The Ron Paul Moment

Scenes from a shockingly successful presidential campaign

“President Paul! President Paul! President Paul!” 

That rhythmic chant, so unlikely even four years ago (let alone 24, when Ron Paul first ran for president, on the Libertarian Party ticket), vibrates through the tightly packed crowd of more than 1,000 supporters jammed into a Best Western conference room near the airport in Manchester, New Hampshire. It is the evening of January 10, and we are there to watch results come in for the first presidential primary of 2012. “I just had multiple Paulgasms,” a New Hampshire activist stage-whispers to me when the candidate wraps up his triumphant speech, equal parts rah-rah political red meat and professorial disquisition on monetary policy.

Ron Paul has not in fact become president. The Texas congressman hasn’t even come within 16 percentage points of the night’s winner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. But Paul did manage an unexpectedly strong second place, winning nearly 23 percent of the vote, despite poll averages the previous five days indicating less than 18 percent support. And by beating former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who had bet his entire campaign on New Hampshire, and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who withdrew from the race after receiving less than 1 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, Paul swatted aside two more competitors in a primary season that had already claimed Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and various high-polling pretenders who never quite got in the ring. 

“President Paul! President Paul! President Paul!” 

The New Hampshire primary was a milestone on Paul’s five-year journey from obscure curiosity to the controversial conscience—and possible future—of the Republican Party. On the heels of getting 21 percent of the vote in a third-place Iowa caucus finish, Paul had now received more than twice as many votes during primary season as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who had derided Paul as “outside the mainstream”) and could plausibly claim to be the most viable alternative to Romney, the GOP’s long-anointed front-runner. As of press time in late January, Paul is the only other candidate who definitely has the money, fund-raising ability, and nationwide infrastructure to keep competing against Romney until the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August.

For Ron Paul, a victory in 2012 doesn’t necessarily mean 270 electoral votes, or even 1144 delegates to the Republican convention. Unlike most candidates, Paul can succeed in a run for president without winning, by changing the establishment’s attitudes toward his libertarian stances. This unusual position provokes taunts from journalists and Republican establishmentarians alike. Don’t Paul and his delusional supporters know he can’t win? 

Paul doesn’t expect to win, necessarily. He’s a sober, reasonably calculating politician with decades of experience pushing radical libertarian ideas. When ABC News asked the candidate in January if he sees himself in the Oval Office when he lays his head down at night, he replied, “Not really.” Yes, Paul keeps winning re-election to his seat representing Texas’ 14th Congressional District, generally by a wider margin each time. But the national GOP had little room for his constitutionalist libertarianism in a decade of George W. Bush, the PATRIOT Act, and nonstop overseas wars. That was exactly the reason Paul decided to run for president in 2008.

Beating expectations in New Hampshire this year gave the Paul campaign hope, confirming the logic of a long-shot political strategy that seemed to be falling into place. The key to whatever success Paul will have is his very public weapon: the supporters in the Best Western ballroom and all the people like them around the country.

Ron Paul does not have just voters; he has activists. Many observers have underestimated Paul’s electoral ceiling precisely because of this energetically loyal base, arguing that the folks on street corners waving homemade Paul signs or flooding every online poll that includes the name Paul constitute all his potential voters. But the 83,000 people who voted for Paul in Iowa and New Hampshire (30,000 more than voted for the third-place candidate, former Sen. Rick Santorum) would not exactly all fit in Mom’s basement. The movement now dwarfs the already impressive Ron Paul rEVOLution of 2008. America hasn’t seen such a youthful, driven, hopeful, radical youth cadre driving a political campaign since, well, Barack Obama in 2008. 

Paul’s Ticket out of Iowa

Even though Romney solidified his position in New Hampshire, the Manchester ballroom feels like a victory party, and not just because Paul trounced all non-Romneys in the field. The volunteers are celebrating their victory. They have all put in days, often weeks, working for this result. Most helped with the official campaign’s favorite activity: phone banking, calling to identify Paul supporters and making sure they vote on primary day. 

Calling, and calling, and calling. In both New Hampshire and Iowa I hear anecdotes about overcalling, of some voters feeling so harassed by three or more calls per day for weeks from Paul’s people that they vow not to vote for him. (Paul campaign higher-ups are confident that they’d lose more votes from not calling as aggressively as they possibly could than they lose from pissing off a handful of potential voters.) Paul had callers working phone banks from his actual campaign offices, as well as around the country via the campaign’s “Phone From Home” project, which by itself contacted more than 100,000 people. 

Those same techniques are ready to roll out in other states. There probably won’t be the same numbers of college-age kids on Ron Paul road trips available as the primary season moves past winter break. But every person I talk to on returns night in New Hampshire says he intends to do what he can for the campaign in other states. I ask one man from Massachusetts if he knows whether the campaign in South Carolina, the next primary state, is ready to take on a wave of volunteers. “They better be!” he replies. “Because we are coming.”

In Iowa the Paul campaign worked retail politics thoroughly, spent millions of dollars on TV ads, did lots of mail and radio, and arranged more than 100 candidate appearances in the months-long buildup to the caucuses, including a five-event day right before the vote with Paul’s son, Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

I catch the last speech of the day, in the back room of the Prime and Wine restaurant in Mason City. Rand is smoother than Ron, with a presentation more carefully designed to appeal to the standard right wing. His father sticks mostly to big principles about liberty and sound money, and he will utter right-wing heresies about peace and trying to understand how other countries react to American behavior overseas. Rand, meanwhile, tells Reader’s Digest–style jokes about Washington profligacy and focuses on pettier government spending inefficiencies. He is far more likely to play the nationalist card, complaining that the Chinese are “cleaning our clocks” while we give them aid.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Democrat leftism dates to 1968. IT is now 44 years old. At point the youth of the world will embrace a new ideology if for no other reason than not wanting to follow the politics of their grand parents.

  • I disavow. ~Newt Paul||

    I disavow my grandparents.

  • ||

    Rather,

    Following an ideology that hasn't had a new idea since Medicare in 1965 is following your grand parents ideology. New left liberalism is now as old today as the Charleston was in 1968. At some point intellectually exhausted ideologies die out.

  • sarcasmic||

    It wasn't the hippies who created Medicare. The people who did that were the people who grew up during the Great Depression.

    Now it's the hippies who are finally in power and shaping government.

    If young people embrace the principles of liberty now, they won't get a chance to implement them for forty years.

    By then it will be too late.

  • ||

    It is never too late. Communism died. American socialism will die too. Eventually the repo man shows up and the gig is over.

  • sarcasmic||

    Name brand Communism died, but it was replaced with store brand totalitarianism.

    Governments don't shrink. The rulers may be replaced, but the machine doesn't shrink. It only grows.

    Same with legislation. It may be amended, but once it's there it's there. Only in extremely rare cases is it repealed.

    American socialism will die, but it will be replaced not with liberty, rather with the next generation of power seekers.

    The history of the human race is slavery. This blip of liberty over the last two centuries is only that: a blip.

  • ||

    The blip of liberty has been more than 200 years. And governments do shrink. They go broke and they die occasionally.

  • sarcasmic||

    They go broke and they die occasionally.

    And are replaced with what?

    The next gang of thugs who kill anyone who competes against them in their "protection" racket.

    Liberty is an aberration.

    Slavery is the norm.

  • Realist||

    Democracy will die too. It just doesn't work.

  • ||

    Yes it does. If you don't believe Democracy works, then you can't believe people learn from their mistakes and over time act in the overall best interest.

    If you don't believe that, then you really can't believe in liberty.

  • sarcasmic||

    People in government do not learn from their mistakes and over time act in the overall best interest. They act in their own self interest, which is not the interest of the governed.

    Liberty is the government leaving people alone. But the very nature of power is to not leave people alone.

    Once power accumulates, liberty dies.

  • MONEY = Sociopolitical Power||

    Once power accumulates, liberty dies.

    Yep. That's why capitalism dies.

    MONEY = Sociopolitical Power.

