Rep. Ron Paul is in a dead heat with Mitt Romney for first place in the Iowa caucuses. If he does pull out a win on Tuesday, Iowa Republicans will have chosen as their commander in chief a man who says it was wrong to kill Osama bin Laden.
In a recent interview with a Des Moines radio station, Paul not only came out against killing bin Laden but gave a remarkable reason for his opposition: The operation that took out the man responsible for the massacre of nearly 3,000 people in our midst, he said, showed no “respect for the rule of law, international law.” International law? Back in 2002, Paul wrote in a column that “America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law, because it cannot do both.” I guess it is goodbye constitutional republic since Paul now claims that international law constrains us from killing the man behind the most brazen attack on our country since Pearl Harbor — the man who, as we learned from documents recovered from his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan,was actively plotting another attack to exceed the magnitude of 9/11. Since when do libertarians acknowledge the power of supranational law to prevent a sovereign United States from defending itself against foreign aggressors?
[…]
In the CNN/Tea Party debate that took place one day after the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Paul said he believes that the United States brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself.
Parroting the propaganda of al-Qaeda, Paul declared, “Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our Holy Land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, and you have been bombing … [Interrupted by boos from the crowd] I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we have been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for ten years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed then there is some problem.”
At least in that debate he accepted the fact that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. In 2007, Paul appeared on the Alex Jones Show and called the 9/11 Commission investigation into the attacks “a coverup,” adding, “I think we have to keep pushing for [a real investigation].”
So Iowa Republicans, if you believe that we brought 9/11 on ourselves because our policies “annoyed” al-Qaeda and that there has been a “coverup” of the real events on 9/11, Ron Paul is your man.
Paul has also made clear that he would do nothing to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Paul opposes not only military action to stop the regime from going nuclear, but he opposes economic sanctions as well. On Thursday in Iowa, he declared that sanctions against Iran are “an act of war” (in Paul’s twisted worldview, sanctions against Iran are an “act of war,” but blowing up the Twin Towers is just a crime. Moreover, while Paul asserts there is “no evidence whatsoever” that Iran has enriched uranium, he apparently opposes spying on Iran to find out. During the GOP debate in Des Moines, after a discussion of Iran’s capture of a U.S. spy drone, Paul demanded to know: “Why were we flying a drone over Iran?” Apparently Paul does not want to know about the Iranian bomb until the mullahs test one.
So Iowa Republicans, if you are okay with a nuclear Iran and believe we should not be sending drones to spy on that country, please cast your vote for Ron Paul.
These are not conservative positions. They are not libertarian positions. They are nutty positions. It would bring discredit on the state of Iowa if Hawkeye Republicans make their choice for president of the United States a man who opposes the killing of bin Laden, blames the United States for 9/11 and says we should not even spy on Iran, much less stop it from getting the bomb.
Of course, it’s not just Iowans. Paul has picked up a lot of support — even, notably (well, to me, at least), among regular readers of this site.
And while I view such support with dismay, I nevertheless understand it: Paul has been an advocate for seriously and significantly paring back a obtrusive, expansive, and far too powerful federal government that many under the GOP big tent (and even those who are more Reagan Democrats than Republicans) see as the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, both for them and for their children and grandchildren. Hell, I suspect Paul even appeals to a number of “Occupy” protesters, who share his distrust of both “neocons” and “bankers.”
So while the GOP leadership insists on foisting upon small government conservatives a final choice between Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, those same small government conservatives are looking for a way to actively resist being managed by their presumptive leaders — to act out, to protest, to scream no more! in the faces of a permanent and arrogant leadership class, and to them, Ron Paul embodies that line of protest (by way of his rhetoric if not always through his actions). Paul has become the symbol for those who want government to get the hell off their lawns.
Of course, Paul is a disaster as a candidate, and his ties with various unsavory types less careful about expressing their bigotry than he has been would sink him in a general election. But he does come across onstage as anti-establishment — while not carrying the “baggage” of faith that many conservative / classical liberal / libertarian types seem so much to distrust in their prospective candidates (at least, if the candidate gives the impression that s/he believes the tenets of that faith and might actually hew to them) — and this appeals to many of those who are fed-up with a business-as-usual government they can’t seem to change, even after sending an unmistakable message via the ballot box that it is significant change they desire and demand.
Hence, Ron Paul. The ultimate protest vote from those who reject big government and Wall Street crony capitalism; from those who want significant spending cuts and the elimination of vast swathes of governmental “oversight”; and for those who are put off by the caricature of social conservatism that both the GOP moderates and Democrats have spent years creating and institutionalizing.
Me, I’m sticking with Bachmann or Santorum. And Perry in a pinch. But it’s not like I can’t understand the Paul voters. Because from where I sit, they are a natural reaction to what the GOP has done to its own brand by insisting that it be turned into the more tax-friendly version of progressivism.
RUN SARAH RUN SARAH RUN SAVE HARDROCK, COCO AND JOE!
I’m leaning toward Santorum. Help us Santorum. You’re our only hope.
The Goblin-American community has been marginalized for too long. This is their year.
Paul will never be nominated. He will just hang around damaging the brand until he can broker his delegates for personal gain. Remember, this is the guy who loads up legislation with pork for his district and then, knowing the bill will pass without him, denounces it and votes against it as a ploy to mislead the rubes back home. The only ray of hope I see is that according to recent polls, if the chicken-necked little bastard goes third party, he may pull away more Democrats than Republicans. Which leaves probably, Romney. Remember that gargoyle-resembling RNC creature Georgette Mosbacher telling us months ago that the GOP already had its nominee identified and it was Romney? Shit.
Huh. The Republicans we would most like to see run all stayed out of it. Almost as if they see an inevitable giant implosion coming regardless of who’s elected, and would prefer to be remembered as Cassandra rather than Agamemnon.
Do you really think Ron Paul would go Third Party and kill Rand Paul’s career in the Senate? I don’t think so.
I think Bachmann is cozying up to Romney in hopes that he selects her as veep after her campaign implodes tomorrow and she pledges her delegates to him and bakes him a Bundt cake.
Santorum? Not a chance. What has he been doing for the last six years since Bob Casey, Jr. kicked him to the curb by 18%? What did he ever do that was noteworthy?
I’m not a Ron Paul voter but with arguably the greatest specific existential threat to the Republic being common fiat currency, I think I could be. At any rate, thank you.
The situation is dire. The collectivization of literally everything under a progressive umbrella — for those who can see it, most visibly the co-opting of the nature of truth by the unctuous moralizing of progressivism — is so advanced that only extreme measures will salvage the States. Not save, salvage; as in taking their remains back into a compact with rights and liberties and restructuring and rebuilding against the backwards flow of tens and tens and tens of trillions of dollars of socialist momentum.
The alternative is the path we are on, which is a single unified world government, if in monetary ways and means only, but likely including simply ending personal rights in the West.
It’s the money, people, a subject with zero traction. Especially at places like NR, where nearly every conservative thought is tainted with some degree of caving in and applauding one another for downshifting a gear on the road to statism.
He got kicked to the curb by those who didn’t think conservatism the answer. Many are changing their minds about that.
As for what he did that was “noteworthy,” howsabout remained a conservative instead of blowing with the political winds?
Vote for who you want. But as for who has a chance, that’s really up to the voters — too many of whom seem to pick their candidate based on who they think “has a chance.” Great way to keep the status quo maintained, that.
You’ve been trained well.
Leigh, if Ron Paul’s bizarre conduct could ever have killed Rand’s career, it would have happened already. Rand has succeeded at being his own man.
Split primary vote. Brokered Convention. Draft Paul Ryan.
Sure, I’ll vote on principle. Who’s got it?
Rick Santorum is not a Conservative, Jeff. He is a control freak in his own personal life and in what he proposes to accomplish as president.
Wm. T. Sherman, I suspect you are right. Rand moved far away from the old man and has carved out his own niche.
Santorum is a conservative. And I suspect anyone who runs for President is a bit of a control freak — or at least, thinks they have some idea how to get things done.
So long as he remains faithful to the Constitution — and doesn’t pretend parts of it don’t exist, as all our other elected officials (and many of their political appointments to the bench) have done and continue to do, in some kind of conspiracy of consensus — I don’t care what he does in his personal life.
I’m not going to make excuses for him. He isn’t necessarily faithful to the Constitution since he is interpreting it through his own lights and not those of the founders. He is not a constitutional scholar and was an entertainment lawyer when he was practicing law. He advocated for allowing WWE wrestlers being allowed to use steroids since “wrestling” is not a sport.
The whole affair has become an exercise in pitiful.
Happy! Happy New Year, my friend!
happy new year!
I way bad do not not not wanna go to work tomorrow.
James Pethokoukis takes a look at Santorum’s tax policy proposals.
Government’s greatest good is prohibiting what must be prohibited. Hence “must”, see?
You are making excuses, JHo. There is no there there with the Santorum one.
I agree with everybody.
I’d unreservedly support Paul if it weren’t for foreign policy issues. Even then, I go to war with myself over the Isreal issue. On one hand, I say that our support for Israel is crucial for…..because, well, I’m pulling for them. On the other, So what that he doesn’t much care for Isreal and its policies? It’s not like they’re going to go away or stop pursuing their best interests. It’s in many ways political theater.
Protest vote indeed.
“The alternative is the path we are on, which is a single unified world government, if in monetary ways and means only, but likely including simply ending personal rights in the West.”
I don’t see it happening. The Proggs can’t hold a unified Europe.
My biggest fear is the world may be too far gone for peaceful solutions, if Europe falls, and the Mideast continues to unravel, we need a strong foreign policy President above all else.
I’m sick of voting against the Democrats by casting a vote for the Republican du jour.
I’m sick of the Republicans taking advantage of my vote with a ‘where else can he go’ attitude.
I fear one term of Ron Paul would make everyone feel about small government, free market and private property ideals like I feel about our current statist, crony capitalist, share the wealth regime. (or shorter- Ron Paul is a loon)
What’s a boy to do?
Whereas we all know that it is the role of Congress to dictate how sports leagues test their athletes.
The Founders practically BEGGED for it.
You are being obtuse, and deliberately so, Jeff.
pro-family pro-natalism isn’t exactly a new idea. It’s just that what was once understood as necessary for the health of a nation now has to be advocated for.
It’s a slippery slope, I grant. And I feel the same way with Santorum’s special dispensation for the manufacturing sector. But at least these are moves made toward reversing leftist trends. And if we’re going to have statism, I prefer the kind that works to deconstruct the statist agenda rather than the kind that works to institutionalize and reinforce it.
