Chad Perrin: SOB

1 February 2008

Who supports Ron Paul?

Filed under: Humor,inanity,Liberty — apotheon @ 12:45

Judging by tonight’s The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert supports Ron Paul.

Of course, he didn’t just come out and say it. In fact, he pretty much said the opposite. What he said explicitly is that Ron Paul is obviously crazy. It’s pretty obvious, though, that almost everything he says on that show is the complete opposite of what he really means. It’s called “satire” for those of you who haven’t caught on to his shtick yet.

One of Stephen Colbert’s guests supports Ron Paul, too — though he didn’t say so on the show. I’m speaking of Judge Andrew Napolitano, now a Fox News commentator, who said:

The Thomas Jefferson of our day, Ron Paul, is one of us!

Just thought you might want to know.

Oh, and . . . the Democrat debate was a major snoozer. I stopped watching a little over halfway through it. Seriously, I don’t think I’ve ever heard such dull BS. The two of them sat there essentially paraphrasing each other to prove how different they were from each other, and telling us that a differing number of X chromosomes or melanin qualifies as Real Change in politics.

The SigO actually fell asleep about twenty minutes into the debate.

One of the cats fell asleep, too. The other just left the room.

It was that bad.


  1. SO? Is that some sort of euphemism for SWMBO? ;)

    Comment by Snorre — 1 February 2008 @ 12:23

  2. Something like that.

    Something very like that.

    Comment by apotheon — 1 February 2008 @ 11:55

  3. With a description like that, I now have to go and watch at least a part of this debate to experience it firsthand.

    Comment by Mina — 2 February 2008 @ 01:20

  4. Let me know if your experience differs from mine — or if I missed something interesting by skipping the end.

    Comment by apotheon — 2 February 2008 @ 10:01

  5. > essentially paraphrasing each other to prove how different they were from each other,

    HA! why didn’t i think of that!

    your captcha is so awesomez.

    Comment by justin m. keyes — 3 February 2008 @ 01:32

  6. Um . . . thanks!

    Comment by apotheon — 3 February 2008 @ 01:14

  7. You didn’t miss anything interesting, although the first part of the debate was by far the most boring. I thought it was rather uncanny how they spent almost 30 minutes on the subject of healthcare and managed not to go into any sort of meaningful detail. The rest of the debate was unremarkable; there was a moment where Hillary said she believes in coercive diplomacy and for a moment I wondered if it was code for “I’m a warmonger” but she managed not to incriminate herself further (much to my dissapointment).

    I’m surprised at how “friendly” they were to each other. It makes me wonder if they’ve already planned to have each other as the vice president no matter who wins, or if they’ve both been bought by the same interests or something. Of course I haven’t followed the previous debates so I don’t know if this is out of character for them or not.

    Overall “paraphrasing each other to prove how different they were” is spot on.

    Comment by Mina — 5 February 2008 @ 11:04

  8. From what I’ve seen, they’ve been directly “friendly” while having their campaign staffs mount smear campaigns against each other. Typical Democratic party two-faced political wrangling, I guess.

    Comment by apotheon — 5 February 2008 @ 11:33

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License