Ron Paul is gonna win the nomination.

watch.

12/13/2011 8:54:09 PM

Wanna bet $10,000 on that?

12/13/2011 9:31:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q54P2djFx8U

I thought this was an outstanding debate.

Huntsman vs. Gingrich, Dec. 12th

12/13/2011 10:40:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm proposing that we open up every function of government to competition. The current system, where the government has a monopoly on force, is ruining a lot of lives and it has to be stopped. The U.S. government is the biggest gang of thugs that exists."

It's a gang of thugs I can at least have a nominal democratic input on, and in our case has a constitution which nominally guarantees certain rights. A moneyed corporation doesn't even pretend to have either of those things, why the fuck would I want them to determine the laws of the land, or entrust justice to them? How do you think the kings and monarchs that we overthrew to form Democracies came to power in the first place?

All AnCap does is reduce society to one of billions of micro-nation states, who deal with each other the same way intra-nation-state interactions do now: The actor or coalition of actors with the most cash and biggest guns runs the show, always, and the laws don't apply to him. AnCap amounts to secular feudalism, nothing more. The only way it even appears functional is if you make wild assumptions about all the participants having the exact same beliefs as you, like the NAP for instance.

Quote :

"When you recognize that "the market" is just a term for a far more complex concept (voluntary interaction and emergent order), you'll understand that there's room for plenty of nuance."

Lol that's not nuance, that's mysticism. Try this on for nuance: If you take part in a market transaction with the purpose of avoiding starvation, that's not voluntary. Either you don't understand the meaning of the word "nuance", or you're a pussy who lacks the courage of his convictions to admit his ideology is a One Big Idea-ism.

Are you religious? Do you think man was divinely created? If not, your "markets solve everything" rests on the scientifically dubious assertion that homo sapiens somehow evolved a set of innate predilections and behaviors that, individually exercised without broader collective deliberation, happen to sum out to a sustainable society. Whereas every other species on Earth will devour its food supply and impose self-mass-starvation if its predators are removed, humans somehow are exempt from this rule? Moreover, supposing we did evolve that way, the pressures for sustainability that we live in today, with a 7-billion-person industrialized global economy, only appeared in the past few generations. So either you have to believe God created mankind specifically to operate in markets until the end of time, or you believe that evolution has gifted us with that ability by utter chance (that is, without the need for selection pressures). Sorry, but either case boils down to faith or mysticism.


It's a silly and stupid position that is appealing mostly for its simplicity and elegance. Nonetheless, simplicity and elegance are no substitute for actual correctness.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2011 10:15:53 AM

I want Sarah Palin to enter the race.

12/15/2011 12:54:13 PM

Quote :

"It's a gang of thugs I can at least have a nominal democratic input on, and in our case has a constitution which nominally guarantees certain rights. A moneyed corporation doesn't even pretend to have either of those things, why the fuck would I want them to determine the laws of the land, or entrust justice to them? How do you think the kings and monarchs that we overthrew to form Democracies came to power in the first place?"

It's good that you used the term "nominal", because it's quite appropriate. You don't have any real input on the system, and no one gives a single real fuck about the Constitution.

Quote :

"All AnCap does is reduce society to one of billions of micro-nation states, who deal with each other the same way intra-nation-state interactions do now: The actor or coalition of actors with the most cash and biggest guns runs the show, always, and the laws don't apply to him. AnCap amounts to secular feudalism, nothing more. The only way it even appears functional is if you make wild assumptions about all the participants having the exact same beliefs as you, like the NAP for instance."

That's a good thing. The biggest problems come from the biggest governments. When you allow one central authority to pool a shitload of resources, and that authority makes the call to commit some atrocity, not only is there no recourse, but the damage can be massive in scale.

Quote :

"Lol that's not nuance, that's mysticism. Try this on for nuance: If you take part in a market transaction with the purpose of avoiding starvation, that's not voluntary. Either you don't understand the meaning of the word "nuance", or you're a pussy who lacks the courage of his convictions to admit his ideology is a One Big Idea-ism. Are you religious? Do you think man was divinely created? If not, your "markets solve everything" rests on the scientifically dubious assertion that homo sapiens somehow evolved a set of innate predilections and behaviors that, individually exercised without broader collective deliberation, happen to sum out to a sustainable society. Whereas every other species on Earth will devour its food supply and impose self-mass-starvation if its predators are removed, humans somehow are exempt from this rule? Moreover, supposing we did evolve that way, the pressures for sustainability that we live in today, with a 7-billion-person industrialized global economy, only appeared in the past few generations. So either you have to believe God created mankind specifically to operate in markets until the end of time, or you believe that evolution has gifted us with that ability by utter chance (that is, without the need for selection pressures). Sorry, but either case boils down to faith or mysticism. It's a silly and stupid position that is appealing mostly for its simplicity and elegance. Nonetheless, simplicity and elegance are no substitute for actual correctness."

This is all invalidated by a single truth: the government is made up of people too. The people that are running the government are generally bad people, by virtue of the fact that they want to rule over other men.