Hardly. In many ways that’s a libertarian-ish position he took with respect to steroids. I personally don’t give a good goddamn if professional wrestlers take steroids, and I don’t think it’s the government’s job to prevent them from doing so. Likewise, I think professional sports leagues should determine what they test for and why and how. They can certainly answer to public pressure, but they shouldn’t have to answer to Congress.
Meanwhile, it’s interesting to watch you shift into a kind of happyspeak (“There is no there there with the Santorum one”). It’s like he found a new nishi.
So cute! Like a tag-team! Which they have in professional wrestling. Where that evil fake conservative Santorum didn’t want to prevent steroid usage.
synchronicity!
I feel the same way, B. Moe. We are in the most dangerous period of world history to date. Nuclear weaponry in the hands of maniacs combined with a coming world-wide financial crisis does cry out for a strong leader with foreign policy expertise or one with knowledgable advisors. Isolationism in the now is not the answer, no matter how attractive it is to turn ones back on teh rest of teh world and gaze inward. I have this argument often with my brother who is all for dismantling our military and pounding our nukes into plowshares.
It’s disappointing to me at least that Santorum doesn’t — or didn’t — learn from the virtues of Cain’s proposals, when they were right there in the open to be understood (and reflected in the surprising popularity Cain himself garnered for a time). While it was easy for critics to dismiss Cain’s tax policy simplicity, those same critics appear to me to be missing the more fundamental meaning of that simplicity, namely, reconnecting the people, the taxpayers, with that primary interaction they have toward their government. They must both understand and assent. The policy then becomes their own, in a real sense. As it becomes their own, they once again incline to take possession of their own governance, rather than leaving it — in bewilderment — to the machinations of the “experts”.
A muscular foreign policy guy or gal who ALSO doesn’t want The Iron Shiek doping up before matches.
Priorities, people.
I can’t believe you said that. Have you taken a good hard look at Santorum’s statist agenda?
I like Perry’s tax plan. I was a Forbes guy. To me, it’s the ultimate “fair share”/ “skin in the game” tax scheme. Because it screams “equality,” assures that “the rich” will pay more than “the 99%”, and so takes away nearly the entirety of the left’s rhetorical appeals.
Heh.
I’m about 95% for Paul on domestic issues, but his FP prescriptions spook me. That said, he’s right about 9-11 being a result of our actions: Since OBL didn’t pick America at random to murder and main, I think it’s pretty much a given that it was. The question is whether our actions that provoked OBL were legitimate. I think, for the most part, they were, so Paul’s finger-pointing is off-base.
That said, I’m going to cast my primary vote for him just to tell the Republican establishment that I’m fucking sick of the same carboard cutouts being put forward by said establishment.
Oh, I’m too slow. That’s an Iron Sheik reference heh.
The RCP average has Romney at 25.2% in Iowa.
According to the 2008 RCP average, Romney was at 25.2% on January 3, 2008.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
4 years after losing to McCain Romney cannot better his numbers?
Wow.
Not that I intended or can see, leigh.
Ron Paul is the Robert Byrd of Texas when it comes to earmarking, btw.
He’ll throw a protest vote against spending when it doesn’t matter but he’s been super consistent when it comes time to bribe the voters back home with pork.
Why? It’s conditional. I’d prefer no statism, really. Then I’d prefer very limited statism. Then statism that, if it exists, works to destroy the statist agenda.
I feel the government has a limited right to act in its own self-interest, so promoting certain policies favorable to marriage and child rearing is within its ken, though mostly at the state level. Why? Because family is an important unit for producing new citizens.
Others may disagree. And vote to make their own opinions known. Then move about to find the places whose laws they find most appealing. It’s a federalist thing.
That’s correct, bh. I think he’s also been around so long he’s become like a family member.
Basically, everything he says is outside the federal government’s proper role during a debate he’ll gladly take home as pork.
Seems it’s time to write in a Palin, bh.
Heh, when the primaries finally come around to Wisco, I might go with either her or Rollie Fingers, JHo.
I’d agree with this. At one time, I was acquainted with a number of people who were of a mind that the federal income tax was illegal. Since federal taxes are on the table, who has the better plan to your mind? If limited, how limited and who decides what that limit may be? Thanks.
Or maybe Don Hutson but I think he’s dead.
nor luap for the show
Scroll down, leigh. I noted I like Perry’s tax plan. It’s the main reason I could vote for him if push comes to shove.
My thoughts might be a little muddled here as I haven’t tried writing them out on this topic before but it seems to me that pro-family formation type policies are essentially anti-statist.
You’re going to be part of some family or another because every life has its ups and downs (especially when you’re younger or having kids). That family will either be a standard family (parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles) with a standard community around it (church charities, community groups like the Knights of Columbus, etc) or it will be a government family (welfare office, public school, etc) with NGOs around it (can’t think of the relevant ones off the top my head).
There is a tension between the two options. Weaken the first, strengthen the argument for the second. Strengthen the first, weaken the argument for the second.
So, no, I don’t think affordable family formation policies can be viewed as statist. They’re pretty much the opposite.
I also like Perry’s tax plan. I really wish he’d get better traction. My son says he sounds like a stroke victim. I told him that was pretty harsh. It was pretty nice to watch him bitch-slap Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, though.
Seriously, Santorum???
I often wonder how much effort people really put into studying the candidates they DON’T like.
For example, is Ron Paul really “anti-Israel” when he states that Israel’s sovereignty should be honored, and that they should be “allowed” to act in their own best interest on whatever intel they have regarding the security of their country, without having to pass such decisions through the US for approval?
JHoward’s got it right: All of this bantering about things other than our country’s financial morass will become moot once the economy begins to implode under its debt load, and so far as I can tell there’s only one candidate who’s confronted that issue head on.
We’d be wise to heed the historical evidence of what causes empires to collapse.
So far as I can tell, it isn’t their Foreign Policy.
PS: A crystal clear explanation from Ron Paul regard his principled position on earmarks. We must be careful to include the rationale behind the action so as to prevent distorting into something other than what it really is, wouldn’t you agree, BH?
Given that rationale, we’d have to base our actions upon how any number of lunatics will feel about them. OBL’s big problem was with us having bases in Saudi. It wasn’t a problem for the Saudis.
Me, I don’t give a shit what’s going through the minds of OBL types unless it’s made of metal and moving at velocity.
So pork isn’t pork when it involves Ron Paul?
The man is magical.
Ron Paul!
Just like the pig: a wonderful, magical animal.
Every war or military action is the result of one side refusing to pre-emptively surrender.
Is it time to point out again that we’re doomed?
Hehs.
nor luap !!12!!
Hey, did you know that if you put extra question marks at the end of a sentence, that makes your question that much more important??? And yes, Paul really isn’t pro-Israel.
Incidentally, I’m more a Bachmann guy. She most certainly has confronted economic issues head on, beginning with repeal of ObamaCare and moving on to clearing avenues for wealth creation and growth (eg., her continued assault on the problem of compliance costs). She also has a sensible foreign policy that doesn’t rely for its force on shifting definitions and the gullibility of adepts.
So there’s no need to put up with Ron Paul’s conspiratorial nonsense and ludicrous McGovernesque foreign policy.
Also, if you link to what Ron Paul says about people, it’s proof Ron Paul is right about them — so you should probably support him, because he’s always proven right, as links to videos of what he says about people prove beyond a shadow of a doubt and with crystal crystal clarity!
Leigh:
Ah. The happyfeet/leigh definition of “conservative”. Is performance of blowjobs on camera required, or will witness statements suffice?
Talk about lacking in self-knowledge…
You’re a single-issue voter, leigh. You’re as mature and thoughtful as the caricatures you presume just vote To Keep Down The HomoSecks.
When it comes to earmarks, Paul’s principled position is to have the tax payer over the barrel, pants down, lubed up.
Rob, you know absolutely nothing about me. That’s at least the second time you’ve accused my of being a single issue voter only, last time it was abortion.
For an obstensively straight guy you use an awful lot of homosexual imagery in your remarks, I say this as a Psychologist.
“For an obstensively straight guy you use an awful lot of homosexual imagery in your remarks, I say this as a Psychologist.”
For a
Ppsychologist, you sure display a lack of self-awareness…Reality TV star Jim Bob Duggar, from TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting, endorsed Rick Santorum today at a rally in Polk City, Iowa. “All the people in America that have conservative family values have to get behind Rick Santorum for President,” Duggar said.
So?
No reason.
Here ya go, Jeff:
If we as Conservatives don’t want a repeat of 2008, and are serious about nominating a true Conservative as our nominee, then the time is upon us to unite behind the VIABLE Conservative, the CONSISTENT Conservative — Rick Perry.
Steve Forbes
Just got this in an email.
Like I said, Leigh, I like Perry’s tax plan.
However, I don’t see how Perry is any more VIABLE than Bachmann. Who I believe best represents my interests and has been consistently conservative. And won’t suggest I haven’t a heart because I don’t believe in pandering to a large Hispanic population who, if given a chance, would likely favor constitutional conservatism, too.
I was harking back to your being a Forbes guy last time, unless I’ve mixed you up with another.
Ron Paul would make a good Sec Treasury. Newt would make a good VP. Mitt would make a good lobbyist for something other than himself, maybe. Huntsman would make a good DMV licence picture taker.
Bachmann, Santorum and Perry are the only TEA party people left, so naturally are beyond consideration.
It’s maddening.
Obama would never ever have won in the first place if the voter people were already very very close to putting a fringe social con like Santorum or Bachmann in our little White House.
That’s just too whiplashy to be plausible.
” Obama would never ever have won in the first place ”
quit being mean to megan’s daddy
good point
Why did he win then and are the same factors in play now? And more to the point, who would you like to see the Republicans nominate? Because for those of us scoring at home, you seem to hate everyone from McCain rightward.
OBL had three beefs, one of which was us in Saudi. He also didn’t like the way Iraq was being treated under UN sanctions and, typically, how Israel wasn’t pushed into the sea yet.
I agree with you: I don’t think we should base our policy on what jihad-crazed lunatics think of us, either, but Paul’s assertion is, after all, correct in that OBL did what he did because what what we did. Where Paul is wrong is in saying we shouldn’t have done what we did because of OBL’s actions later. We did the right thing in opposing Saddam in Kuwait.