  • ||

    The American Revolution was really just an evolution from liberalization that had already occurred in England. It was a jump rather than a meek progression, certainly, but our system wasn't alien to its predecessor. Unlike in the cases, say, of the French or Russian revolutions.

    So we can move the other direction. It's just very hard, and the inertia definitely favors the growth of the state.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's just very hard, and the inertia definitely favors the growth of the state.

    This is because there is no incentive to do anything except grow the state.

    No incentive at all.

    With no incentive to repeal shitty legislation, all you will get is more. The logical conclusion of reacting to everything with more legislation is a totalitarian state.

  • ||

    The French Revolution was much more retrograde than is commonly taught in the history books. It wasn't a revolution about liberty so much as a rejection of modernity and a desire for paternalism and certainty and a rejection of capitalism.

  • Realist||

    Democracy in this country is less than a hundred years old.
    I believe in liberty...I just don't most people do.

  • sarcasmic||

    Democracy in this country is less than a hundred years old.

    We're coming up on the centennial anniversary of the 17th Amendment.

  • Realist||

    "We're coming up on the centennial anniversary of the 17th Amendment."
    And the 19th Amendment(1920), which was my point.

  • sarcasmic||

    And the 19th Amendment(1920), which was my point.

    The 17th did more for democracy than the 19th.

  • Realist||

    Over 50% of the American people would disagree with that.

  • Realist||

    should read... I just don't (think) most people do.

  • protefeed||

    Yes it does. If you don't believe Democracy works, then you can't believe people learn from their mistakes and over time act in the overall best interest.

    If you don't believe that, then you really can't believe in liberty.

    Let's reword that:

    "Yes it does. If you don't believe that kleptocratic mob rule works better than voluntaryism, then you can't believe that people being forced to accept choices and impositions upon their liberty made by a plurality of those who bother to show up at the polls works better than market processes where everyone gets to decide for themselves what services they want to buy, and from whom, and at what price.

    If you don't believe in such kleptocratic mob rule, then you really can't believe in liberty being obtained at the point of a gun being pointed at you by de facto criminal gang members who don't have your best interests at heart."

  • ||

    So one has to rule protofeed. We have to have a government. How do you plan to decide who that government is? Sorry, but "fuck you I want my gang to rule" isn't really an answer.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Isn't that the basic thesis of all revolutions?

  • wareagle||

    of course, democracy works, though not in good ways all the time. For instance, once people figured out they could vote themselves the money of others, trouble began. The looters have to be called out; the evidence that this approach does not work abounds (see: Europe).

    It's not that history repeats itself; it's that people keep making the same mistakes.

  • Zeb||

    Democracy works in the sense that it injects enough randomness into the political system to keep anyone from having too much power or fucking things up too much.

  • Realist||

    Right?

  • JEP||

    I was under the impression we were supposed to be living in a republic, not a democracy.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was under the impression we were supposed to be living in a republic, not a democracy.

    This country ceased to be a republic once the Senate was elected democratically and the States lost representation in the federal government (17th Amendment).

  • Realist||

    samcasmic, you are correct, but I don't think it changes the out come.

  • Realist||

    Cite differences in out come.

  • Realist||

    This was in answer to JEP.

  • JEP||

    Realist, sarcasmic,

    I agree with both of you. I've always held that strict democracy is a terrible form of government just because it's a tyranny of a majority.

    And yeah, I would we ceased to be a republic as soon as politicians decided that the Constitution was worthless and start accumulating powers regardless of check and balances or limitations.

  • sarcasmic||

    Senators who answered to state legislatures would not pass federal legislation mandating that states pass legislation as a condition of receiving federal highway funds for example.
    Or unfunded mandates.
    Or fucking Obamacare for that matter.

    For someone who claims to be a realist you seem devoid of common sense or basic reasoning skills.

  • California Legislature||

    Don't be so hasty. We like um some Feinstein and Boxer.

  • protefeed||

    I have trouble believing that the leftists running the Hawaii state legislature would elect U.S. Senators less statist that the statists currently serving in the U.S. Senate.

    Maybe in other states it would be different, but Democrats in state legislatures who believe in an almost unlimitedly strong federal government are unlikely to curtail the size of the federal government.

  • ||

    The state-appointed Senate just provides an additional check on federal power. It doesn't improve the breed or do the dishes.

  • protefeed||

    Shorter: the 17th Amendment was a symptom of a problem in attitudinal shifts among the voters.

  • Realist||

    "Senators who answered to state legislatures would not pass federal legislation mandating that states pass legislation as a condition of receiving federal highway funds for example.
    Or unfunded mandates."
    Or fucking Obamacare for that matter.
    The idea that adding an additional layer of fucking idiots to the legislative process is a good thing is itself stupid.
    "For someone who claims to be a realist you seem devoid of common sense or basic reasoning skills."
    Go for the ad hominem when you disagree with someone...you're a dickhead!

  • sarcasmic||

    The idea that adding an additional layer of fucking idiots to the legislative process is a good thing is itself stupid.

    It's about incentives. A Senator who answers to the state legislature and who wants to keep their job has an incentive to keep the state legislature happy.
    Supporting federal legislation that requires state legislatures to do things that they would not otherwise do does not seem to me like a good way to do keep them happy.

    Go for the ad hominem when you disagree with someone...

    You mistake observation for ad hominem.

    "You are a [ad hominem] therefore what you say is stupid"

    is not the same as

    "You said something stupid therefore I suspect you are a [observation]"

    see the difference?

  • Realist||

    What I see is an asshole who thinks people who disagree with him are stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    What I see is an emotional twit who is adept at emoting but cognitively challenged.

  • Realist||

    That proves my point you're an asshole that thinks people who disagree with him are stupid.

  • sarcasmic||

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    Sawcasmic huwt my fwagiw feewings!

    Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

  • Realist||

    You're like a little kid.

  • sarcasmic||

    You kidding? It dates back the the Great Depression.

    The "counter culture" hippies were embracing the ideology of their grand parents.

    The difference now being that that same ideology has been forced down the throat of multiple generations of public school students, and is not considered to be the norm.

  • sarcasmic||

    *now* not not

  • Realist||

    ^^^ This^^^

  • ||

    I am thinking more of the New Left, which was a much more intrusive and vile form of New Deal liberalism. That dates to the late 60s.

  • sarcasmic||

    That dates to the 1940s when women entered the factories during the war, and emerged in the 60s when their kids grew up.

  • Eve. Original Sin.||

    Damn apple eatin' bitch. Listenin' to that damn gummit snake!

  • ||

    Part I

    John,

    In 1960 JFK was able to paint Nixon as the liberal, commie appeaser candidate while he was the candidate who would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship" to beat the Reds. On domestic policy neither both were in full agreement with all the New Deal programs in force.

    It was in 1964 that the election was over economic policy where the Democratic candidate who was the one who would preserve and extend the New Deal into a Great Society.

    The 1968 election was over foreign policy and as the amount of welfare legislation Nixon signed shows he was still the liberal every bit as much as any Democrat was.

  • ||

    Issac I disagree about the 1964 election being about economics. It was about foreign policy. Johnson won because he was able to pain Goldwater as a nut warmonger who was going to nuke Vietnam and maybe start a war with the Chinese. There are two things that are remembered about that election; the famous Daisy Ad and Goldwater's "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice" quote. That was what that election was about.

    Indeed, the Democrats suffered serious losses in the 1966 midterms because medicare and the great society were not popular at the time. They were shoved down the country's throats like Obamacare. That is why liberals were so confident to pass Obamacare even though it was not popular. They had already passed the Great Society when it wasn't popular and gotten away with it.

  • ||

    John, I lived through it. Goldwater challenging the orthodoxy of the New Deal and the expansion of the welfare state was every bit as much of the election as foreign policy was.

    And the welfare state has never been unpopular. Paying for the welfare state is what's unpopular.

    All through the fifties and sixties the New Deal was the secular religion of the country. It wasn't till the seventies when the costs started to show up in inflation and deficit spending that people began to question it.