Your point is that people aren't just going to "figure out" how to live, so we need government to tell us. That doesn't solve a single problem that is inherent to humanity, though. People will still do fucked up things, but when government gets involved, they are legally allowed to do fucked up things, and the people have no means to resist it.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 7:41:25 PM

Quote :

"It's good that you used the term "nominal", because it's quite appropriate. You don't have any real input on the system, and no one gives a single real fuck about the Constitution. "

That's how it was originally supposed to be. The original constitution was modeled after Plato's The Republic.

Presidents were supposed to be more like philosopher-kings rather than tools of the people. But power corrupts...

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 7:52:13 PM

wow. ron paul everybody ripping the shit out of newt gingrich.

on the interent i always see a lot of people wanting a mouthful of RP cock. but rarely meet actually people off the internet who support him

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ,]

12/15/2011 9:31:17 PM

LOL at this crowd, where do they find these people?

12/15/2011 9:49:44 PM

moron: LOL there exists ppl who don't agree with my communist dictator style extreme liberalism. i shall pretend as if their tiny minority of people has no influence on my life LOL

also

Quote :

"Educated people generally vote to the left, for obvious reasons."

bwahahahahahahahahahaha. all those uneducated businessmen and women. hahahahaha. the uneducated military. 'religious white people in general' i'm sure fits in there somewhere. hahaha. man you're a trip.


[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 9:59 PM. Reason : ,]

12/15/2011 9:54:24 PM

they cheer when a candidate calls for sticking to the constitution.

Then they cheer when a candidate calls for something that contradicts the constitution.

like you, they do nothing to fight the stereotype of conservatives being idiots.

^ lol, that's not my assertions, that's statistics. It's reality. As a conservative, this is obviously something you don't understand.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 10:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 9:59:18 PM

We can't all be proletarian revolutionist anarchists like you good sir moron

maybe soon they'll start reading marxist theory and communist manifestos.... you'd reach orgasm within seconds.

12/15/2011 10:03:18 PM

Ron Paul is so right and so straight forward on every issue that its almost bizarre. I wish he could be our dictator of foreign affairs.

12/15/2011 10:55:27 PM

Did Newt really reference FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court with new judges as a good thing? really?

12/16/2011 9:02:33 PM

That's called "being pragmatic".

12/16/2011 9:13:33 PM

^^ I'd have to go back and watch it again, but as I recall, it was more to establish precedence for what he wants to do to the courts.

I'm not saying it's OK, but there's a subtle difference.

12/16/2011 9:20:58 PM

12/20/2011 12:47:08 AM

Newt's a one man cult of personality, he should put in an application for Dear Leader in the DPRK, he's got the right attitude. He might not be a Communist, but if history tells us anything it's that Newt will say and believe anything if means he gets more power.

[Edited on December 21, 2011 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2011 3:07:32 PM

There should be a live stream of tonight's 9pm debate at one of these two sites:

http://www.wmur.com/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/

Not sure of an exact link yet.

1/7/2012 5:51:41 PM

I still don't see any streaming video yet on those sites, but this should work:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-tonights-abc-newsyahoo-republican-debate-live-here/

1/7/2012 8:55:37 PM

That Paul-Gingrich exchange right before the first break was heated.

Candidates getting pissed.

1/7/2012 9:34:15 PM

holy fuck @ Newt saying there is more bigotry towards Christians than gay people

wow

[Edited on January 7, 2012 at 9:54 PM. Reason : insanity]

1/7/2012 9:51:54 PM

Jesus Christ the hypocrisy on this stage regarding troop engagement ......

1/7/2012 10:02:27 PM

they are acting like war is a fucking video game

1/7/2012 10:05:48 PM

Paul and Hunstman are on game.

The rest are sad. Very sad.

1/7/2012 10:11:35 PM

Up to the second break, Santorum looks confident, but there's a lot of fail in his responses.

He mentioned that a federal constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage would make it a moot issue. Somehow, I don't think he would view it as a moot issue if a federal constitutional amendment allowed for gay marriage; I'm pretty sure he would continue to fight his fight, were that the case.


And I agree that Paul and Huntsman are on their game.

[Edited on January 7, 2012 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2012 10:11:50 PM

I thought it was good to see Paul getting significant time on the mic, and I thought he had a few really good moments, and appeared a little less nutty on foreign policy than normal. I thought he missed a golden opportunity teed up by Santorum to explain broader libertarianism, when Santorum said something like "I'm not a libertarian; I believe in some government." I also though Paul's answer was kind of weak regarding the Griswold v. Connecticut question between potential conflict between the 4th and 10th Amendments.

Romney, I thought, made a decent show. It seems like he was constantly making great answers to questions, but then turning around and throwing in some unnecessary candy for social conservatives.

Newt, as always, was in his element. He gave a few great answers, and a few godawful responses (in my view; prob play fine for mainstream GOP).


Huntsman...every time I watch him, I cannot understand how he is not the presumptive nominee, let alone how he is barely making any consequential dent in the polls.

[Edited on January 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM. Reason : Forgot to mention Santorum...whatever, he can go get fucked, anyway.]

