than federal jurisdiction." Tha

He was a poor man's Ross Perot who appealed to extremist conservatives. He was comic relief in the presidential campaign's early days; an oddity that got more press than it deserved. "We" never could have had Ron Paul.

He will go down in history right alongside Al Sharpton, Mary Ruwart, Harold Strassen, Lyndon LaRouche, Alan Keyes, John Hagelin, Gus Hall, Norman Thomas, Pat Paulson and Eric Dodge. Oddball footnotes to American political history.

Please, no one with any sense was buying Ron Paul's Kool Aid.

Any time that I read yet another nonsensical rumination from Senator McCain, or another equivocation from Senator Obama, I say to myself: we could have had Ron Paul.

Mr. Paul called it right, when he said: "Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars."

To which I would add..... redistributions from the average workingman, to those looking for handouts, whether individuals, or corporations.

The market will take care of the "better battery", without the help of $300 million taxpayer dollars.

Its good to see someone else in Chesapeake understands the superiority of the marketplace over government in driving progress.

$300 million as a prize for a workable auto battery is a joke. Such a technology would be worth many billions in the marketplace, and industry already has everyone with the knowledge to accomplish the task hard at work. Whoever gets it first will dominate the auto industry as long as the patent lasts. $300 million would barely pay for the victory party.

What government can do to help is to simply get out of the way. CAFE standards, which the current market makes redundant, and other regulations, cripple our industries and high corporate taxes drain funds that could otherwise go to research. GM and Ford want to be in the auto industry far into the future, and they know what is coming. They would both kill for such a battery if only to watch their foreign competitors with