    Of course there had been dissenters before but they were looked on as heretics.

  • ||

    And the 1966 congressional changes had a lot more to do with the conduct of the war in Vietnam and the perceived breakdown in law and order at home (race riots, damn hippies protesting and a general uptick in crime) than with Medicare and the Great Society (which was the one thing than tha LBJ was still popular for).

    Where you get this idea that people don't like getting handouts I can't fathom. They love the handouts; it's getting the bill that they don't like.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    To expand on the "They love the handouts; it's getting the bill that they don't like."

    This is why tody we have runaway deficit spending and out of control entitlements that are still overwhelmingly popular.

    And maybe you're right that Obamacare is unpopular but if it is it's only because people see how expensive it is and it still doesn't give them the free doctor's visits, prescription drugs and hospital stays that they really want.

  • Juice||

    They love the handouts; it's getting the bill that they don't like.

    See: Greece.

  • ||

    Trudat. I didn't like Goldwater when I was 11 years old, but I read about him as a teenager and later liked him, especially his 1981 statement, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell in the ass (or balls)".

  • ||

    Part II

    It wasn't until 1980 that another GOP presidential candate challenged New Deal orthodoxy. And given how little things changed that was shown to be mostly empty rhetoric too.

    I think your choice of 1968 as some kind of watershed year for leftism is somewhat arbitrary.

  • ||

    It wasn't until 1980 because the liberal Republicans took over the party after Goldwater's defeat. But that doesn't mean the 64 election was about economics or an endorsement of the Great Society. It wasn't.

  • anon||

    I'm pretty sure the only reason Johnson got elected was because he was riding the coattails of Kennedy being assassinated.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    You're partly right, but the resounding landslide was due to the perception of Goldwater as a warmonger (as John correctly observes) and (though John disagrees) as a rightwing free market radical.

    A more mainline Nixonian or Rockefeller Republican would probably never have lost so badly.

  • Peter||

    Democratic leftism goes back to the 1890s or a little earlier. It was populism and progressivism then, dialects of socialism. Bryan, T. Roosevelt, and Debs were the standard bearers.

  • ||

    Actually in the 1890s progressivism was more a creature of the Republican Party than the Democrats.

    It wasn't till the 1930s that progressives moved out of the GOP to the Democrats. For example see Henry Wallace.

    Neither party was markedly ideological until the 1960s* and it wasn't until the 1980s that the phenomenon of the Liberal Republican mostly disappeared (although it still survived in the form of the likes of Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe).

    *Although the 1930s shift under FDR was a sea change for the party. FDR painted Hoover as a big-spending big government guy in the 1930 campaign and then went on to be the biggest spender ever.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    Bryan, T. Roosevelt, and Debs were the standard bearers.


    The only Democrat in your list is William Jennings Bryan.

    TR was a Republican and Debs was an out and out Socialist who was jailed by the progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

  • Southerner||

    If they're dumb enough to vote for a blatantly anti-Semitic megalomaniac like Ron Paul because they think he's some kind of savior, they're dumb enough to vote for far-left Democrat Messiahs too. In fact, a lot of these young fools did vote for the far-left Democrats and their Messiah four years ago, and they haven't really learned their lesson about the folly of seeking political salvation. I hold out no hope for the public-school-poisoned next generation.

  • wareagle||

    it has nothing to do with semitism, pro or anti. It has everything to do with being faced with a choice between the Police State and the Nanny State. Dems have taken ownership of the nation's institutional rot while Repubs focus on chipping at individual liberty. Neither portends a good outcome. And Israel can take care of itself; it has the track record to prove it. We're an ally, not a wing of the country.

  • Southerner||

    It has everything to do with that; you behave just like the left in everything, including their hatred of Israel, and are deservedly written off as being no better. Ron Paul isn't really opposed to the Nanny State at all. He just wants to rule it, the same as Gaius Silius of ancient Rome, who spoke eloquently and often of restoring the Republic even while seeking the Emperor's seat for himself.

  • Left hates Israel?||

    What planet are you from, redneck?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    This planet, apparently.
    Heh, heh.

  • Southerner||

    The one that has Cynthia McKinney on it, and her supporter Ron Paul. Birds of a feather do flock together...

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Someone's a little desperate to show off his new-fancy book learnin'.

  • Fluffy||

    'Cause ya know, Israel's not a state.

    It's funny - you'd think it was, from reading the papers and everything. But it's not.

    So people who line up to worship Israel aren't worshiping a state. No sir, not at all.

  • wareagle||

    what bullshit. I don't hate Israel; I'm just not willing to start bombing other places on its behalf. The rest of your post is supposition, on a par with Obama's claim of how the stimulus prevented disaster..utterly unprovable.

    Why do you hate individual liberty? As a southerner, you should be appalled at how the GOP is systemically attacking it in AL, FL, and coming soon, a network of states that wants to monitor your purchases of OTC meds that contain the key ingredient in Sudafed.

  • Southerner||

    Yes, yes, that's what I've come to expect from Ron Paul worshipers: they behave just like the Democrats do when their Messiah is called out for his hatred of Israel: deny and distract. "No we don't hate Israel! Our Messiah said he doesn't in a speech! And why are you evil Rethuglicans opposed to women's rights!?" Your Messiah's actions and your desperate efforts to conceal his faults speak for themselves, and what they tell me is that he's guilty as charged, and can't be trusted.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Southener? Mode like Judaizer.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    Judaizers are bad! Judaism is bad! Jews are bad! Death to the Jews! But don't call me a Nazi! That would be a Godwin violation!

  • ||

    I hate Israel.

  • ||

    You make me wonder if IQ's range down into negative numbers.

  • Realist||

    Ron Paul's biggest problem is he is in a country full of fucking idiots.

  • JM||

    Well, yes, there IS that....

  • Bitter Clingers.||

    To the stupid.

  • I'm smart.||

    You're not.

  • DK||

    Will Paul make a 4th quarter comeback?

    Ron Paul cites conversation with Tim Tebow in discussion over homeschooling

    Unfortunately, the American voters are New England and not Pittsburgh.

  • DK||

    Ugh! Taking my handle...for shame...

  • DanK||

    There. Keep your silly DK, Donna Karan. I rebrand myself as DanK.

  • Realist||

    Religion is Paul's weak point.

  • ||

    Yeah, THAT'S why he's not getting any traction as a REPUBLICAN.

  • Realist||

    The reason he gets no traction as a Republican is he is NOT a warmonger....pure and simple.

  • Civilization takes violence.||

    Ron Paul is stupid enough to think that isn't true.

  • Fluffy||

    Who has ever said that it doesn't?

    Certainly not me.

    Violence - yum. I loves me some violence, chicky boo, let me tell you.

    Nothing like it.

  • War = staple of civilization||

    There is no city-Statism (civilization) without the initiation of aggression.

  • Southerner||

    To the contrary, you young fools who vote for him are very religious for your Messiah, as can be seen on these very boards. Atheism never lasts long, as it invariably turns into worship of one's government, and a clash between various candidates seeking their commissions as gods in the pantheon. Your real problem is that all such political religions must end in tyranny and totalitarianism, just as yours will. If you think your Messiah would really be any different from the current one if by some fluke he were to get into power, you are deluded.

  • Fluffy||

    Yup, I worship the government.

    Every Sunday.

    Astute observation.

  • Southerner||

    By the time your chosen gods get done with you, you'll wish it were only once a week.

  • Fluffy||

    That doesn't even make any sense.

    Sell crazy somewhere else - we're full up here.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    That doesn't even make any sense.

    Ohh, au contraire Flufy...its meaning is just evasive to small minds such as yours. For $19.99, you can receive Southerner's esoteric wisdom and one of these wicked hats.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    SF'd the hat:

    Here.

  • ||

    Only $19.99? Where can I order one of those cool hats, Rev?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I don't think you even know what you're talking about anymore, Southerner.

  • Preach it, Bruvah!||

    Atheism never lasts long, as it invariably turns into worship of one's government

    Did you hear that from some southern preacher in some southern church?