For Islamic fundementalists finding a reason to attack anyone is never a problem. They have over 1400 years of constant grievances against the entire planet to pick from. Their problem (one common to bullies) comes in picking someone they believe can’t or won’t fight back to win. BJ Clinton’s performance after Mogadishu said “America’s a punk, hit’em, hit’em hard”. That was a high bar but Obama will clear it with ease and set us up again.
Screw them all. Write in my name instead
Which is why Ron Paul is wrong, ultimately, about 911, though he’s right about OBL’s motivation. We should pursue our interests and keep an eye on the lunatics from here on out.
Odd Uncle Paul
Every family has one.
Great point on why Paul is enjoying the support he is. The GOP has no one to blame but itself.
#78–I am guessing you would be a heck of a lot better than the field right now.
“…So, no, I don’t think affordable family formation policies can be viewed as statist. They’re pretty much the opposite”
Well said Mr. h!
A little math review for Leigh’s benefit:
*Social Cons ? Social Activists
*Social Libs = Social Activists
Leigh SOCONS generally play a defensive game. Only wishing to prevent the erosion of ideals and principles that support healthy families. We don’t much care what someone else does in the privacy of their own house but we’d rather not have it in our faces and certainly don’t wish to endorse/enable what we see (and science confirms) as unhealthy lifestyle choices.
Of course Rick Santorum does tend to play a 85 Bears style defense but unless Dan Marino is his opponent I’d say perhaps it’s time to do the Super Bowl shuffle!
* In most cases
Bastiat, you really need to get a better (as in ANY) understanding of Islam before you spout on the subject.
Islam divides the entire world into the House of Islam, the believers, and the House of War, the infidels (like everyone reading this site) whom it is acceptable to kill, enslave, or convert by force. The simple fact that the US doesn’t govern itself according to the Quran is all the motivation a faithful Muslim needs to attack us. End of story.
Sorry McGehee, but imma write in Danger for President.
Another issue that is annoying the hell out of me is the crying. What is with the crying? I mean I understand, to be human is to cry – but if a reporter asks you a personal question that you know will make you cry you turn the tables on the reporter. DO NOT CRY WHEN YOU RUN FOR OFFICE. IT IS STUPID.
RON PAUL DOESN’T CRY.
And thanks Jeff for your post. As usual, highly intelligent and thoughtful. One question, since you like Bachmann and Sanitorum, can you tell me if you honestly believe they have a chance in hell at this point? I mean I knew that Huckabee never had a chance just on the basis of his name. Well that and his retarded “hey, I’m cool, really, I play bass guitar!” portfolio. Now if he was at one time into recording Moog loops and screaming “FUCK BRIAN ENO!” while humping a uni-cycle…well that’s a different story.
PS. I know you didn’t like Huckabee, my thoughts are that he was a surprise in Iowa. And it turned out that Iowa didn’t matter. Did the Teat Party loose its wind after the 2008 round? Too bad if so. Then again, to me, if anyone the Dems attack and the media attacks like they do and did to the Tea Party means they must have been doing something VERY right.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/supreme-court-takes-up-idaho-property.html
Supreme Court takes up Idaho property rights dispute
The issue is whether you should get a hearing in front of a judge before the EPA takes action against your property. Well, Duh. And this needs to go to the Supreme Court? Rely solely on the judgment of some EPA official? Haven’t any of the people involved with this seen Ghost Busters?
That post above falls under: Why who wins the White House really matters. They pick the judges who decide these issues.
It only matters Lady Bovine, if the choice isn’t between the socialist and a democrat.
I think the choice is socialist and a Rockerfeller Republican, but you are right Mr. Schreiber.
And while RS is better than MR, he is far from perfect too.
http://volokh.com/2012/01/02/rick-santorum-big-government-conservative/
With everything I said about Bachmann’s qualifications, I would take her over Paul any day. Paul’s been in Congress for decades and he’s still not qualified for the White House. Whereas after a few more terms I suspect Bachmann will be a beast on Capitol Hill.
[…] Get out of my head, man: Of course, Paul is a disaster as a candidate, and his ties with various unsavory types less careful about expressing their bigotry than he has been would sink him in a general election. But he does come across onstage as anti-establishment — while not carrying the “baggage” of faith that many conservative / classical liberal / libertarian types seem so much to distrust in their prospective candidates (at least, if the candidates gives the impression that s/he believes the tenets of that faith and might actually hew to them) — and this appeals to many of those who are fed-up with a business-as-usual government they can’t seem to change, even after sending an unmistakable message via the ballot box that it is significant change they desire and demand. […]
A Rockerfeller Republican is a Democrat who doesn’t feel the need to hide his contempt for “the little people.”
You’re, right. he’s pro-America. He’s the only national politician in the 80’s, including Saint Reagan, who supported Israel’s bombing of the Iraq nuclear facility. And why did he do that? Because he believes in Israel’s sovereignty as a nation. Their right to protect themselves. As for OBL and Al Queda, he’s right. They have said it time and time again. Why do we turn our backs to that? Because we like to kill Islamists? Hell, my “name” indicates how I feel about the cockroaches, but the truth is that blowback is a real consequence of foreign policy. The only thing that I would like Paul to acknowledge is that, yes, they do indeed hate us for who we are, also. But that’s not a policy that he would change, nor would any of us. But having over 900 military bases in 130 countries is soemthing we can change. All you people complaining about his foreign policy need to read his book, “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” and not rely on the MSM, or some statist republican’s views, on it. It would also do you well to read, “The Revolution: A Manifesto”. Listen, nobody likes Paul, statist republicans or statist democrats, so he doesn’t get a fair shake from any of them. His foreign policy is the same as Robert Taft’s, Mr. Republican.
Not at all, bh. But the truth is that pork is a red herring in this whole debate. It is infinitesimal in regards to our spending. Nobody has talked spending cuts like Paul. BTW, he wants to cut military spending back to 2005 levels. This is “gutting” the military? Obviously that last question is not directed directly at you, bh. Just a general.
SDN, who cares? They are going to hate us no matter what. The truth is that OBL and other islamist cockroaches have said that is one of the main reasons for all their acts of terror against the US. Pablo made the mention that the Saudis want us there, so who cares about OBL. But, why are we there anyhow? If Iran makes any kind of move on Israel, Israel takes her out. Why has Israel acted so dovish in the past? because of the US. Does Israel not have a right to protect itself without our interference? And please save me the anti-semitic charges against Paul. As I mentioned above, he was a friend to Israel before by recognizing their right as a sovereign nation. Also, his two ideological mentors were Jewish.
We do not have military bases in 130 countries, unless you want to count embassies, which is basically retarded. We also don’t have 900 military bases overseas, though I have no idea where that ridiculous number comes from.
This is not to say that there aren’t plenty of people and bases overseas that don’t need to be there, but if we’re going to have that argument, let bring the facts, shall we?
We’re not anymore.
Was Israel dovish when they took out Osirak? Was Operation Orchard dovish?
We were in Saudi because we kicked Saddam’s ass from there in 1991, by Saudi invitation. We remained there until we kicked Saddam’s ass once and for all in 2003. We didn’t go there for Israel. We went there for Kuwait and stayed because we didn’t finish the job and we were asked to stay.
Danger, thanks for qualifying your explanation. That may have been the case in years past, but it no longer is. Social activism, from either the right or the left is wrong.
I’ll get my cites for the bases.
No, Israel wasn’t dovish in those particular instances and who was the one national politician behind them, especially Osirak? But, now he’s more dovish than Obama?
There was no evidence that Iraq was ever going to invade Saudi Arabia, Pablo. And why would we protect one Islamist government from a nominally secular one that we had been allied with? Again, blowback.
If Ron Paul says we brought 9/11 on ourselves, then Ron Paul isn’t worthy of my support.
No, we don’t have evidence of Saddam’s intention regarding Saudi. What we did have was Saudis intentions to make sure it didn’t happen, for which they asked our assistance.
Because one of them was and is relatively stable and the other was run by a crackpot with delusions of Saladin. Or, if you prefer the shorter version: Oil.
Yeah, again, blowback. From a fucking lunatic who is blessedly dead now. We should have taken him out much, much sooner.
Social activism, from either the right or the left is wrong.
Blanket condemnation, from either the heedful or the heedless, is stupid.
And by pro-America, you mean, pro-any America who behaves as he says it should, disavowing alliances, drawing down its military power, etc. — otherwise, fuck ’em, they brought that plane attack on themselves, the imperialist bastards.
That’s Ted Rall’s foreign policy argument.
You can vote for who you want. But Ron Paul is not what you think he is.
Blanket condemnation, from either the heedful or the heedless, is stupid.
Agreed. I should have given an example or twenty.
And of course, if we had President Ron Paul, Bin Ladin would still be alive, as would al-Awlaki.
Social activism, from either the right or the left is wrong.
Furthermore, equivocating equilavence is lazy libtarded thinking.
kinda like how equilavence is lazy proof-reading
It’s early, Ernst. I was answering Danger who was doing the equivalence thing.
Yeah, hiding in a cave somewhere, Bin laden sure was dangerous. At least you allowed for the real truth behind our foreign policy, Pablo. Oil. BTW, as for the number of bases, that was from Paul’s site. However, as for “facts” good luck with those. The Pentagon states 662 sites.
No, Jeff. I mean Pro-America where we don’t create entangling alliances and allow ourselves to be held captive by any number of nations for any number of reasons. By Pro-America, I mean that we would do away with ridiculous foreign aid (much more goes to Israel’s enemies than to Israel). I think Paul is who he says he is, too.
Honestly, what do you think happens if Paul wins? Remember, he isn’t going to dismantle much. The military industrial complex (coined by that other pinko softy, Ike) will not allow for it. Why is big government terrible domestically but we can have military bases all over the world, draining resources, serving some sort of worldwide welfare system that, again, we finance?
If Iran follows through on their current gambit to close the Straits of Hormuz, you are about to find out.
Danger most certainly was not doing the equivalence thing. (And it seems to me, based upon the text of your response to him, the only way you could believe that would be if you thought the two of you were in agreement.)
Well said! And best said having a glass of champaign and a plate of oyster rockerfeller in front of you at the Waldorf! And looking like this!
Yeah.
Yeah. It’s still integral to OUR INTERESTS. Ours. America’s. Moreso than it should be, but that’s a seperate matter.
If he wins the nomination, he’ll have Obama running to his right on national security, and he’ll do so with solid evidence to prove the point. Which, I might as well just start dropping acid for breakfast because reality will have passed me by.
