well when you put it that way

2/7/2012 1:12:15 PM

Quote :

"Or maybe I'm wrong, and the network execs are working around the clock to suppress any news of the half-senile Grandpa Gold who's treated as a fringe loser by his own party, and who's been launching and failing Presidential bids since his supporters were literally babies. I'm sure they're totally terrified of Mr. 15%, who would certainly have the votes of all the GOP warhawks, evangelicals, and PATRIOT act enthusiasts if only they could hear his message..."

Without that "stable 15%" (it's not stable, it's been going up, probably not enough to win the primary though), the GOP loses. Ron Paul supporters will not rally behind Romney, they'll just tell the GOP to fuck off and Romney will get slaughtered by Obama. If the administration can manufacture economic recovery, it'll be even easier.

2/7/2012 1:16:07 PM

so youre an obama supporter

2/7/2012 1:22:23 PM

It's possible to not like Brussel Sprouts but still keep your mouth shut when the cook says "Who wants to eat feces instead???"

2/7/2012 1:23:15 PM

so you think obama is feces

2/7/2012 1:28:22 PM

Obama is the brussel sprouts that are already on your plate, Romney is the feces that the cook is offering to anyone interested. The cook is the general election. You are...you?

2/7/2012 1:30:34 PM

My reasons for preferring Obama over Romney are purely for political strategy. The country may be primed for a more libertarian leaning president by 2016. Both of them will attempt to run the country into the ground and possibly get us involved in one or more wars.

2/7/2012 1:40:52 PM

Thanks for clarifying your clumsy, poorly constructed metaphor.

2/7/2012 1:43:36 PM

Sometimes it's tough to craft metaphors for concepts that are already incredibly simple, like "Being anti- the new boss does not necessarily make you pro- the current boss."

2/7/2012 1:46:15 PM

yep, never polls anywhere above 12%. yep

2/11/2012 9:13:53 PM

Maine Results

Quote :

" Mitt Romney (R) 2,190 39% Ron Paul (R) 1,996 36% Rick Santorum (R) 989 18% Newt Gingrich (R) 349 6%"

Quote :

" February 7, 2012 Poll: Ron Paul surges to second place nationally, just eight points behind Romney A surprising national poll released Tuesday found Texas Rep. Ron Paul surging to second place in the GOP presidential field, coming within eight percentage points of front-runner Mitt Romney. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/07/poll-ron-paul-surges-to-second-place-nationally-just-eight-points-behind-romney/#ixzz1m8JPyiip "

2/11/2012 10:05:17 PM

^ forgot to mention that 16% of the precincts haven't been reported.

a 200 vote WHOPPING lead by Romney

2/11/2012 10:09:20 PM

Yup, in a sparsely populated blue state, Ron Paul came in 2nd. Good job guys, that's going to win him the nomination.

Although it does back up my assertion that he would pull in a lot of voters from the left and the right in a general election. Republicans don't give a fuck about Maine though. This barely means nothing.

2/12/2012 1:02:18 AM

I hope he still runs for president. He could easily pull off 25-30% I think if things come together.

It'd be worth it just to eff the republicans over for not voting for him in the primary

2/12/2012 1:33:47 AM

Quote :

"Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, on Sunday waved off the suggestion that his narrow loss to Mitt Romney in Maine Saturday night was especially disappointing given his dogged efforts in the state. Paul attributed the loss to one of the counties canceling its caucus."

Imagine that.

2/12/2012 7:03:57 PM

I'm uncertain whether to discuss the blatant corruption inherent to the democratic process in America(blatant media bias, states changing the winner weeks later, states cancelling elections before all votes are counted) or mock the futility of Paul's campaign.

So I'll go with the latter.

Dude's too old and whiny to be electable.

2/12/2012 7:18:55 PM

Seeing as how the primaries and caucuses are run on the state level and by parties independent of the government, it's hard to get too angry at them for doing whatever the fuck they want. That's just freedom.

2/13/2012 2:22:45 AM

Indeed.

2/13/2012 9:07:25 AM

I like that every time Ron Paul doesn't win a caucus, there's someone there to say, "HEH, JUST THE FREE MARKET AT WORK BOYS", as if you're proving some point. There's nothing free about our system. The vast majority of population is subjected to the will of the politically connected, all exercised through this convoluted and in many cases arbitrary electoral system.

Ron Paul will have a significant number of delegates at the convention, and if Newt and Santorum stay in the race, he will have quite a bit of leverage.

2/13/2012 10:22:01 AM

Quote :

"I like that every time Ron Paul doesn't win a caucus, there's someone there to say, "HEH, JUST THE FREE MARKET AT WORK BOYS", as if you're proving some point. "

This coming from the camp that blames every shortcoming, failure, or gust of wind on the bankers and the media and the elders of zio--

2/13/2012 10:54:23 AM

Even you admit that he's too radical to be considered. You don't believe that when you're speaking out against banks, corporatism, a military empire, and the drug war, there will be powerful factions trying to prevent you from holding office? It's not much of a stretch to believe that.