  • Southerner||

    In fact, I learned that while studying history in Hillsdale, Michigan.

  • Almanian||

    Southerner, i take it you attended Hillsdale? Cool! I went to another pvt MI school, but kind of wish I'd gone there now, just on principle. Hillsdale's awesome!

  • Southerner||

    Yep. That's where I read the works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Dostoevsky, to name a few. The atrocious outcomes of previous political experiments from their times is what convinces me not to hold out any hope for the current political experiments either.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Good thing you have solutions to our problems. Too bad you can't run everything and send the naysayers to the wood chipper. Then everything would be perfect.

    And if you think Shitorum or the Grinch would be any better than Obamney, I need a hit off your bong.

    And not to bring up the religion bullshit, but as a default Atheist (too lazy to go to church and read boring shit written by dead people who wanted to dupe other dead people into following them down the road to death), I know I'm not worshiping anyone/anything except the principle that I'm responsible for myself (if you can worship such a thing). I'd just like to roll back the tractor that's slowly crushing us all as we become the fattest complacent pussies the world has ever seen. Funny thing about complacent pussies...Non-complacent pussies don't have a problem leaving the tipped tractor where it is.

  • Southerner||

    According to you and your fellow worshipers, Ron Paul has the solutions to all your problems. All your praise for him on these boards gives the lie to your claim that you don't worship anyone. That you've picked the losing Messiah doesn't change the fact that he is your Messiah, and that you'll fare just as well as the followers of rival Messiahs did in other Molech states. (Case in point: what became of the Communists in Nazi Germany from 1938 and onward.)

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    According to you and your fellow worshipers, Ron Paul has the solutions to all your problems.

    Wrong. I want you find language even approximating this sentiment among board regulars.

    All your praise for him on these boards gives the lie to your claim that you don't worship anyone.

    Does praise = worship? Do I "worship" my kid when I praise him? This is deliberate inflation of terms.

  • Southerner||

    The mere fact of Doherty's daily devotionals to Ron Paul and how fervently you all join him in your libations to him ought to be evidence enough that Ron Paul has become your latest deity. Of course, political idolatry goes back much further than Ron Paul, but then so do a lot of the deities of politics. It's a polytheistic kind of religion, you know.

    As for praise being equal to worship, I refer specifically to praise for one's political superiors. Your praise for your kid is more like a blessing, since it comes from "above" him in a family pecking order. More evidence that you are in fact practicing a religion on these threads is that this religion of yours has demons as well as gods, and angrily attacks non-believing blasphemers such as yours truly. Next thing you know, you'll have a Heaven and Hell and a priesthood as well.

  • wareagle||

    Doherty pens just one daily devotional. You're here with right-wing statism scripture far more often. I'm okay with Romney because he seems more business, dollars-and-cents-and-budgets oriented than fixated on social matters, but Paul makes a key point - big govt is big govt, no matter who is in charge.

    If anything, most of us treat govt through atheistic eyes - we don't "believe" in it to do anything; we just expect it to do the few things it was set up to do.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    I didn't pick him you master of assumptions. In fact, I can't vote this go-round due to weird (bullshit?) state rules about new residents voting absentee coupled with out-of-state work for several months... So it's impossible for me to pick anything. And if you weren't disingenuous you might waste some time and track down comments of mine where I've "worshipped" Paul himself rather then his ideas which are/were espoused by the likes of Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, Lysander Spooner, Gary Johnson, etc. ad naseum.

    And I hardly think me and my fellow intellectual associates would fare any better under your preferred alignment of government (sans Anarchy). If you can time travel to the future and produce sufficient evidence, feel free to convince me you insulting hack.

  • Southerner||

    Well, there we have it: since the only thing that would convince you of the folly of your stated religious doctrines is time-travel to the future, your claims are unfalsifiable; you're getting more religious by the moment!

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Obviously, you don't have enough stock in your ideas to even try to convince anyone sans time-travel. That either makes you a nihilist or a troll. In either case, feel free to fuck off. In case you actually have ideas of some sort, feel free to state them and then we can argue the merits of IDEAS rather than whether or not subscribing to certain, historically proven, IDEAS constitutes a religion.

    If it turns out you are a full-blown Anarcho-capitalist, then I can agree with you on most, if not everything. Voting, albeit pointless at best, might, however unfucking-likely, hold back the encroaching state that would prevent us from arming ourselves and eventually burying it.

  • Fluffy||

    the only thing that would convince you of the folly of your stated religious doctrines is time-travel to the future

    You know, this sounds like it should actually mean something, but when you pick it apart it doesn't.

    All empirical analysis requires "time travel to the future". You devise a hypothesis and then look for evidence. Evidence that will either appear or not appear in...(wait for it!)...the future.

  • Southerner||

    I'm sure you remember how, in 2008, political scientists from the future returned from their empirical investigations to warn you all that the Democrats' Messiah wasn't really planning to close Gitmo, was going to crack down on marijuana use, and was pretty much planning to break every other promise except for the ones about socializing medicine, killing coal companies, and driving energy prices (especially for gasoline) sky high.

    You don't? Me neither.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    You didn't need a crystal ball to know Obama was going suck. He was a compromiser/Democrat through and through, and part of a political machine that wouldn't let him change anything even he wanted to change anything. Ron Paul has decades of voting against all this statist bullshit and although he might be hamstrung as a president, he would have the ability to talk down to all the asshats worldwide, which is good enough for me. Romney? Santorum? Gingrich? Get in your time machine, because "their" "platforms" are 70-90% Obama-esque. Sounds like a bunch of lying compromisers to me. And if RP turns out to be as much of a liar when it comes to IDEAS and wanting to REIGN IN THIS FUCKING HORRIBLE GOVERNMENT he can die in a fire for all I care. Feel free to join him since you haven't proffered any viable alternative IDEAS.

  • wayne||

    Southerner, I understand and sympathize with your cynicism, we have all come to expect a continuous march into the abyss.

    I think you are wrong about Paul, though. He is not a massiah, and none of us think he is. He has his faults, certainly. It is clear, though, that he believes in a federal government constrained by the constitution. That is the best we can hope for from a president.

    Paul's election to the presidency would not immediately halt the growth of the nanny state, but it might start in motion a more reasonable approach to a lawful government. His election might jump start a less selfish attitude amongst our people, and lead them to realize that the government can't provide their basic needs, and in fact will smother them.

  • Southerner||

    When I see him joining in with the Limbaugh-bashers in their latest totalitarian attacks on free speech, I know he's no better than any other politician, and his words are no more reliable. Given the power to mandate virtually anything and Predator drones to exterminate anybody who resists his mandates, Ron would do absolutely no better than anyone else, and probably worse. The fever dreams of your compatriots on this board that this time they've found an incorruptible man are as delusional as ever.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    When I see him joining in with the Limbaugh-bashers in their latest totalitarian attacks on free speech

    For someone who no doubt fancies himself a high-minded intellectual, you don't seem to know how free speech works or what the word "totalitarian" means.

  • Southerner||

    "Totalitarian" means that the state and its propagandists demand not only that one not only do what he is told, but that one also think only what he is told. When the hounds of the left started baying against Limbaugh for daring to point out the truth about Fluke's political prostitution, your disgusting Messiah joined right in with the left's propagandists in attempting to silence him. If he really believed in free speech, he would hardly be encouraging its enemies.

  • wareagle||

    perhaps you should review yesterday's thread about the Limbaugh thing where, while few defended Rush's word choice, more were shining the light on the actual issue the 30-year old law student raised. Calling her a slut served no one; calling her a parasite would have been much more appropriate, not to mention germane to the issue.

  • Southerner||

    You talk as if that would have made even the slightest bit of difference. A casual glance over the last decade of the fascist left's history proves it wouldn't, and your Messiah is still culpable for joining with fascists in attacking a truth-teller in any case.

  • Fluffy||

    You talk as if that would have made even the slightest bit of difference.

    It makes a difference to the validity of your criticism of Paul.