If. But they won’t, in part because the US (and others) has forces present to prevent and punish the attempt, and in part because they needn’t in order to accomplish their actual goal, namely, scare the market into higher per-barrel prices merely by making the threat.
Isolationism is so early twentieth century.
The reason we have military bases all over the world isn’t that hard to figure out. Hint: there has been a noticeable lack of world wars since we established them with great gobs of blood and treasure.
Reagan summed it up pithily with “peace through strength”.
I can’t believe we didn’t keep a fort in Iraq, a neglect that I’d wager will come back and bite us in the future.
EBL, those were the guys who called FDR a traitor to his class —until they understood what he was doing.
662 sites where? Cite, please. BTW. let’s keep in mind that every one of those sites is not what you’d think of as a base. A housing/retail complex is a site. A medical complex is a site. A golf course is a site. While the wisdom of those can certainly be debated, they are not evidence of our omnipresent force projection.
No, professional wrestling is not a sport. “Wrestling” doesn’t lend unquestionable sportiness to things that are attached to it, as in mud wrestling.
In other news, “movie marathon” is not an athletic event that requires months or even years of preparation.
Sports rules should be dictated by their governing bodies. It really is that simple.
He is what he says he is, just not in his newsletters. Those he didn’t write and he doesn’t know who did. And how dare you even ask the question.
ARE YOU CALLING HIM A RACIST, SIR?
We have overseas interests. I’m not a Wilsonian; I’m not a member of the “Democracy Project” favored by, eg., Bill Kristol. But I also realize that, as Bachmann noted with respect to Pakistan, there’s a complicated calculus that people like Paul wish to pretend doesn’t exist so that they can presume to take a kind of high road.
He’s full of shit. Osama may have been hiding in a cave somewhere, but his agents managed to get on our planes and fly them into our buildings. And it doesn’t matter to me why he did it: he declared war on us, and he should have been taken out when he did, not after he carried through.
Iran closing the straight of hormuz? Iran is not China. Iran is not the Old Soviet Union. If they choose to do something that dumb, we, as in Jefferson’s day have a right to military action, which I’m sure we will act.
Yes, thanks to our CIA/FBI and other intelligence agencies being separated as well as our being the world’s policeman. There’s that blowback thing again. Do you not believe anything they say? And do you think Osama is the only islamist cockroach out there able to carry that out? We had been at war in the middle east and had bases there and had interfered in their messes. A big reason for that “Yeah” is because of our foreign policy. Paul would focus on national defense, which is not the same as foreign policy. Listen, I know you guys are just convinced he’s nuts, so I’m not really trying to convert you, but rather get you to actually read the man’s words as opposed to the MSM and statist republicans’ perversions of his policy prescriptions.
Don’t forget the Caspian pipeline. And Bush’s desire to avenge daddy.
You should try these arguments in illuminating cartoon form!
Halliburton!!!!!!
What makes you think we haven’t?
Is it like, once we read His Words, we will see Truths and the veil will be torn from our eyes by His Light?
His foreign policy is dangerous and delusional. Again, I’m not a Wilsonian and I’m not a neocon; but I’m also no isolationist and I’m not silly enough to think that, left to its own devices, tyranny and savagery wouldn’t spread.
Was Reagan wrong to fight communism, OI? Should we be trading with Cuba and, if they ask, returning their refugees as a show that we don’t wish to meddle in their affairs?
No, professional wrestling is not a sport.
And thank the Lord for that. My point was that Santorum is not a Constitutional scholar and was an unserious lawyer who represented figures in the entertainment industry.
I’ll ask again, what has he been doing with himself since he was defeated six years ago? I’ve not been able to find it.
The hell you say! Mud wrestling is a fantastic spectator sport.
Almost as great as Jello wrestling.
Presidents should be born and reared as such. By their President fathers and grandfathers.
They should be sent to governing schools. Taught the ways of government from the cradle on.
So long as we don’t call them kings, I think that’s probably the best way to go. Wouldn’t want to get any of that unserious juice on us.
His newsletters Jeff? Come on, there wasn’t anything said in those newsletters that either you, or I, or any 100’s of your commenters haven’t said in the past. Here is an article by Justin Raimondo demolishing the whole newsletter bullshit.
Link
That doesn’t sound like a big issue that you would have with someone who shared your foreign policy sentiments.
Paul is not taking any high road, except for the road that leads from statist everything to one of limited government and first principles. He would concentrate on national defense and that means securing the borders, so that Osama’s agents wouldn’t have been able to do what they did. He doesn’t underestimate their desire to harm us, but he does recognize that if we secure our borders, and have our existing agencies do their fucking jobs, that the islamist threat to us is pretty weak. You say you’re not a Wilsonian, and I believe that. Obviously, neither is Paul. Iraq is more than likely going to become an Islamist haven thanks to our foreign policy of pre-emptive war on a large scale. I don’t know. I don’t believe that under a Paul presidency the United States becomes some pussy like canada. It will not happen. He’s not gutting the military. He’s going to strengthen the border. Islamists can hurt us, but it will be much, much tougher and don’t forget he was a yes on going into Afganistan and punishing the Taliban and Al Queda, just not staying there for 10 plus years, wasting life, limb and national treasure to transform something that is not transformable by force.
Jeff, have you read his words or books? Because to me it sounds like you haven’t. And don’t lump me in with the loons. I’ve been here too long and have never led you to believe that before, so I think I have earned at least that much gravitas. How in the world is he an isolationist? By not wanting to have our troops in bases all over the world? By not wanting to spend billions, if not trillions of dollars, on morally ambiguous wars? I need to know how that makes him an isolationist?
A fuckin’ men
Yes, we will. Or rather the Fifth Fleet, convenient HQ’d in Bahrain will.
The people who hijacked those planes and crashed them into building are to blame. A bit more foresight on our part and we’d have greased their leader 5 years prior to 9/11, and 15 years before we finally got around to it.
I believe in exterminating Islamist cockroaches. Which is sort of tough to do from the fetal position. I believe that they believe what they say, which is why there’s no negotiating with them. Do you believe what they say? Have you heard them say they want to peacefully coexist with Dar al Harb? I haven’t.
Justin Raimondo? Seriously?
Seriously?
No. Seriously?
Justin Raimondo?
Well, then. So long as he isn’t blaming the Israeli government for the newsletters, he’s probably quite reliable.
Wow.
Jeffrey, you a free to lurve Rick Santorum all you want. Send off and get an autographed picture of him and his passel of young’uns, too.
You have insisted a number of times that Santorum in s Trve Conservative. His record says otherwise.
Communism, or rather the Soviet Union, was a much larger threat than 14th century barbarians, Jeff. So, I don’t buy that premise. And Yes, I do believe we should try to have commerce with Cuba.
It has spread anyhow with all our intervention. What is so wrong, or naive, about “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” This doesn’t mean, like Jefferson knew, that we don’t protect our interests. Again, that Paul is an isolationist is a canard. It is just not true.
I don’t need to “lurve” Rick Santorum. I’m a Bachmann supporter. Before that, I was a Palin supporter. And no, you won’t be able to shame me into standing up for Santorum as a more conservative candidate than most of the others still standing.
I require no photographs or autographs, nor do I need to fetishize him in order to do so. But you can certainly try to diminish me if you wish. Ace tried it — at the time, I believe I was a “Cainiac” prone to falling under the spell of charismatics (although astoundingly, not Obama!) — and he was wrong, too.
Whatever gets you through the day, though.
sez you
I’m not trying to diminish you, Jeff. I would suggest that you turn down the mocking a tad, though. It’s difficult to take you seriously at times.
Jeff, you’re not the attack the person kind of guy. Did you read the article? Did you read the links?
Yes, Pablo, they are to blame. But, damn, our dropping that rather large fucking ball is to be blamed, too. How come you guys find it so easy to blame politicians/departments for domestic issues, but have hard time seeing their failures when it comes to foreign policy?
Ah, I see. So it’s a kind of ideal that is, paradoxically, situational. With Ron Paul deciding who and what is a serious threat and who and what isn’t.
Got it.
Commercial air travel. Speed of movement globally. Nuclear weapons. EMPs.
And what is one man’s “entangling alliance” is another’s “national interest coalition,” depending upon the foreign policy.
Incidentally, Paul didn’t like Reagan’s militarism either.
Incidentally, fourteenth century barbarians with nukes? A bigger threat than the soviet union to launch an attack. MAD doesn’t work when one side is pining for the sandy fjords.
Did he represent his client’s interests? Did he get paid? What unserious about it?
OI, did you miss the part where I said we should have dealt with bin Ladin in 1996?
So you think a bunch of 14th century barbarians are as dangerous as the Soviet Union with their 1,000’s of nuclear warheads aimed at us? It’s got kind of a pomo feel to it.
I already knew that he didn’t care for some of Reagan’s policies, because I read his books. There was enough blowback under Reagan, too. I do know that the delusional and dangerous Paul backed Israel’s right to self defense, while the great Reagan didn’t, though.
How are they going to get them here, Jeff? This gets back to the securing the borders thing, which is real national defense.
Pablo, I took your comment as implying that I was part of the blame Amercia crowd.
As dangerous as the Soviets? No. Still dangerous? Absolutely.
Whatever happened to the Soviet Union and that Iron Curtain thingy, anyway?
Did you read the post at the link?
Paul’s foreign policy is based around Paul’s own idea of what comes to constitute a moral war and a moral use of force. From his own mouth I’ve heard him give examples of what are and what are not appropriate uses of force, troop deployment, etc.
I disagree with him. Vehemently. His foreign policy is naive and dangerous. I agree with him on many domestic issues, but as I’ve said, there are other candidates who are just as fiscally conservative and anti-big government available to me — and they don’t share Paul’s silly foreign policy. Which, as I’ve argued, boils down to: “whatever Ron Paul wants it to be, depending on the situation.”
As an entertainment lawyer he was doing his job. I don’t know how well he did it, but certainly he was compensated.
He is going to put signs up at all airports:
NO TERISTS A LOUD!!!
Well, B. Moe, it sounds like he would be hiring the handicapped, at least.
Not so much that, OI, as I’m sensing a lack of membership in the blame the Jihadis crowd. We’re doing a much better job with our security now that we’re feeling Grandma and the babies up before they get on a plane, but AFAIC our great failure was not strangling al-Qaeda in its crib. Hell, we coulda, shoulda, woulda finished Saddam back in ’91 and went on our merry way and 9/11 probably wouldn’t have happened. I have no illusions that our foreign policy has been perfect, nor am I under the illusion that Paul’s foreign policy would be perfect or result in better outcomes.