[Edited on January 7, 2012 at 10:55 PM. Reason : oh yeah, and Perry wanting to send troops BACK to Iraq? What the fuck, are you kidding?]

1/7/2012 10:54:10 PM

I didn't quite understand any of the government's war on Christianity arguments that were made during the second segment of the debate.

There's another debate tomorrow morning on NBC at 9am.

1/7/2012 11:02:07 PM

We cannot have a candidate who speaks chinese

1/7/2012 11:02:15 PM

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=599758

Any sufficiently bizarre parody is indistinguishable from a legitimate GOP position.

Quote :

"war on Christianity...next debate Sunday morning on NBC at 9am."

LOL

[Edited on January 7, 2012 at 11:07 PM. Reason : .]

1/7/2012 11:06:00 PM

First time I've watched the candidates in action.

How is Huntsman not the front runner? Blows my mind. Had he gotten his turn to be the front runner like the rest of the GOP field? Maybe he's just two weeks too late.

1/7/2012 11:11:53 PM

Sadly, he's never been the front runner

1/7/2012 11:22:24 PM

Quote :

"Huntsman...every time I watch him, I cannot understand how he is not the presumptive nominee, let alone how he is barely making any consequential dent in the polls. "

This was actually the first time i saw him on TV (i've only known him from his words-- and have been impressed), and he actually reminded me of Bobby Jindal, with a slightly patronizing tone. Seeing this made it make sense to me why he wasn't more popular (he doesn't come off as an alpha male).

There's also the fact that he talks up China, and there's not really a hint of racism in his rhetoric, which I feel doesn't play well with the general GOP voter.

1/8/2012 3:26:05 AM

He's not as exorcismy as Jindal though, or as big on the social conservatism piece. He's more of a fiscal conservative/sound management guy.

[Edited on January 8, 2012 at 7:10 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2012 7:09:58 AM

wtf are we doing having a republican debate on a Sunday morning?

Not only am I half awake I'm turning it off to go to church...

1/8/2012 9:41:41 AM

^^ i was referring more to his mannerisms and voice.

1/8/2012 11:16:58 AM

lol liberals in love with huntsman wonder why he is not doing well in the GOP primary.

1/8/2012 12:21:36 PM

Oh man, I'm not one of those now, am I?

1/8/2012 12:56:45 PM

The fact that Ron Paul is not the leading repub shows how screwed up republicans are. As far as I can tell, he is not religious enough for republicans. That's fucking sad.

1/8/2012 1:40:48 PM

he's also an isolationist.

1/8/2012 1:47:12 PM

He's not religious enough AND he hates war. O the irony.

1/8/2012 2:26:56 PM

msnbc is about to rebroadcast this mornings debate

1/8/2012 5:01:58 PM

Quote :

"Oh man, I'm not one of those now, am I?"

Welcome to the sliding-scale of American conservatism. If you hold on to your values for longer than 5 years, you can watch as your own political party passes you by on their tireless march to far-right radicalism.

1/8/2012 6:25:45 PM

Quote :

"The fact that Ron Paul is not the leading repub shows how screwed up republicans are. As far as I can tell, he is not religious enough for republicans. That's fucking sad."

Ehhhhh...

I mean, I'm a right-leaning libertarian/libertarian-wing Republican/whatever, and I think Congressman Paul is sort of a nut. I agree with him on many things, and on overall philosophy, and I pull for him to do well in order to advance the general philosophy, but I think to say that "The GOP is a shitshow because Paul isn't leading the pack" is kind of a stretch. That he's doing as well as he is gives me hope...we haven't had this much libertarianism in the GOP in decades (though the social-right quackery is holding steady, the warmongering wing has advanced, and the anti-intellectual dumbass populist wing has also gained a strong foothold).

...and I don't think lack of religiousity is what hurts him in the GOP. I think he actually is fairly overtly Christian, but he isn't into legislating his own personal morality.


^ Yeah. It's pretty bad...it's like a self-feeding, negatively-stable phenomenon.

1/8/2012 6:48:00 PM

1/8/2012 7:20:02 PM

Quote :

"I think Congressman Paul is sort of a nut."

based on what?

1/8/2012 7:28:16 PM

My dream outcome from these republican primaries, given the candidates who were involved, would be for it to have ended with a Johnson-Huntsman ticket.

1/8/2012 8:09:09 PM

would be funny

1/8/2012 8:29:20 PM

Probably Huntsman final ad, using a clip from yesterday's debate, where I believe he's responding to Romney's attacks saying that the GOP nominee shouldn't be someone who served as an ambassador while Obama is president.



He'd be lucky to come in 3rd tomorrow, but I don't think there's anyway his campaign could go on without a 2nd place finish. I imagine he'd all but skip South Carolina and start campaigning hard in Florida with his new found money if he did manage to squeak out a 2nd place.

1/9/2012 11:48:36 AM

What’s with Romney’s creepy smile he’s always sporting?

If he gets the nom, that will sink his candidacy...

1/9/2012 8:06:34 PM