    Paul said two things about Limbaugh's statement: that it was foolish, and that Limbaugh wasn't really sorry.

    If Limbaugh misidentified the issue regarding the mandate, that makes his statement foolish.

    If Limbaugh's not really sorry, then both elements of Paul's critique of Limbaugh were correct. And I don't think Rush is truly sorry, either.

    And you know what? No matter whose interest it may serve and no matter what the moral or political character of Fluke's advocates may be, if Paul's statement about Limbaugh was correct in both of its elements, then you have no grounds to criticize Paul. Truth is an absolute defense always and everywhere.

  • Southerner||

    Truth is an absolute defense always and everywhere.

    Except when it isn't, of course. The truth is that Fluke is a slut and a whore, in addition to being a parasite. Why should Limbaugh be sorry for saying that? Ron could simply have said "He should have focused on her being a parasite rather than her admitted sexual promiscuity and political prostitution" but that's not what he said. What he was saying was that Rush ought to be ashamed of telling a truth, not that he should simply have told a different one. Ron Paul is therefore joining with the fascists in trying to silence a truth-teller.

    From this, we can predict that like any other politician, Ron Paul will continue to speak out both sides of his mouth when it's politically convenient to do so, just like every other politician, and that power will continue to corrupt him just the same.

  • Fluffy||

    There's really no evidence that Fluke is a slut and a whore one way or another.

    That's what made Rush's statement foolish: he focused on a subject completely incidental to the dispute, in the absence of information. Hundreds of thousands of non-sexually-active women nationwide take the Pill every month. That means that anyone who observes someone taking the Pill and declares based on that single piece of evidence that the woman is a slut is a moron. Nothing more and nothing less. It's like declaring someone a liberal because they drive a foreign car. It just makes you look stupid.

  • Southerner||

    No evidence? I take it you think she's lying about all the screwing she's been doing, and you don't take shilling for the government to underwrite this promiscuity to be a form of whoring.

    Well, she was being pretty deceptive about her age and occupation, so maybe she really is just bragging as far as her sexual exploits are concerned. I'm still going to have to take issue with you about the political whoring, though, and anyone who wants to sleep around a lot is a slut as far as I'm concerned whether they fulfill that desire or not.

  • wareagle||

    you keep insisting anyone not pillorying Paul sees a Messiah, which is weapons grade misguided. Again, the evidence re: what folks here thought about Rush/Fluke is on another thread. I can believe Rush was way off base in his word choice without losing sight of the real issue - that allegedly educated 30 year olds think the rest of us should underwrite their sex lives.

  • Southerner||

    I believe that Rush should have focused on that slut's demands for government funding as well, but I don't go piling on with his attackers either the way your crooked Messiah does. I don't see all of Ron Paul's non-attackers as worshipers either; only his boosters here, who keep insisting that I have to prove a negative and/or endorse an alternate candidate for my skepticism of their Messiah to have any validity.

    Truth be told, I'm not too enthusiastic about anybody in the Republican field either; the only reason I'm voting for any of them is because any Republican, however corrupt, won't have the media worshiping him and demonizing his enemies the way the Democrats' Messiah does. All the same, I find it awfully disturbing how much faith Ron Paul's followers place in him, and how they seem to think the success or failure of everything hinges on his campaign's success or failure.

  • Fluffy||

    We don't owe Rush Limbaugh anything more than an honest evaluation of his statements.

    You are directly arguing that we should not call Rush a fool when he's a fool, because there are situations in which Rush is useful to one side of a political debate.

    I'd have to point out two things:

    First, it's not actually true that Rush is useful. Rush, by his own admission, carried water for the Bush administration all through the time period when W was expanding the size of the state and its encroachment on liberty. So fuck Rush. I don't care who pillories him. He's of absolutely no "use" to me, forevermore, babe. Or until he atones, which he won't.

    2. Asking us to be angry at Paul for making a true statement, because Rush is "useful" and therefore shouldn't be criticized, makes you kind of a scumbag, and not the nice Christian boy you seem to think you are.

  • Southerner||

    If you expect Limbaugh to "atone" for telling the truth, I say you and your Messiah deserve no better treatment for your duplicity. If you think joining with the leftists in their hypocrisy and double-standards to bash a guy for telling the truth is legitimate "criticism" then your Messiah's decidedly pathetic excuses for the disreputable company he keeps and those newsletters he pretends not to remember are just as legitimate.

    Once again you ape the leftists, equating opposition to a vicious attack to opposing all criticism just as they equate all opposition to subsidization to opposition of the thing itself. You really are just like the scumbags who worship the other Messiah.

  • MJGreen||

    Jeez, Southerner, stop worshipping your Messiah Rush Limbaugh for one minute and say something substantive.

  • Fluffy||

    You are a fucking idiot.

    I don't give a damn if Rush "atones" for the Fluke comment one way or the other. That has nothing to do with me.

    But Rush personally on the air admitted "carrying water" for the Bush administration even as W raped fiscal conservatism up the ass and vastly inflated the size of the state.

    That makes every word Rush has ever said about principle a fucking lie.

    Rush has not atoned for that yet. I'll let you know when he does. I'm not holding my breath.

  • Fluffy||

    I'll make it really simple for you: I first heard about Rush Limbaugh when I was a kid, during the first Clinton administration. And I supported Rush then, because he rightly denounced both Clintons as big government, anti-liberty liberals. Rush made hating the Clintons the primary focus of his show back then.

    If Rush really believed the things he said about the Clintons, he should have hated W 100 times more, since W was 100 worse on literally every big-government issue than Bill Clinton ever was.

    So Rush can atone for his hypocrisy and his lies and his water-carrying by inventing a time machine, going back in time to 2001, and spending 8 years giving W 100 times as much shit as he ever gave the Clintons.

    When he does that, I'll give a shit what happens to Rush. Until he does that, fuck him - he's just another lying scumbag and I don't give a damn what happens to him.

  • Britt||

    One quibble: Waco alone puts Clinton on my list of people who'd put a bullet in if given the chance. That bastard burned a hundred people alive in their homes. The fact that he wasn't impeached and tried for murder for that to me marked the final nail in the coffin of the idea that no one is above the law.

  • Fluffy||

    If you think joining with the leftists in their hypocrisy and double-standards to bash a guy for telling the truth is legitimate "criticism"

    And this is particularly moronic.

    It doesn't matter what anybody else's hypocrisy or double standards are. All that matters is the truth or falsehood of Paul's statement. That's it. Nothing else.

    I personally don't believe Rush's apology is sincere, either. Therefore, I can make the statement, "I don't think Rush's apology is sincere. I think he made that apology to protect the flow of advertising dollars for his show," and have my statement be 100% true.

    It doesn't matter if my statement "helps" liberals or puts me on their "side" in your view. If my statement is true, you are complaining because I made a true statement. That makes you scum.

  • anon||

    Atheism never lasts long, as it invariably turns into worship of one's government, and a clash between various candidates seeking their commissions as gods in the pantheon.

    Really? I've been an atheist for at least 20 years. Only thing I worship is my own life.

  • Southerner||

    A lot of atheists start off that way. They just don't stay that way once they run up against the limits to their self-reliance. Come the social chaos of anarchy and/or the destruction of your resources, you'll be praying in some foxhole somewhere or rushing to serve under some charismatic leader who claims to know the way back to prosperity; probably both. A totalitarian state of the sort the Democrats are laboring to build also produces these results: you'll either join the government cult, or go into hiding and pray the government thugs don't find you.

  • Fluffy||

    And you know what? States marked by strong religious belief don't have any authoritarian features whatsoever!

    You may think you've read in history about Christian monarchies and empires, but those stories are all tricks of the devil.

  • ||

    Don't feed the trolls.