Well, what with us not being the world’s policemen, and the seas open for trade fairly and freely to all — as well as the skies not over the US — gee, I don’t know, how would they ever manage to deliver such a thing?
This is the problem with libertarian foreign policy. It’s shortsighted. It’s naive. Peace through strength is the best way. And having bases around the globe allows for quick responses to attacks on our national interests. Now, do I think we shouldn’t take shit from countries we help protect? Absolutely. Do I want out of the UN? You betcha.
But there’s a lot of ground between not being an internationalist and being a “non interventionalist” in Paul’s sense of the thing.
This was the appropriate (for our conversation)paragraph and it’s kind of light duty. The Soviet’s were experiencing huge financial issues before Reagan became president, due to the whole planned economy thing. Again, I ask you to read his books, at least the two that I have stated in a previous comment. Again, realizing that it’s not going to change any minds, but it should, if read openly and honestly, disavow this notion of isolationism and dangerous foreign policy.
How are they going to get them [i.e. nukes] here, Jeff?
Probably aboard a foreign passenger or freight carrier loaded by a strategically placed deep cover sleeper cell, and piloted by a strategically placed deep cover agent sometime in the next ten to twenty years.
If I had to guess.
If we step down from being the world’s policeman, you really think nobody else wants the job?
Seriously?
Howso?
Because the Soviets could be deterred by the promise of Mutually Assured Destruction while Islamic fundamentalists won’t be? I fail to see any “pomo” in that. In fact, it’s the precise opposite: I haven’t engaged in any relativism; I’ve made my determination based on the nature of the specific individual threat.
Oh well. Great talk. I’m glad I came out of the closet, so to speak. I’m not saying that you, or anyone else in these here parts, is going to come to my way of thinking, but it’s good to get it out.
Yes, I know, OI. Carter really won the Cold War.
Ok, and by the U.S. being the world’s policeman and stretching ourselves so thin, how do we stop that now?
Santorum is just a symptom of the poverty of talent what Team R brought to the table this time around.
If he were the nominee not only would he lose lose lose but Team Political Jesus would get – ooomph – kicked in the balls something fierce I think.
Which would be fun fun fun were it not for the dreadful consequences of a second Obama term.
Better to run Romney and let Team Nutless Establishment take the hit, which for obvious reason would be less painful but still kinda fun.
Better still I think to run the flawed flawed flawed but smart Gingrich and at least send the message that our poor sad little country is worthy of a fourth quarter hail mary pass.
Option B would be a strategic alliance with one of the narco gangs running the north of the failed state to our immediate south —contracting for services to get the cargo across the border and into an unmarked, unremarkable cargo van within a hundred miles of an interstate hub.
You know Iran is very seriously in the missile business, right? But I guess that’s exclusively Israel’s problem.
Jeff, ok. Now, you’re being disingenuous. I never said that and that’s bullshit and you know it.
“solve our financial problems”
Can’t be done without addressing the needs of drastic changes to entitlement programs. First. Further cuts to defense expenditures are a relative drop in the bucket by comparison. Paul has largely copped out on entitlements. Strange, no?
Yes, the Russians love their children too. Islamists are like Honey Badger. They don’t give a fuck.
We don’t need to be the world’s policemen. But there’s a lot of space between not being the world’s policeman and disengaging from alliances and removing bases and refusing to spy and on and on and on, a lot of space between being a referee and being an active participant in the game.
I can tell you this: we haven’t thwarted a number of terror attacks by attacking NSA surveillance programs or by refusing to spy on Iran.
We’re only stretched thin because we’re trying to be the world’s policeman while simultaneously infantilizing our own citizenry so we can be Mommy, Daddy and Peter Pan all at the same time.
Better still I think to run the flawed flawed flawed but smart Gingrich and at least send the message that our poor sad little country is worthy of a fourth quarter hail mary pass.
Seems to work for some football teams.
Speaking of Iran, things keep blowing up over there. I approve this message.
You didn’t have to say it: the argument is that the Soviet Union was going to implode eventually under the weight of its central planning, and that Reagan’s policies, though they sped up the Soviet’s demise, were ultimately bad, because they spread US influence around the globe imperially and blah blah blah blowback blah blah Ron Paul for President!
Yes, but if erstwhile libertarian Ron Paul is in charge of the borders, he’d make drugs legal and all the narco gangs would go away. Then he’d wall out the Mexicans, and they wouldn’t bother us. Because how are they going to get in?
It’s all about the icky Jesus and the gay gay gayity gay gays.
Some things just aren’t worth being staunch over, I guess.
Sodomy is not among them, naturally.
They’d just go away instead of branching out like the way the Mafia did when they had to get outta liquor and got into union organizing?
Whew! What a relief!!
Pablo —
Those things that are blowing up are most certainly NOT nuclear related. We know this because we trust the reporting of international agencies who don’t have our best interests at heart to have, in this case, the truth on their side — and it’s a truth that just happens to align with Ron Paul’s view of things.
Serendipity!
You two forgot the fetuses.
I don’t think it’s about icky Jesus so much. I think there’s a lot of people what would like to see an unpresidential third stringer what is associated with extreme social views like Santorum or Bachmann in the White House for to validate their emotional investment in certain candidates for whom discretion proved the better part of valor with respect to entering this particular contest.
That “allow me to interject” thread made for interesting reading. Change, right? But not Paul’s change, evidently. So, what did change?
[…] and our strengths against us in ways that would make Uncle Ho weep in admiration. And our side? Pick a random post from this blog over the past few […]
Who are you asking, sdferr, and what are you asking?
OTOH our current President is Styled as a Constitutional Scholar, and guess what?
In a nutshell, I’m asking OI what changed his mind. Which, from this vantage, looks to have made a 180.
See, I’m not worried about where he finished on American Idol, happy. I don’t need a rock star President. As for what they are “associated with,” I ask yet again: are you really in marketing, and if so, have you bothered to study how it works?
Those extreme social views wouldn’t have anything to do with the icky Jesus (or in Santorum’s case, as leigh has reminded us, IESVS), would they?
Okay, got ya.
I thought it was interesting, as well, sdferr. I would submit that nothing has changed.
California has decided to teach the children all about the gay aspects of US history. Also, the children need to stay in special car seats until they are 4’9″ or 9 years old, whichever comes first. 18 is the age the childrens can use tanning beds, not 17, even with parental permission. 12 year olds can still get abortions without parental knowledge though.
Another new law is handguns must never be seen in public, even unloaded ones. There may be some connection there.
OTOH our current President is Styled as a Constitutional Scholar, and guess what?
Everything our current prez says is a pack of lies. Including the lie that he is a constitutional scholar.
Pennsylvania tried and failed to teach Creationism in the science classroom along with evolution.
Barry is not only not a constitutional scholar, he’s both anti-constitutional and not a scholar, in any sense. So, yeah, boxing up a pack of lies is his specialty.
If you could teach religion in the classroom, you wouldn’t have to try to squeeze creation into the science curriculum.
I don’t need a rock star president either I still think lifeydoodle Mitch Daniels would have been by far the strongest candidate Team R could have fielded.
As for what they are “associated with”
I said “associated with” cause while the Santorum and the Bachmann are full-blown social con bigots, other could-have-run candidates mostly just pander to that crowd. It’s not really where they’re coming from I don’t think, but unfairly enough they still get plastered with a lot of social con baggage on par with what the for real ones bring to the table.
If you send your kids to a parochial school you can cover all your bases.
FTFY.
Unfortunately, the state won’t let you teach creationism in the parochial school science classroom either.
So you think a bunch of 14th century barbarians are as dangerous as the Soviet Union with their 1,000?s of nuclear warheads aimed at us? It’s got kind of a pomo feel to it
Actually more dangerous. The overall threat was obviously much higher with the Soviets if things ever escallated, but the Soviets at least understood a full exchange of nuclear missiles would be a very bad thing for both sides. Even Charlie Sheen would not conceive of that as “winning.” There are leaders in al Qaeda and Iran who think a nuclear attack would be a good thing.
Being a Constitutional Scholar and upholding the Constitution are very different things.
I’d bet that Obama is much more conversant with Constitutional law than I am. But not necessarily as regardful of the upholding part.
George Washington? Damned fine President. Not much of a scholar, though. Probably one of his most important attributes, besides being tall, was that he didn’t bullshit himself about his own shortcomings. Also, he was keenly aware of what could happen if government became too powerful.
That’s because they have whole classes dedicated to teaching religion, Ernst. At least Sacred Heart did.
At least they had that much wisdom. My 15-year-old is only about 4’8″.
In happyfeet parlance, if you allow your moral worldview to unapologetically shape your politics, you’re a bigot. If your apologetic about either your morality or your politics, you’re a panderer.
Tell us ‘feets, which is Mitch Daniels?
I frankly don’t care whether public schools teach religion in the classroom; I’d prefer they didn’t. Because don’t get your papacy in my protestantism, for starters.
Creationism doesn’t belong in science class because it’s not science.
That was kind of tongue-in-cheek leigh, because I had this comment on my mind.
I happen to think of all the bigotries expressed publicly, yours are most dangerous. If a person expresses a religious conviction, even one so untroubling as “I sure am glad I didn’t abort my now NFL QB son,” you hate them. Despise them. For their religious convictions. Even though you don’t know them personally.
You hate conservative women, unless they are conservative women who hew to the liberal / pop-cultural idea of how an emancipated woman is to look, talk, act. You are a snob. And we don’t need anymore conservative snobs picking our candidates or driving our platforms. Just switch parties, bug the Dems to lower taxes from the right of your new party, and leave conservatives and classical liberals alone.
Let’s see: how many former regulars is that that I’ve managed to run off with my hatey hatreds?
When I argue with them and they don’t return, that’s proof I’m an ogre, you see. I’ve read that places.
Evangelicals have no business being anywhere near power.
Simple as that.
But they’re the lesser evil next to the depredations of Obama.
That was kind of tongue-in-cheek leigh, because I had this comment on my mind.
Ah! Gotcha. Pretty funny, Ernst.
Pop-culture-glutted pikachus have no business being anywhere near expressing an opinion.
Simple as that.
So why not put it there to show how it isn’t science, and how and why it belongs in a philosophy class instead? Upshot: you articulate the scientific method, avoid the clumsiness and inexactitude of positing macro-evolution and the question of first causes as part and parcel of what evolutionary evidence shows, and you make clear that creationism as a law of first causes is not bothered by evolutionary theory (though the creationism that is built on the idea of irreducible complexity is, mostly because it mistakes the effect for the cause).