[Edited on February 13, 2012 at 10:59 AM. Reason : ]

2/13/2012 10:59:25 AM

This is making its rounds on facebook. Where's Geniusboy to tell us that this means RP will be president.

2/13/2012 11:03:18 AM

Quote :

"Even you admit that he's too radical to be considered. "

He's a radical combination, that is it. His views on foreign policy (blowback, military over-extension is bad, stop making war with everyone) are common sense to the average liberal. His economic dogmatism is a wet dream for every CEO yet simultaneously can fool every poor and middle-class conservative who thinks the market would work just fine for them if government was gone. Oh yeah, and most of his civil liberties stances are common sense for liberals too, that and the war are the main reason he's gotten so many cross over fans who were disenchanted after Obama failed to come through.

The only thing radical about him is his monetary policy, which is only radical because it's 200 year old Ricardian fantasy-economics that even the most ardent CEO-cock-sucking conservative economists shake their head at.

Quote :

"You don't believe that when you're speaking out against banks, corporatism, a military empire, and the drug war, there will be powerful factions trying to prevent you from holding office? It's not much of a stretch to believe that."

It's a stretch to believe they'll put effort into preventing someone from holding an office who has no chance of gaining that office anyway. The only reason these conspiracy theories appear credible to you is that you're in complete denial about Paul's chances of winning over a hawkish, theocratic, caveman GOP, as well as denial about the media's priorities (Hint: covering candidates with no real poll movement, no real chance of winning, and whose fans get their news online are not the MSM's priority).

2/13/2012 11:08:40 AM

^^Ron paul doesn't say "I think this is piss"


He says "This is piss."


He knows his shit.


Piss and Shit.

Ron Paul 2012

2/13/2012 12:40:20 PM

Quote :

"Even you admit that he's too radical to be considered. You don't believe that when you're speaking out against banks, corporatism, a military empire, and the drug war, there will be powerful factions trying to prevent you from holding office? It's not much of a stretch to believe that."

What exactly makes you think this wouldn't happen if there was no government or regulations at all?

I want so much to like Ron Paul but he's gotta tone down his insane economic policies and realize government fufills some important roles.

2/13/2012 9:11:21 PM

No you see government = power so without government there would be no power and all the benevolent capitalists would peacefully compete in the marketplace like they did before pesky "States". Only then will the degenerate, egalitarian "Democracy" be replaced by the fair and just system of voting with your wallet.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 12:55:13 PM

Quote :

"What exactly makes you think this wouldn't happen if there was no government or regulations at all? I want so much to like Ron Paul but he's gotta tone down his insane economic policies and realize government fufills some important roles."

What makes me think that what wouldn't happen? Are you trying to say that corporations would try to enforce multi-continent drug prohibition, or maintain a military empire around the world? At that point, why wouldn't we just call it a government?

2/14/2012 12:58:04 PM

Well, no, we'd call it Feudalism. How do you think the first governments started anyway? Do you think someone convinced the ancient people of Egypt he was a God, THEN conquered them using wealth and the force it buys? Seriously, how do you think power first concentrated ?

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 12:59:42 PM

Amassing a shitload of weapons and killing anyone that disagreed. That's how the first governments came about.

Governments were originally very brutal. Over time, we've tended towards liberal democracy. Pure authoritarianism one one end, pure libertarianism is the end goal. I'm not suggesting we scrap all regulation. I'm saying that we open up the functions of government to competition deliberately and over time.

2/14/2012 1:03:49 PM

So why would a private corporation not amass weapons and take power by force, in the absence of a government?

2/14/2012 1:12:00 PM

Other agencies would be doing the same thing and trying to take over the entire world would not be cost effective. The government doesn't protect against monopolies, it creates them.

2/14/2012 1:29:43 PM

So you're saying there'd be rival warlords fighting for smaller territories, not global domination. Oh okay, that sounds much better than paying taxes.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 1:34:14 PM

It actually sounds better than shitting on the entire world (militarily and financially), imprisoning millions of innocent people, and hindering the development of entire continents that deal with our negative externalities.

2/14/2012 1:45:17 PM

Quote :

"It actually sounds better than shitting on the entire world (militarily and financially),"

What makes you think there'd be any less bloodshed under warlordism, if not way, way, way more?

Quote :

" imprisoning millions of innocent people, "

What makes you think these warlords wouldn't imprison millions as well?

Quote :

"and hindering the development of entire continents that deal with our negative externalities."

Our "negative externalities" which include coaxing or forcing governments into free market reforms? Or are you referring to "our" multinational corporations running train on them?

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2012 2:07:09 PM

hahaha. "coaxing". by bombing the shit out of them and starving their people. I'd hate to see your definition of force. this is something you need to understand: we will NEVER convince anyone to undertake free market and/or human rights reforms by force. They will hate us for it. They must make that decision themselves and, most importantly, on their own.