  • ||

    You do realize that you're just a fucking embarrassment to humanity, right? You're probably sucking Santorum's teat. One day you should try something we call "evidence" before you open your pie-hole.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    That hippy Jesus and his "turn the other cheek" BS aren't really popular with certain kinds of Christians. So ya, I think his religion is hurting him.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    If I could've found the version of the bible where Jesus rides on robotic dinosaurs and rains down laser blasts, nuclear missiles, and AIDS-ridden gay people out of the tips of his fingers onto the evil Non-Americans that most Republicans seem to have read, maybe I would've stayed awake during church.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Was that before or after he was kidnapped by the CIA to defeat Godless Communism by teaming up with Reagan to create the Star Wars Holy Defense Grid?

  • ||

    Why Paul, who is non-conventional wisdom in many of his views and who is not a great public speaker, resonates so strongly with so many is a critical question libertarians need to answer. It's hard not to conclude that two things are going on here: (1) people like much of his message, and (2) people find his honesty and commitment to principles, however damaging they are to his political ambitions, refreshing.

    There's an opportunity here, one that's unlikely to go away as our government continues to expand and spend far beyond its means. Maybe it's Rand Paul, maybe someone else. Perhaps even more importantly, Paul is paving the way for other kinds of politicians--congresspeople, state politicians, etc.--to carry the torch of liberty, smaller government, and free markets.

  • Fluffy||

    I think you can't underestimate the impact of decades of quixotic behavior in the Congress.

    That's what makes Paul so difficult to replace. Even with his own son. You can't take his place by mouthing his words. You need to suffer on the losing end of 400 to 1 votes for a few decades before you own them.

  • ||

    The point of being on the other end of those defeats is to then someday pass that legacy to someone who wins those votes.

  • Realist||

    ^^^This^^^

  • ||

    Personally, I think it speaks loudly to the message of liberty that a wimpy 70-something who (as you point out) is not terribly charismatic and has associations with some unsavory characters can attract such a following. We desperately need somebody to pick up that torch, and I am highly skeptical that Rand is the one to do it.

  • wareagle||

    Rand's moment will come when he is in a majority position; that is when principles are tested. It is easy to bloviate about something when you know your side is going to lose. OR, as with the House, when your vote is unnecessary.

  • robc||

    I think you have it. That will be the test of Rand's character. Which is yet another reason I think him being Romney's VEEP would be a bad idea.

    Rand only has 14 months in the Senate so far. He should be thinking about 2020, although 2016 may be necessary.

    Him spending 4 years standing up to majority leader McConnell and president Rombama would show a lot.

  • ||

    Not sure whether it will be Rand or not, but what is clear is that if a somewhat odd, not terribly charismatic guy can do it, there's a great opportunity here. And I hope that people take it beyond the presidency to other races. A more libertarian Congress, for example, could do remarkable things.

  • Realist||

    You are all forgetting, in this country, idiots can vote. Not going to happen.

  • robc||

    KY has its fair share of idiots. And yet we elected Rand.

  • Realist||

    Get real.

  • ||

    He's definitely not wimpy. I'd say you're more wimpy as you're phobic of his being associated with 'unsavory', i.e. un- P.C. characaters.

  • ||

    *characters

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I almost went to register as a Republican for the first time and vote in today's primary. (You can declare at the polls in my state.) I just couldn't bring myself to do it, though.

  • Southerner||

    That's fairly typical behavior for a Ron Paul voter.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That's a fairly typical response from a Southerner. (Praise Sherman!)

  • Southerner||

    FYI, I'm transplanted to the South from Minnesota. I think the best thing the Civil War ever did for the South was to exterminate its tyrannical aristocratic class. I'm in favor of the same thing being done to New England's elitists.

    (Sherman, incidentally, was a really nice guy behind that whole scorched-earth policy of his. He brokered a peace deal so kind and forgiving to his vanquished foes that his own superiors chewed him out for re-arming the enemy! He's also the guy who warned Grant to stay out of Washington DC, advice Grant would much later wish he had taken.)

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I'm transplanted to the South from Minnesota

    That explains the mix of smugness and ignorant aggression. You're like Al Franken with a hot dose of Larry the Cable Guy.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm suddenly reminded of the ape Shift from C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle.
    I wonder why.

  • JEP||

    As an Alabama native, I politely disagree with your perspective on Sherman.

    Reconstruction destroyed the South so thoroughly they still haven't fully recovered from it.

  • wareagle||

    jep,
    dead on. If such action were committed today, it would be called a war crime. Hells bells, we rebuilt Germany and Japan after leveling them. Sherman raped, pillaged, and left folks to fend for themselves. There is zero redeeming feature to this vile human being.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I didn't realize that Paul Tibbets personally went back and led the Habitat for Humanity chapter in Hiroshima. Good to know.

  • wareagle||

    the US helped Japan rebuild. Why is that a problem with you?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Why is reading what you, yourself wrote and discerning the logical progression therein implied a problem with you?

  • wareagle||

    I said the US helped rebuild Japan. You brought the snark.

  • Southerner||

    "Reconstruction" being, of course, the program with which Sherman had virtually nothing to do, just as he had nothing to do with the government's breach of its peace treaty with the Native Americans in Oklahoma after he'd helped negotiate it with them. Sherman truly was too honest to be a professional politician.

  • Zeb||

    Well, if they didn't want to be destroyed, they shouldn't have based their whole society and economy on slavery.

    How the fuck did this become a civil war discussion?

  • Southerner||

    A Northerner tried to needle this Southerner and found out I generally approved of General William T. Sherman for destroying the socialist Confederacy, especially its aristocratic boosters.

  • Britt||

    Well at the risk of invoking no true Scotsman, you can take your carpetbagging cheesehead ass back to the frozen wastes.

    My ancestors have been in my beloved Commonwealth for nearly 200 years on one side, and 250 on the other.

    But please, oh enlightened licker of Limbaugh's loins, enlighten me how exactly were Phil Sheridan's cavalry dismantling the socialist aristocracy when they murdered my great great great grandfather on his own land before they stole his widow's property and burned what they couldn't carry. He didn't have any slaves. Not one.

  • death panelist||

    C'mon, dude, if for no other reason than the sheer novelty of it you should. This is what motivates me to go to the voting booth and vote for losing candidates every 2 years.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I bet the candidates I vote for lose WAY worse than the ones you vote for.

  • death panelist||

    Looking at the top of the ticket since 1996 for starters...

    - Harry Browne? check
    - Harry Browne again? check
    - [Dem primary] Dennis Kucinich (... I know). check
    - Michael Badnarik? big check.
    - [Rep primary] Ron Paul? yup
    - Bob Barr? oh yeah. (that's probably the only one I wish I could take back in favor of casting a meaningless Ron Paul write in instead.)

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You call those losers?

    I'll raise you a David Bergland and a Andre Marrou.
    You kids don't know from losers. And get the fuck off my lawn.

  • death panelist||

    Marrou? Set - Game - Match!

  • anon||

    I know it's nothing, but Obama is the only person I can think of to win -anything- so consistently without losing, which hardens my suspicions of elections even further.

  • kilroy||

    I just did this in GA. Open primary so my LP membership didn't count against me. There's at least one southern Paul vote. Oh, and I've never held a Paul sign or voted him up in an online poll.

    Interestingly, there were about a dozen Newt signs, four Paul signs and one for Ol' Frothy but no a single Romney anywhere near the polls.

  • Zeb||

    I sucked it up and did it (in NH you can declare at the polls and then undeclare again on your way out, so I've spent a grand total of about 10 minutes of my life as a republican).

    Are you one of those principled non-voters? I've been thinking of going that way myself. I already refuse to vote for anyone with a chance of winning, so it's not such a leap.

  • MJGreen||

    Indicative of how lazy I've been in this whole electoral process, I just now learned that New York is not holding its primary today.

    I was so sure I blew my chance, but I still have 40+ days to figure out where NYC thinks I'm supposed to be voting (and if I'm still a registered R).

  • ||

    SCott Brown is still killing Elizabeth Warren in the polls.

    http://michaelgraham.com/archi.....publicans/

    Brown is hardly a Libertarian. But someone as awful as Warren losing in Massachusetts is a good sign.