See, assertion monkey is always assertive. It’s in his genes; he can’t help it.
Hell, slart, given the quality of the eduocracy these days, any religion class would likely degenerate into:
pagans/animists/pan-theists: good (in a celebrate diversity sort of way)
Muslims: misunderstood
Christians: bad
Jews:ambivalent (except for the zionists who are worse than Christians).
There should be a poll test. Do you believe in God? No, I mean, really believe that shit?
Yes?
Rejected. Bill Maher. Now there’s a potential candidate. He could decide whether to go to war by consulting his mood crystal or determine environmental policy after engaging in a bit of phytosemiotics with a worried, politically engaged tree.
I have no problem with that. I actually am in favor of that. I just don’t think it belongs there as a competing theory, because it’s no such thing. In order to test it, you’ve got to produce God, and God just isn’t all that into revealing Himself these days, even to folks who wedge themselves in a cleft in the rock.
oh bosh and bother both of you
I have been more than clear that I am more than happy to vote for a deranged lifeydoodle for to help my sad little country
but the lifeydoodle bigots would tell America to go fuck herself if Team R ever had the temerity to nominate someone what believed hoochies should have the freedom to make abortion decisions for themselves
And we all know it.
Anybody know who invented the green eye-shade?
Too, hasn’t the very idea of a philosophy class been sufficiently discredited so as to never (well, nearly never) carry any serious weight of honor? And isn’t that discredit part and parcel of the victory of physical science, itself sitting at the center of progressivism and positivism as such, so also with the levers of power in our novel soft-despotism?
The Hot Air linkered a piece with this yummy taste of Santorum goodness in it this morning, and it should give everyone what loves America pause I think, but particularly if they live amongst cows and cornstalks.
If anyone cares anymore, here is a link to an article about the number of “sites” we have and here is the 206 page PDF from the pentagon, the 2010 base structure report. Much of the problem with finding a number is definitional, what is a “base”, a “site”. The number that most are looking for is that of major bases not a few tents where a platoon has set up camp for a few weeks.
BTW the USA like the Britain is a sea power not a land power. That means bases, overseas, if we intend to be able to defend ourselves. If we abandon the protection of/freedom of travel/trade on, the oceans to whoever wants to take it up then our nation’s economy and safety will be in those same hands.
Maybe the lifeydoodle bigots believe that what’s being aborted is a human, and that instead its bigots who get fucked by frat boys after doing Jaeger shots that shouldn’t have the easy option of snuffing out a life once the dude they banged decides in week 12 that no, he’s changed his mind, he isn’t going to marry her, so fuck if she’s going to be saddled with the crummy little belly worm for 7 more months!
And rather than telling America to go fuck itself, maybe they try to make the argument and force the issue and voice their opinions and concerns, and maybe even run for office to try to affect some kind of positive change, as they see it — and as they ask voters to see it.
Your problem, happy, is that you are a leftist who doesn’t realize it. There are plenty of you on the right, too, so don’t take it too hard.
Right, happy. He thinks the family as a unit should receive special dispensations from the government.
Radical. Statist. Nefarious. Anti-liberty.
He’s separating himself from libertarians. That’s to be expected. They are different things. But again, so long as he adheres to the Constitution, the only way he can affect changes is to get the public to buy into the need for the changes he advocates.
Plus, federalism!
the Featherweight Eyeshade Co of Bayonne NJ was awarded a patent Mr. sdferr, it says in an ad in the scanned newspaper on this page
more here
I am not a leftist I am staunch staunch staunch and also I have to go to the Office Depot so I will be back later
filicide decisions for
themselvestheir childrenSee how that changes depending on how you look at it? Very linticular, that.
Upshot: you articulate the scientific method, avoid the clumsiness and inexactitude of positing macro-evolution and the question of first causes as part and parcel of what evolutionary evidence shows, and you make clear that creationism as a law of first causes is not bothered by evolutionary theory…
Um, you do realize that these science classes are generally taught by education majors, right? Most of these guys are stretching the limit just trying to teach Hooke’s Law.
Me? I’d be happy if schools taught anything in their classes. Far as I can tell, they’re really just large integrated babysitting centers/drug markets.
happyfeets reminds me of Steve Martin in The Jerk.
the lifeydoodle bigots would tell America to go fuck herself if Team R ever had the temerity to nominate someone what believed hoochies should have the freedom to make abortion decisions for themselves
And we all know it.
As a lifeydoodle bigot, I think that decision should be left to the fetus.
Assissted suicide is illegal.
“the lifeydoodle bigots would tell America to go fuck herself if Team R ever had the temerity to nominate someone what believed hoochies should have the freedom to make abortion decisions for themselves
And we all know it.”
I don’t know it. I think Rudy Giuliani coulda had a real shot this time around.
Endorsement.
I am not a leftist I am staunch staunch staunch…
Ah. For months, I’ve wondered how the hell the deranged electric hamster could possibly survive in the marketing world. Now it’s revealed to me: he’s from the Big Lie school. Just keep repeating it ’til people can’t work up the energy to disagree any more. As Philip Greenspun once wrote: “Ford Motor Company has enough money to remind you 2,000 times a year that Quality is Job One; unless you lost a friend in a Pinto gas tank explosion, you probably will eventually come to agree.”
I think what really irks me about happyfeet, apart from his feigned lack of self-awareness regarding his own bigotry and narrow-mindedness, is the fact that he thinks he can pull off that sort of shit at a place like this. For ten years, we’ve documented the Big Lie, and the perversion of language for selfish political ends. And now this little piece of rodent shit thinks he can fool us with an unending flood of “I’m totally open-minded, unlike those lifeydoodle cousin-humping knuckle-dragging retards I call my compatriots. I’m also totally into hanging out at Target and OfficeMax and BestBuy, but you’d never catch me dead in a WalMart, because those people are all cousin-humping knuckle-dragging retards. My commitment to principle is shown by my adherence to the currently popular trends in music, pop culture and social politics. And you should totally believe my anti-spending credentials, because when I’m not streaming college radio over my overpriced smart phone, I’m chowing down on six-dollar boutique cupcakes.”
It’s not the arguments that I find insulting; it’s the implied belief that I won’t pick up on the “subtle genius” of it all. I feel like a 5th-dan Go player being lectured to by a junior-high Othello champion who thinks it’s all so far over my head that I’ll never begin to understand it.
I really a lot like the idea of personal autonomy not some weirdo state where we all have to conform to the whims of evangelicals.
These people are deeply confuzzled about the role of the state I think.
It is the desire of us all or most of us, to be Empiricists that has killed philosophy class as an honorable pursuit. It is one of the reasons that I tracked into psychology. We still talked of philosophy and classical philosophy, at that. Granted, I have only scratched the surface and plod through the texts still, but philosophy is an excellent background for any discipline.
Right. The whims of gays, or illegals, on the other hand? Well, have a heart, won’t you? Bigots!
I love love love Walmart Jesus H Christ you can get frozen pizza there and car wax and pickles and pajama bottoms and those little bracket thingies for hanging pictures and toaster ovens and mag-lites and coffee and p-touches and bicycles and iPods and Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes and craft supplies and ramen noodles for like 11 cents a package, which is value, and digital cameras and popcorn and diet mountain dew and plus other stuff cause they like to surprise you, Walmart does
Mr. Jeff nobody is gonna ever force you to get gay married or have an abortion… the evangelicals on the other hand have lists
No. But they’re dead set on making sure I accept it and celebrate it and normalize it, and turn my opinions against the wisdom of such things into hate crimes.
Whereas the evangelicals? They just want to make their argument and let the public decide, rather than leaving such social change up to individual judges or small judicial oligarchies acting on principles found in “penumbras” and “emanations.”
I chose door number 2.
you don’t have to celebrate anything that’s just a myth
For those with a curiosity as to the Go reference: Gu Li, 9-dan, defeats Kim Ji Soek, 7-dan, with commentary.
I don’t have to celebrate it, no. But if I don’t it’s proof I’m a bigot. A hater. And should be no where near power.
I’ve been told!
Look in the mirror, pal. You’ve been made.
Go is one of those games like Pinochle that I could never get the hang of.
Double deck Canasta on the other hand, no problem. Likewise, cribbage.
that is not true Mr. Jeff cause of I am more than willing to vote for a daffy lifeydoodle, however nasty and bigoted
this I do for my country
The only thing you do for your country is weaken it and make it a more hateful and divisive place. And that you do well.
This place officially sucks.
In addition to being a fucking idiot, you’re also a knave and a scoundrel for pretending not to understand what Santorum is talking about here —unless that is, you’re a knave and a scoundrel for pretending to be a good lutheran boy. You want to be a libertine and a slave to whatever it is that trips your trigger, be my guest, but don’t expect me or anyone else to even believe you when you say you’ll pay your own way, let alone congratulate you for your consistency.
the day failshit America competently administrates values will probably be around the same time it makes a respectable automobile
You do if you go to school in California.
You guys have way too high expectations for happyfeets.
Then heal it.
Can we have TrollHammer back please, so’s we don’t have to keep skipping over the grieferdoodle?
You do if you go to school in California.
good point
The land of free shit and the home of the slave. Which sounds even better if you imaging Rosanne Barr singing it.
“You do if you go to school in California”
Also if you join the military. I order you to recognize!
Or if you do adoptions in Massachusetts or Illinois or DC. You know, abortions are so much easier and plus you get rid of those pesky Catholics and their baby adopting ways.
Single motherhood is no big deal anymore. Actually it hasn’t been for more than 20 years. Proof is right here in Smallville where we have 34 pregnant teenaged schoolgirls currently attending junior high and high school. Not a cautionary whale among them.
I was adopted through Lutheran Social Services they were very nice mom said. But they had a strict no returns policy.
the day failshit America competently administrates values will probably be around the same time it makes a respectable automobile
It is not the role of the government to administer values. Neither is it the role of government to take from families the right and the responsibility for administering their own.
Not long ago, the motto of the Choice Brigade was “Safe, Legal and Rare.” Today, they want to have a fucking parade in honor of every mother who
murdered her unborn infantcourageously made the difficult choice to remove a bit of tissue growing unwanted inside her, not unlike a malignant tumor. What color ribbon will they wear at their parade, do you think?Funny how we’re supposed to accept the Inconvenient Truth when it comes to man-made climate change, while other Inconvenient Truths are vigorously hidden or ignored. Funny how advocating for certain Inconvenient Truths gets you lauded, while advocating for other Inconvenient Truths makes one “unelectable.”