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 4:08:51 PM

The fact is ron paul is about the growing belief that we cannot police the world and pay for our social programs at the same time. If you look at the new "budget" this year that we will still be accruing debt except at slower rate (1.4 trillion this year) decreasing to 908 billion over by 2014 or whatever; does not even account for how much we have borrowed against social security that will have to be paid for when all of the boomers cash out. We have a huge financial crisis looming and the only one addressing this is paul. Support the UN but enough is enough trying to bring "civilization" to genocidal nomadic war lords by acting unilaterally

2/14/2012 7:52:56 PM

uh, the US isn't trying to bring peace to anyone. The US is trying to prop up those "genocidal nomadic warlords" so that we can pilfer their sovereign resources for the benefit of our corporate citizens while the citizens of war-torn nations devour each other.

And the US is doing this on behalf of the capitalist class of American "job creators." And they're going to pay for it by stealing the baby-boomers retirement money that they spent a lifetime of paying into.

Enjoy serfdom. I'm looking forward to feudalism. I've always wanted to have my livelihood dependent on my ability to farm and a healthy mule. Maybe the King will fuck my wife for me on my wedding day?



"Why, yes my lord. Please sir, may I have some moar?"

[Edited on February 14, 2012 at 8:19 PM. Reason : ]

2/14/2012 8:10:24 PM

Quote :

"And they're going to pay for it by stealing the baby-boomers retirement money that they spent a lifetime of paying into."

who were dumb enough to continue propping up the SS system when anyone with an ounce of intelligence knew it was doomed to failure.

2/14/2012 9:01:43 PM

Quote :

" Enjoy serfdom. I'm looking forward to feudalism. I've always wanted to have my livelihood dependent on my ability to farm and a healthy mule. Maybe the King will fuck my wife for me on my wedding day?"

You can't even resort to farming. Look at what happened to farmers in China under "free trade" reforms. Hurray, low prices! Hurray, forcing farmers into the cash economy and superexploitative Foxconn factories!

Private authority, with or without their thug friends in government, will figure out a way to make you dependent their pittances.

2/15/2012 8:01:20 AM

More Maine shenanigans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pqsyzTrWS0g#!

2/15/2012 8:42:08 AM

Wah wah Paul couldn't game the caucus system because someone else just did regular old cheating.

2/15/2012 10:18:39 AM

It's amazing that you people insist we even have any semblance of "democratic input" in our corporate controlled system. Are you fucking kidding me? You choose between a corporate shill and a corporate shill. If anyone else gets close to making a difference, the establishment makes sure that it doesn't happen.

2/15/2012 10:21:49 AM

For the 50th time, the establishment has no need of actively suppressing Paul, he can fail entirely on his own merit just fine.

2/15/2012 10:23:42 AM

Except this is a clear case of where he was suppressed. The caucus that EVERYONE knew he would win was cancelled by the party.

2/15/2012 10:30:20 AM

No, it's a clear case of shitty weather in NH. The caucus was not cancelled, a single county's caucus was postponed until next week. Paul fans think this is so that the results aren't as widely reported as the outcome a few days ago. But you know what? Nobody fucking cared about Maine to begin with, it was reported on for maybe one or two days tops. It wasn't a battleground state, is notoriously RINO among the GOP, and nobody spending much money there.

And since Paul, coming in at 36% after never polling above 10% in Maine, was clearly gaming the caucus like so many online polls, I honestly have no sympathy for his whining fans on this one. Assuming their conspiracy theories (there's many but this one in particular) are true, the story is that the Paul campaign was playing dirty and the GOP played dirtier back. Your crocodile tears over "democracy" really just make your double standard all the more obvious. If you gave a shit about Democracy you wouldn't openly support a campaign that schemes to over-represent their candidate by gaming a particular format for assigning delegates.

Oh well, good luck to him in Alaska, which is pretty much going to be his last chance to win one.

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2012 10:36:43 AM

Yes, they will vote this week or whenever, and at that point, they will not be forming a new vote total for complete caucus results. Why? Because it would mean Ron Paul wins a state caucus.

How is the Paul campaign playing dirty? They're trying to win delegates, which is the only thing that matters. The caucus doesn't actually matter except from a PR perspective.

2/15/2012 10:53:18 AM

^^ yeh dude, ron paul using the system to favor him. what a douche. who in their mind would ever think to do such a thing











[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM. Reason : obvious troll is obvious]

2/15/2012 10:54:41 AM

Why on earth would anyone care? It's Maine. The caucuses aren't even binding and there is no guarantee he would even make up the votes anyway.

2/15/2012 10:57:49 AM

Like I said, from a public perception perspective, a win would look good. Right now, cable news is saying that everyone has won a state except Ron Paul. How valid is that if some of the caucuses aren't even counted properly?

Rampant voter fraud in Maine: http://www.fox19.com/story/16937227/reality-check-was-there-voter-fraud-in-maine

[Edited on February 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ]

2/15/2012 10:59:34 AM

From what I read he's down 194 votes and that county had 118 people vote in the '08 GOP primary. Now with the news the turnout will be higher but it's a very tall order to make up nearly 200 votes..

2/15/2012 11:05:39 AM