  • Fluffy||

    I think that Warren defeat tears are likely to be even more delicious than salty ham Santorum defeat tears.

  • ||

    I care about that election more than I do the Presidency. Liberals have privately finally admitted that Obama is a fraud. Warren is their great hope. You would not believe the amount of fawning she gets from liberals I know. If she loses, in the bluest of blue states no less, they are going to be crushed.

  • ||

    I would expect Warren defeat tears to be bitter. A couple in my election-night Manhattan sound like just the ticket.

  • ||

    What is even better is that it is the contraception mandate that is killing her. There are a lot of otherwise liberal Democratic Catholics in Mass. If you want to have some real fun, tell a liberal Susan Fluke killed Warren's campaign.

  • robc||

    From the 70s to early 90s, Louisville was represented in congress by a left-wing catholic democrat. He was in line with the far left on everything except abortion, where he was hardcore opposed.

    Ive wondered where these guys are in places like MA. I guess in many cases they became Santorum and became big government republicans.

  • ||

    No. They are like my mother in law and are just brainless when it comes to the subject. There are tons of people who are devout Catholics in every way. And will tell you that abortion is the biggest moral issue facing America. And they really mean it. And then they mindlessly go down and vote D in every single election. The cognitive disconnect is astounding.

    I think finally fucking with the church and having the church explain how the Dems want to destroy religious freedom may have gotten through to a few of them.

  • robc||

    Im not talking about voters, Im talking about the politicians.

  • Juice||

    Abortion voters are the stupidest most mindless people in the country and they decide almost every election.

  • #||

    Theres one MA rep whose a liberal dem who is pro life. He was one of the people holding up the healthcare bill prior to the stupak amendment.

  • NoVAHockey||

    This is, shall we say, a big fucking deal. Just because everyone at Mass is using birth control doesn't mean we want Obama to leave a floater in the baptismal.

    And criticizing the bishops is incredibly off-putting. That's our hobbyhorse as lay Catholics.

  • ||

    It is a family thing. Sure Catholics can ignore the Church and insult the Bishops. But woe to the outsider who does it.

  • NoVAHockey||

    She looks like the teacher/neighborhood busybody that everyone hates.

  • ||

    I think she more than looks the part. She lives it.

  • kc||

    and like many/most/all politicians, she lies a lot, but much more brazenly and carelessly than most of them. Like pretending to be one of the 99%.
    Granny Warren really thinks the voters are idiots. But then, so do many of the posters here, so maybe she's on to something....

  • wareagle||

    Granny Warren really thinks the voters are idiots.
    --------------------

    She's in MA. Can you blame her?

  • anon||

    It's also sad that I find Brown more attractive than Warren. I now question my heterosexuality.

  • Zeb||

    It's really the best you can hope for in MA.

  • Fluffy||

    I voted for Paul today here in VT.

    Not that he has a chance here.

    It's strange - the Democrat primary is of course uncompetitive and you can take either ballot. If the "peace protest" people here in VT would take the GOP ballot just for the hell of it, Paul would have a chance to win. But they won't do that, because it's more important to line up and vote in the 99% victory lap for Our Glorious Leader.

  • ||

    If they are lining up to vote for Obama, how exactly are the "peace protest" vote anymore? Who exactly are they protesting?

  • Fluffy||

    By "peace protest vote" I mean "the votes of those persons who attended peace protests at some point in the recent past." Not "people who intend their votes to function as a peace protest."

    There are still peace protests in Vermont, fairly routinely. They're small, but they keep having them.

    That group of people just are apparently blissfully unaware that attending a peace protest and then showing up to vote for Obama makes you a moron.

  • ||

    That takes me back to the "peace protests" after 9/11. We were in, I believe, Santa Fe, and there were a bunch of them wandering around. I wanted to make up a poster* and join the throng, but Mrs. Dean had other ideas.

    *Hands Off the Butcher of Baghdad"

  • wayne||

    +1

  • Zeb||

    There is a small group of old hippie Unitarians who still has regular peace protests outside of the town hall in my town. I want to go stand next to them with a sign that reads "FUCK PEACE". I think that would make a great photo. And politics needs more surrealism and absurdity.

  • Southerner||

    Be careful that they don't rape you and beat you to death. You know how violent those "pacifists" get when someone opposes them.

  • Zeb||

    I look enough like one of them that I will be able to escape unnoticed. And they are all like 60. I'm not going to stand around to wait for the Viagra to kick in.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    They're protesting the greatest enemies to mankind in the history of the multiverse: The Libertarians.

    Fun Fact: When avowed Liberal/Progressive reads the word "Libertarian" they actually see the word "Racist". True Story.

  • Zeb||

    fnord

  • anon||

    If they are lining up to vote for Obama, how exactly are the "peace protest" vote anymore? Who exactly are they protesting?

    He won the Nobel Peace Price, DUH! That OBVIOUSLY means he's a champion of peace!

    Or something.

  • death panelist||

    If only more people would cast votes "just for the hell of it". I do this routinely - especially when there's a Libertarian Party candidate involved.

    I mean look at Virginia. Why bother voting Romney when it's only Mitt and Ron Paul on the ballot. What fun is that? Where is our American sense of reckless abandon?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Where is our American sense of reckless abandon?

    Our American "Education" system smothered it while we were getting lazy dreaming of our safety nets.

  • Cheech Marin||

    Dave's not here, man...

  • ||

    That is Tommy Chong's line.

  • Officer Riviera||

    I'm not Dude.

    I'm not Dave either.

  • Cheech Marin||

    Tommy's not here, man.

  • Newt Paul greatly admires Rand||

    • Is any white person's right an individual or collective right?
    • Is the right to take a negative or positive right?

    "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."

    ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974

    LET ME KNOW IF THESE TWO QUESTIONS ARE TOO DIFFICULT FOR YA'LL.

  • ||

    Shut up Rather. No one cares. Go a new act. This one is played out.

  • You haven't played yet.||

    Go on, try, John.

  • ||

    Feigning this much anger can't be good for you health. Invent a happier troll rather. Give yourself a break from the rage for a while.

  • Projecting anger again, John?||

    a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people

  • ||

    Like I said rather, you need to invent a happier troll. Maybe give the angry dickless schmuck character a rest. Bring him back in the fall.

  • ^ angry dickless schmuck ^||

    psychological projection is so revealing

  • ||

    Way to stay in character Rather. The truth always hurts these people more than anything. He would only lash out because he knew somewhere in his heart that was exactly what he was.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Wow. I just got the most powerful sense of deja vu!

  • Your evasion?||

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Wow. I just got the most powerful sense of deja vu!

  • Your intellectual bankruptcy?||

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It's gettin' really weird now. If I Got You, Babe comes on the radio now, I'm really gonna freak!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Don't speak to it. It feeds off of your attention.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    There is no way that this winter is ever going to end as long as this troll keeps seeing her shadow. I don't see any other way out. She's got to be stopped. And I have to stop her.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am an extremely patient person, but this has gotten so tiresome it makes me want to kill someone.

  • ||

    She is very dogged. Like I said above. She needs to invent a new troll character. Give angry dickless gamboling schmuck a break for a while.

  • Can't defend "principles."||

    Funny. Every. Day.

    Hey, Atlas Shrugged II is coming! It'll save 'Murka!

  • ||

    That is why you need to invent a new troll Rather. No one takes the current one seriously anymore. Well they never really did. But now it is just open contempt. The gig is up. You need a fresh start.

  • anon||

    Yeah, it's gotten to the point of yawning on sight of seeing Rather's posts.

    As least his primary character still makes comments; generally dumb ones, but at least he puts in the effort.

  • ||

    Sometimes she makes an okay one. When she is herself, she is not a bad commentator. Why she feels to the need to transform herself into the dickless wonder here is beyond me.

  • Fat Indian||

    hey guise, im fat

  • He's slow. Maybe 1 at a time.||

    Is the right to take a negative or positive right?