Just keep repeating the lie: “Lifeydoodles are bigoted and unelectable.” “Lifeydoodles are bigoted and unelectable.” “Lifeydoodles are bigoted and unelectable.” “Lifeydoodles are bigoted and unelectable.” Keep it up long enough and people will forget that they’re surrounded by lifeydoodles every day, most of whom are better people than anyone currently inside the Beltway.
We’re on to you, happy. Stop digging already.
None of that yucky open adoption stuff, I hope? That’s just messy all the way around.
but what if you have the receipt?
Go is one of those games like Pinochle that I could never get the hang of.
Go is a game where the more I began to understand it, the more I realized that I would never really understand it.
Same here, Squid. I went back to backgammon.
of course lifeydoodles are electable I voted for George W twice – and I would walk through a relatively hot fire for Mr. Daniels – but we all know the difference between W and, say, Michele with one l. There’s a substantial difference in degree there, and that’s just for starters. Bush never felt government should be as deeply involved in people’s lives as your Bachmanns and Santorums.
nope we were closed closed close
it’s the only way to be sure
d
“Single motherhood is no big deal anymore. Actually it hasn’t been for more than 20 years.”
Single motherhood has been de-stigmatized over the last 20 years, yes. Whether the de-stigmatizing created huge problems to the American culture is beyond debate, if you ask me.
Who’s your daddy? A million OWies can’t be wrong…GOVERNMENT IS DADDY!
backgammon is a great game
I never said it was a good thing, Lee. Most of the little ones around here are cared for by their grandparents while Mom finishes high school, has another baby and finishes beauty college around which time she usually gets married.
Medicare part D.
fucking idiot
I love backgammon. I used to play it all the time.
Medicare Part the D was a pre-emptive strike, my good christian friend.
Pre-emptive strike against America’s fiscal sustainability?
I love Go. That doesn’t mean I understand it altogether though. It’s simply beautiful. No more can I explain a beautiful woman.
the pre-emptive part was how it did its best not to rape and gut the miraculous life-saving engine of pharmacology
and it actually came in under budget I think – but now Obama is all about raping grandma’s donut hole
he’s kinda pervy that way
I wonder how a graph of the rise in illegitimate births over the last 20 years would track with the rise of government entitlement spending, illiteracy, and children in poverty over the last 20 years?
Be pretty close I bet.
I’m not a good christian.
Far from it, in fact.
But I don’t pretend that the fault lies elsewhere, so maybe there’s hope.
And that bit of intellectual honesty was refreshing. You should try it more often.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was right after all.
The best way to not rape and gut pharmacology would have been to not rape and gut pharmacology, instead of limiting the gutting to an unneccessary apendectomy and expecting Big pharma to be grateful that the raping came with a well lubricated condom.
I’m just saying there was so much R support for the Part D thing that it was inevitable, so Rove figured Bush should not only get the credit, but to have a hand in shaping it.
It’s not a good thing per se. But sometimes the government makes Bad Choices.
A regular modern day Cassandra Moynihan was, unlike that anti-Cassandra, whom is never disbelieved, depsite the omnipresent wrath of Boreas.
I need to teach my kids backgammon, but they’re all still at the stage where Chutes and Ladders ceases being fun when it’s on of them in the chute.
You know who else hates the Jesusy lifeydoodles? Some pro football players. Though interestingly, they don’t seem to have a problem with, say, Brian Dawkins.
But it’s for the best. It’s far better to have a secular god of foodstamps looking out for us than it is to have such a useless set of parables masquerading as God telling us it’s best if we learn to be self reliant. The nerve!
You’re memory is as flexible as your ethics.
“I never said it was a good thing”
Well, the argument seems to be that it is a bad thing that Santorum would support pro-family policies, and he should not be allowed to do so.
I think the many government policies that weaken the family unit are largely why we find ourselves in the pickle we’re in, and we should stop doing that.
Maybe I have the argument wrong..
Probably don’t have room, what with all those criminal defense attorneys.
Nobody in MN was particularly shocked when Jared Allen gave JC the credit for breaking Chris Dolman’s single season sack record. But maybe that’s because God doesn’t love him enough to let him break Micheal Sheehan’s league leading record, so we know that God doesn’t love him that much more than he loves the rest of us.
This is, of course, the position that makes me a despicable social con.
Still, imagine we still had a strong family structure in this country, and children were still responsible for their parents dotage instead of the tax payer.
bet that would cut down on the number of abortions…
The problem with being right is that it’s so damn judgemental.
Make it 50 years, throw in no-fault divorce and the lines on that graph would be intertwined.
Maybe I have the argument wrong…
No, you have the argument right. My point was that Moynihan made the same argument back when LBJ was implementing The Great Society and Moynihan, who was a dem, was called a racist.
Mr. Tebow has been mocked most cruelly yes but you have to remember that Jesus was positively crucified.
The problem: some parents do a really poor job of caring for their children, and some children do a very poor job of taking care of their parents in their dotage.
The solution: demand that the State do a really poor job of caring for everyone! No matter what age they are. No matter whether they want the ‘care’ in the first place. BECAUSE OF THE EQUALITY!
…so we know that God doesn’t love him that much more than he loves the rest of us.
Plus, you know, He put Allen with the Vikings. Kind of a dead giveaway, y’know?
Nah Squid, Allen did that to himself. God put Allen with the Kansas City Chiefs.
Thus proving that you can’t thwart the Will of God.
“My point was that Moynihan made the same argument back when LBJ was implementing The Great Society “
Well, LBJ had been moldering in his grave some time before Moynihan made his argument, but I got it.
The Negro Family: The Case For National Action, also known as the Moynihan Report was written by then-sociologist and later U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and released in 1965. It focused on the deep roots of black poverty in America and concluded that the relative absence of nuclear families (those having both a father and mother present) would greatly hinder further progress toward economic and political equality.
“Moynihan predicted back in 1965 that the increase of illegitimacy and single-mother households would bring social disaster for black communities.”
At the time he was assistant Secretary of Labor. For his troubles in speaking Truth, Power forced him to resign. He got even by running for RFK’s seat in the Senate.
I stand corrected. I thought Moynihan wrote that in the seventies, and LBJ died in the sixties. It’s what I get for not googling, and going on my rickety memory.
wiki
“Lyndon Baines Johnson (August 27, 1908 – January 22, 1973)”
Sure, rub it in. Thanks.
good thing lbj didn’t run in ’68
One thing is for sure and for certain, and that’s that Moynihan was right in 1965.
Also, Santorum is right in 2011.
Feel better. You were almost right:
In 1970, Moynihan wrote a memo to President Nixon saying: “[T]he issue of race could benefit from a period of ‘benign neglect.’ The subject has been too much talked about… We need a period in which Negro progress continues and racial rhetoric fades.” He argued that Nixon’s conservative tactics (meaning particularly the speeches of Vice-President Spiro Agnew) were playing into the hands of radicals. Moynihan regretted that critics misinterpreted his memo as advocating that the government should neglect minorities.
Hey kids! What time is it? It’s Caucus Time!
I’m very curious to see who wins.
While we were doing some fine running the first day, I heard the whistle blow wildly, and then I felt the train strike something. Brakes were put on, and we went out to see what had occurred. It was hailing just then, and we saw two men coming up the track. The conductor came back to tell us that we had struck a hand-car, and pointed to a piece of twisted iron and a bit of splintered board–all that remained of it–laying alongside. When the men came up, one remarked, with a mingled expression of wonder and disgust upon his face:
“Well, you ARE running like h–!”
“Thank you; I am glad to hear it,” I said, and then we all laughed. I inquired if they had been hurt; they assured me not, and good humor being restored all around, we said good-bye, the engineer pulled the lever, and we were off again. At one station where we stopped there was a large crowd, and when I appeared on the platform, one yell went up from them. There was one man on the outskirts of the crowd who shouted:
“Nellie Bly, I must get up close to you!”
The crowd evidently felt as much curiosity as I did about the man’s object, for they made a way and he came up to the platform.
“Nellie Bly, you must touch my hand,” he said, excitedly. Anything to please the man. I reached over and touched his hand, and then he shouted:
“Now you will be successful. I have in my hand the left hind foot of an happy!”
fatal attraction is where I’m at there’s no escaping me!
nellie bly suxs ryanbacon’s pork tenderloins
Ed Rollins is driving a stake through the heart of Michele with one L’s presidential aspirations.
Ed Rollins is a mean and untrustworthy person who is as ugly on the outside as he is on the inside and his trophy whore wife knows it I think
it really doesn’t reflect well on Michele with one l that she jumped in bed with the man
yes boom goes the dynamites
Huntsman is hanging tough at 1%.
mr legal erection said as much about the rollins awhile ago
hanging tough like nkotbsb!
r u tuf enuf?
I love that song!
karltherover is standing on his hind legs and barking on fox
thank god chris threw the karl a treat
Karl didn’t bring his whiteboard with him.
NotRomney is looking like RonPaul.
Ron Paul. Santorum. Romney.
breaking news iowa
UPDATE 7:44 p.m. CT: Bad news. Rick Santorum Victory Celebration has . . . a cash bar.
Big Government sez:
Paul, Romney and Perry to Win, Place and Show.
Godspeed thee, routerfoot.
ricky perry all hat no cattle
Not true, nr. But we’ll have to wait and see.
Palin on giving her 2¢ now. She looks awful. Get thee a make-over, Sarah.
sarah p go get on the cain train and be quiet
ricky perry all hat some mexican food involved
My man, Rick Perry, is on now. I heart him, bless his tongue-tied little heart.
is Palin telling Michele with one l to give it up honey this ain’t your year honeycakes?
Pretty much. She says “They’ll welcome her back in the House…”(where she belongs).
There are some results up at the Des Moines Register site. (There’s an annoying autoplay video feed.)
Santorum looks like he has a shot at it.
The hell? Juan Williams dissing the “youth vote” for RonPaul.
that’s a god-awful annoying site plus cocksucker in chief bought all the ads tonight
so far with almost 50% reporting the Romney Paul Gingrich it’s-the-economy-stupid axis has 58.8% and the Perry Santorum Bachmann single-issue lifeydoodle axis has 39.8%
Looks like Iowa says Santorum, Romney, Paul.
I made that comment elsewhere and posted it here … I hardly ever do that but math was involved so I wanted to get as much out of it as I could
Although Romney, Santorum, Paul is certainly possible. Iowa is clearly No Newts.
“lifeydoodle axis”
those white peeps are annoying no?
Your axes be cracked.
No Newts is good Newts, Pablo.
The I hate you fucking Xtian bastards axis.
Willard is really stuck at a certain level even after spending 6 years and millions and millions of his kids’ inheritance
fox news likes “positive feedback loops”
Former editor of the Des Moines Register admits that a win in Iowa means dick.
49% reporting, here’s the paid media $/vote: Santorum $1.65, Bachmann $8, Romney $113.07, Gingrich $139 Paul $227, Perry $817
https://twitter.com/#!/alaskan/status/154403528025186306
THIS is the key data: It’s not a 3-way race among self-identified Republicans: 28% for Santorum, 27% for Romney, 14% for Paul & Gingrich
https://twitter.com/#!/AriMelber/statuses/154393445807566848
Wow, two great little tidbits there, Pablo.
Sounds like the Santorum team is the most fiscally responsible.
Who knew Twitter had instantaneous number smashers?
Romney would really be in a pickle if Perry and Michele with one l dropped out. Until New Hampshire anyway.
Looks like Paul has 3rd locked up.
NH isn’t going to matter much unless Romney gets a run for his money there. South Carolina is where it’s at next.
If Romney gets denied in Iowa how can we convince the good people of New Hampshire to do the ’96 Pat Buchanan thing?
I wonder if they’ve heard of this Ron Paul fellow.
Isn’t NH famously cantankerous about NOT voting like Iowa or is that folklore?
I agree that S. Carolina is where we separate the sheep from the goats.
“Whereas the evangelicals? They just want to make their argument and let the public decide, rather than leaving such social change up to individual judges or small judicial oligarchies acting on principles found in “penumbras” and “emanations.”
YAHTZEE!!!
(in honor of pw game night;-)
Leigh,
This is an extension of the math formula I posted earlier. And that formula was not an equivalency argument, it was a contrast of two groups loosely affiliated by social policy preferences. I noted that their are exceptions within both groups but that is NOT an equivalency arguement. They are the exceptions that prove the rule.
wow Paul shouldn’t have gone and sat on his loony geriatric ass this weekend
oh my peeps don’t like mr. 23% for 6 years running. go mittens.
Gotcha, Danger. I was going to speak of the penumbras and emanations, but I hadn’t had any coffee yet and had to deal with my ex-husband, as well.
a riven America is crying out for the healing balm of a Romney/Santorum ticket is the takeaway I think
Michele with one l is officially at 5%. The Iron Lady? Not so much.
that’s like 1 in 20 Team R corn-chompers!
Which, if you like walked out and saw that many corn-chompers on your lawn one morning you’d think it was a daunting assemblage, you would.
Palin done jinxed her.
Buddy Roemer in a brokered convention!
87.5% reporting and Santorum and Romney are only 45 votes apart.
Iowa is such a tease.
Gawd no. Make it stop.
Keeerist! Santorum leading Romney by 19 votes, with 88% in.
Santorum back on top.w/ 88% counted. Ya know 1980 started with a miracle (on ice) and ended with a blessing (Reagan’s election). Could history repeat?
the gaystapo fail in iowa
Ron Paul inna house.
yes I’m pretty sure Rick Santorum is going all the way
he has that Huckabee sparkle America just can’t say no to
Presidents Huckabee and McCain are two of my favs.
C’mon Feets,
how about getting with the program? Why don’t you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
if he’s the nominee I promise promise promise I’ll find something nice to say about him that sounds kind of sincere
go newt
are there any more debates newt need one and stat
tell the fag vote to vote baracky happyhooves
*needs* I mean
the transgendered losers go eff yourself because its possible
A shame. Bachmann is the best candidate left, I believe — and the one with the biggest balls.
Ironic, I know.
That’s the spirit!
All I’ve ever asked of my Outlaws is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Liberals, because inside every prog there is an American trying to get out. It’s a hardball world, son. We’ve gotta keep our heads until this OWS craze blows over.
I’ve noticed conservative women and insecure, metrosexual conservative men say a lot of this kind of thing.
And then we get Romney or McCain or Bob Dole.
Is what I’m saying.
Twitter is talking about there being a uniformed soldier speaking at the Ron Paul “Yay! Third place!” party.
Oh, Danger that is so not true. You haven’t met my SIL.
Women are catty, Jeff. Ask your sister.
Jeff,
Look on the bright side. After 373 comments I’d say we are on our way to this place (And with any luck America) NOT sucking ;-)
michele with one l should have ignored mr hat with no cattle or mexican food
Michele with one l is bragging about winning the straw poll…whih seems really long ago.
You’ve come a long way, baby.
*which* and she’s reading her speech.
I sorta wonder if it was famed Jeffersonian dancer and Ron Paul supporter, Adam Kokesh.
He’s done it before and he says he’s currently in Iowa working for Paul on Twitter.
Wonder if Santorum got a bit of last minute Colmes bump. It’s possible.
It’s not that different than youse men questioning each others masculinity. It’s human and it’s what we do.
she did look kinda frowsy I saw a youtube somewheres
but it’s her thinkings what are so important, not superficial stuff like hair and clothes and stuff
and her thinkings are that it’s time for michele with one l to say nighty night
catty, indeed
I don’t really judge a political candidate all that much by how much he can bench.
I’m probably strange that way, though.
Second look at Buddy Roemer is what I’m saying.
Clearly, Buddy gets it.
That’s smart. One should judge a male leader by their max squat.
No, that’s just math.
We all know that Michele Bachmann spells her first name with one l, yes? So this happyfeet / leigh tic that they think is clever, amusing, cutting, or endearing, is really none of those things, right?
Meaning, those ones really need to get some new and preferably distinct from each other material what doesn’t make us wish they’d just fucking log off for a spell.
Maybe we ought require our presidents to actually show their fitness reports.
Well, the phone battery is getting low so I guess it’s time to.suspend my campaign;-)
See you cats down range!
Google’s Iowa site.
sdferr started the michele with one l, so blame them that started it.
it’s not like we’re gonna get to use it for very much longer
“That’s smart. One should judge a male leader by their max squat.”
That’s what rebooted Jack Palance’s career, wasn’t it?
Oh, surely not, being as I’m pretty certain to have cribbed it from somebody else. I do think I can put in a claim to assertion monkey, however.
Sounds like Perry is dropping out. That frees a lot of Not Romney money up.
Wow, we have some news here.
Perry just said he was going back to Texas to reassess whether or not there is a path forward through the primaries.
He’s out, probably, huh?
Did Santorum just become THE Not Romney tonight?
I think it’s equally likely that Romney became the not-Santorum tonight
Buzzfeed exclusive! Must credit Buzzfeed! McCain to endorse Romney tomorrow.
Wait, that’s a scoop? I sorta figured it happened already.
Found no use by sdferr but July 28th by newrouter.
Back in 2005 it applied to Malkin.
I think if Perry gets out Newt picks up more than have those votes. I think Santorum picks up Bachmann votes if she drops out and i don’t think she will. She will do well in SC. Maybe Santorum drives a stake into Huntsman.
I could have sworn it was you, sdferr. Assertion monkey is excellent, however.
Yeah, you may be right, BT. I’m probably getting ahead of myself here.
I take it back one sdferr in Nov. spelled differently.
I agree Mr. BT. Perry’s hard-right religious panderings didn’t move the dial on him. I’m guessing he knew his base of support was largely cause of his record on economic matters, and his pollings told him he had lots of room to add social con support. They never came, probably cause of his immigration heresy.
So the ones he has now are going to Gingrich, Paul or Romney most likely, probably in that order I would bet, cause of Romney was so insulting and mean, and Paul just isn’t the kind of guy who people tend to have as a second choice.
I wonder if there is enough time for Santorum to take votes away from Romney in NH. NE Catholic guy against NE Mormon. If Romney underperforms in NH it’s a whole new ball game.
is darleen ok I haven’t seen her since she wasn’t feeling well before the christmas or so
You know the more I think about it, the more I think Santorum can mount a rapid rise in the polls in New Hampshire because face it, the loss of manufacturing hit the Northeast harder than most other regions of the country. The mills and the shoe factories and the electronic industry all were in the Mass-New Hampshire-Maine areas and maybe that message will resonate there.
Could happen, BT. Depends on how averse they are to all that Christiany shit — or how easily they’re manipulated by the way the media will paint Santorum: a gay-hating bigot who wants to burn him some fags, then go home and play with his many live children and, in a pinch, a dead one.
You can tell I’m not a religious man because I would have sought out Alan Colmes and beaten his ass six ways to Sunday. Santorum forgave him.
Yet Santorum is the creepy evil dangerous dude what’s dangerous and creepy and a bigot.
By the way: anybody know how to search Twitter archive feeds? I remember early on in the debate season talking about how we need to give Santorum another look, only to met with barks and sneers.
I’d like to fish that sucker out of the cybermists.
Depends on how Rick plays it. If he goes old school small town Catholic he draws a large slice of any township with parochial schools, leaving Mitt with the country clubbers. We’ll see.
Santorum’s problem is that he doesn’t have any money, so even if he does place or (God willing) pull off an upset in New Hampshire, he’s going to have trouble remaining competitive once primary season is in full swing —that’s especially true if others start dropping out and endorsing the front runner like good little republican boys and girl. If Santorum’s lucky, Gingrich starts denting Romney’s numbers.
Should be able to find it with their advanced search, Jeff.
Should. But I tried and couldn’t find the relevant Santorum tweet (which I remember reading at the time). So I looked at your timeline and picked a recently used word to search as a test and… that didn’t come up either.
That function be messed up at the moment. Maybe it’ll work tomorrow.
Missed this before, so I’ll respond now:
Coming from someone who seems to take happyfeet seriously, I got a chuckle. So thanks for that.
[…] only 25.8%. But again, that figure changes significantly when Ron Paul’s campaign is added to the conservative side of the ledger, bumping the numbers up to nearly 50% aligned against Romney in an open primary state where […]
IBC Canada | IBC Business Consulting – Canada | IBC Law Firm – Canada | IBC Marketing & Advertising – Canada | IBC Web Solutions – Canada | IBC Transport & Logistics – Canada | IBC Business Club – Canada | IBC Hotels – Canada | IBC Restaurants – Cana…
“[…]“Seriously Iowa? Ron Paul?” | protein wisdom[…]”