  • ||

    OT, but funny:

    Apparently, the NY cops busted a high-end brothel. When they went to the burbs to rescue the madame, lulz ensued:

    When cops arrived at her upstate home,, where she rescues wild pigs and raises pit bulls, they didn’t find anyone — but a wild boar chased a police officer around, the sources said.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l.....qISduA6r5M

  • ||

    rescue, arrest, whatevs.

  • ||

    Pig Stomps Pig.

  • ^ angry dickless schmuck ^||

    John's own words

  • ||

    About your troll character rather. That is kind of how "he" rolls.

  • anon||

    And to be fair, if it is rather, and it is actually a "she," it is angry and dickless.

  • ||

    True it really is. But for some reason she likes to play a male character as a troll. And her character must be based on some ex boyfriend or something. Because wow does she have the typical Daily Kos douche bag down perfect.

  • ^ angry dickless schmuck ^||

    obsessed with his object of hatred

  • ||

    I don't hate you rather. In fact I kind of admire your ability to be create such a convincing character.

  • wareagle||

    so is art imitating life or life imitating art?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Our ancestors were insane. What the fuck could have possessed them to look at a wild boar - a nasty, mean animal with sharp tusks and teeth - and think "hey, this will make a great pet!"?

    Besides bacon, of course.

  • ||

    They just though, hey lets steal them when they are little and easy to handle so they will be easier to eat when they get big.

  • anon||

    I can see it; "Hey, that thing looks like it might rape me with those tusks, and I wouldn't like that. Lets kill it and see what it tastes like."

  • ||

    I have been chased by a wild pig. It is scary as hell, let me tell you.

    Fuckers are fast, and the way they pop their teeth together when they're pissed is surprisingly intimidating.

  • ||

    Pigs are evil. they are much smarter than any other barnyard animal. They can go feral immediately upon release. They are aggressive and will kill you.

  • anon||

    Cursory google search reveals they prefer rape to murder.

  • Mainer||

    they are much smarter than any other barnyard animal. They can go feral immediately upon release. They are aggressive and will kill you.

    IOW: like people

  • .......||

    I went hunting them in GA....

    you go out in pairs. I carried my .357 Magnum, because it was really dense brush and a long gun would have been cumbersome. Also, hunting with a revolver impresses chicks. My guide carried a spear with a big bar welded at right angles to the shaft, right below the blade. Basically, if I failed to bring it down while it charged, he plants the spear and slams it home. The bar keeps it from throwing itself fully onto the shaft and maiming you at the cost of its own life. Boars don't fuck around.

    I killed two though. You can't eat them though, too many parasites apparently.

  • Zeb||

    I think it is more likely that they said "fuck, I'd better kill this thing before it eats me". Then they discovered bacon and it all went from there.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    wild pigs and raises pit bulls

    Could still be a high-end brothel. Further investigations pending...

  • anon||

    I have faith. Liberty can't really be restrained by the state for much longer; we're growing so much more free so fast the Government simply can't keep up. And the more it attempts to restrict newly found liberties the more resistance it meets.

    Sure, they're winning the battle right now. I doubt I'll really see a "libertarian" evolution in my lifetime, but I have hope. I really think all it takes is one major mis-step on the authoritarians' part for a giant leap to occur again.

  • anon||

    Wow, that was meant to be in reply to Sarcasmic way earlier in the thread.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    I agree, anon. The internet opened Pandora's box for the Statists. I think the free flow of information is going to lead to more people having confidence in themselves as individuals.

  • Mao's Giant Leap Forward||

    Anon's Giant Leap Forward.

    City-Statist reformer nutcases all sound the same.

    Guess what, Fibertard: Liberty has been destroyed by the initiation of agricultural city-statism (civilization.)

    It ain't coming back, ever, until after the collapse of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)

  • Fat Indian||

    If we returned to ... whatever the fuck we did, I wouldn't be fat anymore. I find this the only way to keep myself from eating twinkies.

  • ||

    Calling the horse race two months out of date makes you look stupid.

  • Max||

    Why are youth attracted to an aged crackpot with fake eyebrows and a load of racist, homophobic baggage? Outside the confines of Doherty's bony skull, they aren't, and nothing--nothing--will ever make Ron Paul anything more than Doherty's right-wing wet dream.

  • anon||

    You're doing it wrong, you forgot to work newsletters in there.

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    I think the newsletters fall under "racist, homophobic baggage". He thought this one through as best he could...

  • cowardly commenter some guy||

    Do you have any meaningful criticisms of Ron Paul's platform or are you going to stick with meaningless ad-hominem attacks?

  • wareagle||

    the former would imply some knowledge of Paul's platform which requires reading and other icky stuff. So much easier to yell 'racist'.

  • ||

    Fake eyebrows?

  • ||

    Oh and to answer the second part, because I hate both homosexuals and minorities.

  • ||

    His constituency is in fact the youth, who understand what is being done, and who will be left to pay the bill. Every Ron Paul rally I have seen is mostly low and mid 20's.

    It's the botox brigade in the GoP that have given you the likes of Romney.

  • FU||

    Ahhh the reason rag.. Once proud Libertarians who voted up the likes of Barr..

    You've been co-opted by the neocons buddy but you know this already.

  • JEP||

    "Outside the confines of Doherty's bony skull, they aren't"

    This yute is. Also, consult the internets, or maybe even reality, for further evidence.

  • Zeb||

    You know what's really fucked up? 1988 was 24 years ago. How did that happen?

  • jacob||

    Agree

  • ronpaulitic||

    Just launched the only interactive geo-tagging Ron Paul map on the web. Identify your support, tally quickly.
    http://www.ronpaulitic.com/

  • ||

    I agree with Ron Paul but while we're all debating various issues I suggest least we all wake up August 28,2012 with two ROBAMANEY'S,and no Ron Paul,that every registered voter go to AMERICANS ELECT DOT ORG and insure that RON PAUL becomes the first Internet Party Candidate for President. Lets not find ourselves in a big jam November 6,2012 without a RON PAUL to vote for.
    "REFUSE TO LOSE" "DISRUPT THE CORRUPT"
    Freedom and Liberty for all in the fall Vote for RON PAUL

  • FU||

    Uh no, Americans Elect is run by the Rothschild. Go look at the board members FFS.

  • ||

    Paul: "Mr. Bernanke, if you don't mind, would you tell me whether or not you do your own shopping at the grocery store?" hook
    Bernanke: "Yes I do sir." line
    Paul: "OK so, you are aware of the prices. But, you know this argument that prices are going up 2%, nobody believes it."
    Paul: "But I want to make a point about prices because prices go up. That, to me is not the inflation - it is one of the bad consequences of the inflation which comes from an increase in the money supply."
    Paul: "But, you know you took over the FED in 2006. I have a silver ounce here and this ounce of silver back in 2006 would buy over 4 gallons of gasoline. Today, today it will buy almost 11 gallons of gasoline! That's preservation of value! And thats what the market has always said should be money - and not by edict or fiat, or governments declaring it is money."
    and sinker
    Are we done? RP 2012!!

  • ronpaulitic||

    Track the 'Revolution' at the only interactive geo-tagging Ron Paul map on the web. Launched yesterday. Check it out here: http://www.ronpaulitic.com/

  • ||

    Paulbots are mentally unstable cult members.

  • FU||

    Yes we are and we're coming for you.

  • myfriend123||

    Nice article.

  • some guy666||

    If i was a libertarian i would be mad and quit libertarianism. Ron Paul is a john birch reactionary republican kook. Getting him to represent you makes as much sense as getting a crazy uncle in the 70s who was conspiracy theory crazed and has believed the same things that the kook Robert Welch told him when he was 20. The nerve of him to want to run for president after those newsletter (I did not know that racist material was on a newsletter with my name splashed all over it...really?) This alone shows how detached from reality. Along with the fact that he has no clue that there is a world outside of your libertarian, paleoconservative circle jerking friends...

  • tipuasher||

    i was looking for well calculated free wordpress themes i will go for MidtoneMag recognition for this
    http://www.highgravityentertainment.com/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement