There's Nothing Halfway About the Iowa Way to Treat You, When We Treat You, Which We May Not Do At All

The results are in from the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, and Michele Bachmann has emerged victorious with 4,823 votes. Ron Paul, the only bearable candidate in the running (*), finished a very close second with 4,671. A more distant third place went to alleged contender Tim Pawlenty, and the fourth slot went to Rick Santorum, whose campaign intended to make a strong showing at the straw poll but in a terrible mix-up bought tickets to the Gathering of the Juggalos instead. (**)

Does the Ames event mean much? The conventional wisdom is that it doesn't, but Nate Silver has made a reasonable argument that its predictive track record isn't bad -- not for forecasting the party nominee (who I strongly doubt will be Bachmann) but for showing who has a good chance in the Iowa caucuses. "A relatively low number of Iowans participate" in the straw poll, Silver acknowledges, "but that is also true for the caucuses, a cumbersome exercise which has notoriously low turnout. A candidate's financial position might help him to induce people to vote in the straw poll by buying their tickets and busing them to the event -- but money also helps to secure votes in a variety of ways when the real caucuses takes place. And a candidate's willingness to spend time in Iowa is helpful both in the straw polls and in the caucuses." So while Ames is by no means a perfect precognicator (***), it picks up "a variety of 'intangible' factors that don't show up well in other variables, and therefore serves a useful role as a leading indicator."

One variable that didn't show up in Ames: Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who entered the presidential race with a speech in South Carolina today. Perry didn't have an official presence at the straw poll, but he nonetheless attracted 718 write-in votes -- better than frontrunner Mitt Romney's 567.

* I can bear Gary Johnson too, but he didn't make an effort in Ames.
** That was a joke.
*** Confession: I made that word up.

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.

  • Seer||

    An honest to God anti-war candidate comes in second, and this is as excited as we can get?

  • ||

    The results are in from the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa

    TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE!
    AARRGGGH!

  • ||

    rectal, how much does that data plan cost?

  • Confess||

    Aren't we all just a little rectal?

  • Rob||

    Rectal, go get a hysterectomy already and stop trollin already!

  • ||

    Not exactly surprising. Ron has a relatively small but very active support base.

  • Greer||

    Does the Ames event mean much? The conventional wisdom is that it doesn't

    It always cracks me up that "The Media" will say that an event doesn't matter yet will spend much time reporting, picking apart and opining on what it all means. If it's not important, why the fuck should I care? And I don't.

  • ||

    How many voted for Rick Parry?

  • Kolohe||

    A bit over 700

  • BakedPenguin||

    TG's 'typo' there was deliberate.

  • Kolohe||

    Ah, I did not see what he did there.

  • PantsFan||

    How many voted for Steve Perry?

  • Skip||

    Note to Gary Johnson fans: Stop Believin.

  • fish||

    Note to Gary Johnson fans: Stop Believin.

    Note to San Francisco Giants fans You can: Stop Believin. too!

  • Rob||

    I voted for William "The Refrigerator" Perry.

  • Almanian||

    I'm most concerned with the Admiral Perry vote. These deceased candidates are starting to make Ames look like Chicago (speaking of The Fridge®)

  • ||

    Don't give up the ship!

  • Greer||

    I like precognicator. One of those words you can use and then sneer at people when they ask you what it means.

  • ||

    I don't.

    Out of context, I would guess it meant "one who picks his nose while driving."

  • ||

    He didn't make that up, he stole it from Minority Report.

  • ||

    Beat you to it. See below.

  • ||

    CAN YOU SEE????

  • sarah palin||

    I absolutely refudiate that.

  • ||

    I did a quick review of the "major" networks.

    NBC did not mention Paul at all in their anaylsis.

    CBS barely mentioned him, but buried it after lots of discussion of Pawlenty, Santorum and Perry.

    ABC gave him slight mention, but paid more attention to Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.

    FOX acknowledged Ron Paul's existence, but buried it after a discussion of Pawlenty's failure.
    ABC

  • Atanarjuat||

    I guess that's the journalistic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "La la, I can't hear you".

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Aresen,

    FOX acknowledged Ron Paul's existence, but buried it after a discussion of Pawlenty's failure.
    ABC


    Well, Hannity is right now on tonight deriding Ron Paul's foreign policy along with that pompous windbag Luntz. But at least they recognize that Paul's base is passionate and like his economic policy... or something.

  • Robert||

    ABC radio paid as much att'n to Ron Paul as to M. Bachman -- actually slightly more!

  • Robert||

    They called the poll a virtual dead heat between the 2 on the news, then their commentors made a bigger deal about him than her -- but of course that includes John Fund on John Bachelor.

    On "Coast to Coast AM", Ian Punnett made a much bigger deal about Ron Paul, but all the emcees of that program do in general.

  • asdf||

    Yeah total bullshit, he did really well.

  • Alan Kellogg||

    'Precognitator"

    You, sir, are a neologist.

  • ||

  • ||

    I didn't know Jesse was such a Tom Cruise fan.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Did they call them "precognicators" in that movie? I thought they were just "precogs," but maybe I'm thinking of the original PKD story.

  • ||

    I'm just assuming that's what "precog" is short for.

  • Jesse Walker||

  • ||

    The precogs aren't "precognitions". I suspect it's short for "precognitor".

  • Jesse Walker||

    The precogs aren't "precognitions". I suspect it's short for "precognitor".

    I suspect it's short for "people with precognition."

  • ||

    Damn your fact-checking ways!

  • Prof. History||

    "precog" refers to the historical period before the invention of complicated machinery.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    "Precognicator" is a perfectly cromulent word.

  • Jim||

    +1

  • ||

    Thanks, you've embiggened my vocabulary.

  • fish||

    That's unpossible.

  • Almanian||

    AHEM! The word is "enlargenated", dolt.

    Clearly, I am eruditer than you...

  • ||

    Juggalos should pick the GOP candidate - or at least make the first cut.

  • ||

    Is Bill O'Reilly in the running?

  • ||

    Fucking primaries; how do they work?

    Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope are truly geniuses.

  • Atanarjuat||

    The Workaholics gang went to a Juggalo gathering one episode.

  • Warty||

  • Jim||

    I have lost all respect for you. ICP has as much talent as the singing and dancing warts on my penis, which neither sing, nor dance (bitch set me up!).

  • Mr. FIFY||

  • ||

    If you think I was serious, you are about as perceptive as the singing and dancing warts on your penis.

  • Name Nomad||

    Easily the best photo of the day. Beat you to it, SugarFree!

  • prolefeed||

    Photocaption contest:

    "I'll submit to my husband and deepthroat him when he demands it, but this one is just too big."

  • ||

    "Was this corn dog made for a black woman or something?"

  • ||

    Why won't anyone take us seriously?

  • ||

    On the rag again rectal?

  • .||

    "Happiness is a twelve-incher. I've found it!"

  • Almanian||

    "I really, REALLY want your vote..."

    *70's porno sax music plays*

  • ||

    Woo-hoo! Best photo of the day decade.

  • Newsweek||

    Damn.

  • Pb Belly||

    OK, how many of you would decline a BJ from Michele?
    Show of penises hands...

  • Atanarjuat||

    Maybe I'm a manwhore, but the list of women I'd decline a BJ from is pretty short.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't find her all that attractive.

    *shrugs*

  • WTF!||

    Keep the lights off, douche.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The picture from that first link is pretty funny. "No! I'm not shaking hands with you, Bachmann!"

  • BakedPenguin||

    Okay, Name Nomad's is better...

  • ||

    "One variable that didn't show up in Ames: Texas Gov. Rick Perry..."

    I hate to be "that guy". ...but I just don't want to see another Texan in the White House.

    Bush teh Lesser was a terrible president in all the same ways Lyndon B. Johnson was a terrible president. ...and I don't think that's a coincidence.

    Before Reagan pulled the South into his coalition, they used to call guys like Bush teh Lesser "Southern Democrats" because that's what they were! Democrats like LBJ.

    I just don't want another Texan, who grew in the same garden with LBJ and Bush teh Lesser.

    Yeah, I'm messin' with Texas. Just say no. We don't want Obama in the White House, but a lot of that is because we don't want someone continuing the horrible policies of the Bush Administration... The last thing we need is another Texan in the White House--to continue the broad outlines of the polices of the Bush Administration.

    P.S. Has anyone heard Perry distinctly repudiate the policies of the Bush Administration? Exactly! Why would he do that? In Texas.

  • ||

    Not even if that Texan's name is Ron Paul?

  • RyanXXX||

    Doh!

  • ||

    Sloopy, I haven't served with Ron Paul. I don't know Ron Paul. Ron Paul isn't a friend of mine.

    Sloopy, Perry is no Ron Paul.

    *Hat tip to Lloyd Bensten.

  • ||

    Great, another Texan.

  • Msnbcbsfoxabc||

    Who?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ken Shultz,

    P.S. Has anyone heard Perry distinctly repudiate the policies of the Bush Administration? Exactly!


    Well, certainly he has not and... Oh, you answered your own question! Sorry!

  • ||

    Precisely--why would anyone from Texas repudiate the last president who was also a governor of Texas?

    ...why doesn't that suggest he's cut from the same cloth?

    LBJ escalated a neocon war and expanded Medicaid beyond anything that had come before--we're still paying the price. The medicaid expansion will hurt us longer than the legacy of the Vietnam War!

    Bush teh Lesser came along and escalated a neocon war and expanded Medicare beyond anything it had been before--we're still in Iraq, and I suspect his Medicare expansion, likewise, will hurt us longer than the Iraq War.

    Is there some reason to expect a different result this time?

    What is it about Perry that makes him so different from Bush? Has the Texas' Republican constituency he's run on changed much since Bush was the Governor?

    If he's not willing to repudiate what Bush did, how do we know he won't pursue the same stupid policies?

    If Rick Perry is the same place as Ron Paul on the issues--that'll be great news. But what are the chances of that happening?

    Did Rick Perry oppose the Iraq War? ...and then win the governorship of Texas?! If that isn't the case, then God save us if he isn't willing to repudiate the disastrous fiscal and foreign policies of the Bush Administration? Then may whatever God Texas worships help us all.

  • sevo||

    "What is it about Perry that makes him so different from Bush?"

    Same as Obama:
    Obama = 5 letters
    Perry = 5 letters
    Bush = 4 letters
    See?

  • Calculon||

    "Perry" has the same Levenshtein distance to both "Obama" and "Bush": 5.

  • Nephilium||

    I'll just point at Balko's post on Perry as to what makes him a worthless piece of shit. That right there is more then enough to prevent me from holding my nose and voting for him.

  • SIV||

    Precisely--why would anyone from Texas repudiate the last president who was also a governor of Texas?

    To get elected?

    Future-President Michelle Bachmann has explicitly repudiated actions/policies of the Bush Administration.

  • ||

    "To get elected?"

    As president? Maybe.

    I don't know how that'll play in the next Texas Gubernatorial campaign.

    I haven't been to Texas in years, but unless things have changed a whole bunch recently...

    They're not big on nuanced views down there.

  • ||

    I didn't like him a lot, but I did think that Bush the elder was not that bad of a president, and I always thought that he was a lot more respectable than his son.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Bush would have made an interesting case study. He was competent and hard working, but it seemed pretty clear that he really didn't want it any more. That could be the best possible combination for a President.

  • rememberer||

    Bush the elder stood for nothing, believed in nothing except the fact that he was entitled to hold high office because be was part of the "club".

    He was the embodiment of the status quo and the status quo ain't so great.

  • ||

    Bush the Elder was a good president.

    He fought hard for free trade, and he managed the implosion of the USSR. Most of his accomplishments were international--things could have gone a lot worse without him.

    Oh, and him and Jim Baker holding together a coalition of Arab states against a vicious dictator--even as that dictator was lobbing SCUDs at Israel? That may be the greatest feat of diplomacy in the history of the world.

    His international accomplishments were the most important part of his presidency. I registered libertarian to protest him breaking his no new taxes pledge, but if we had another president like him--we haven't had a president as good as he was since.

  • rememberer||

    things could have gone a lot worse without him

    I'll give you that.

    him[sic] and Jim Baker holding together a coalition of Arab states against a vicious dictator--even as that dictator was lobbing SCUDs at Israel? That may be the greatest feat of diplomacy in the history of the world.

    The other Arab leaders, particularly those of Saudi Arabia, were scared sh*tless of Hussein's adventurism, so I don't rate his diplomatic accomplishments quite as high as you do.

    His international accomplishments were the most important part of his presidency

    GHWB's political capital after the Gulf War was enormous. He could have done some wonderful things, but, since he believed in nothing much, certainly not in the rhetoric (actions?) of Reagan wrt limiting the role of government, Bush became a passive target of the Democrat media, which picked at him until they opened a wound.

    we haven't had a president as good as he was since

    A bar low enough for a snake to hop over.

  • Robert||

    I think that Bush was pretty awful, and agree with everybody else's criticism of him, and add one additional thing: "He managed the implosion of the USSR"?!! He was in the right place at the right time, and he seemed to do everything in his power to try to help the more unstable and evil faction at every turn! I think we might have a less evil Russia today had Geo. Bush just kept his mouth shut & hands off. Of course the US State Dept. has a long hx of making the wrong friends & too many enemies, so I've no confidence another president would've done better, but it's like Bush was going for the record.

    And yeah, Sr. was more respectable than Jr., but that's damning with the faintest of praise.

  • ||

    What kind of collectivist thinking is "I don't want another Texan in the White House"?

    Seriously, you'd oppose Ron Paul solely because he's from Texas?

  • ||

    I answered that!

    Other than both being from Texas, is there anything else Ron Paul and Perry have in common?

    I think governors down there are a product of the evolutionary forces that got them elected--they're a function of their constituencies.

    If he's willing to come out and repudiate the horrible policies of the Bush and Obama Administrations, then that might be reassuring. Short of that, I don't want any more of what they're sellin' down there.

  • rememberer||

    "governors down there are a product of the evolutionary forces that got them elected"

    The roots stretch back centuries. If you have the time and patience, read this. It's a fascinating take on the fundamental political conflicts in America.

  • sunny black||

    What???

    Forget continuing the Bush administration, we don't want Obama in the White House because he's a BigGov central planning statist. Bush the lesser would be an improvement. Texan or not. Get over yourself with the Texas crap..

  • Colin||

    Ron Paul!

    That's three times better than what he did last time.

    He's not gonna win the nomination, but he could sure make it interesting.

  • ||

    Agreed. I just think it's cool that he's pulled the GOP (if ever so slightly) to the anti-war side, and to the anti-spending side.

  • RyanXXX||

    Ron could rather easily derail everything for the Republicans and hand the election to Obama, if he wanted to.

    Running as an independent would have a Nader/Perot effect, which I'm sure the GOP bigwigs know. Maybe Ron could go full-supervillain and blackmail his way into a VP slot, on the understanding that he'd handle most of the Foreign Policy realm?

  • ||

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    This will happen unless Perry gets the nomination. If that happens, they will likely go after Kasich or some other purple-stater in a bid to grab some electoral votes. Two guys from Texas on the ballot would be a waste, in their opinion.

    That said, could you see the look on Romney's face when he has to announce Ron Paul as his running mate? It would be priceless!

  • Nephilium||

    Not to mention illegal... if I remember my Constitutional law correctly, the President and Vice-president have to be from different states.

  • Binky||

  • roystgnr||

    If Perry gets the nomination, he has to pick someone other than Ron Paul as VP, because having two guys from the same state on your ticket is unconstitutional.

    Haha, I'm just kidding; there's now a loophole a mile wide in that part of the Constitution.

  • ||

    @roystgnr: The ABC report to which you linked really got the constitutional question completely wrong. The snopes article linked above explains the situation well. What worries me is that the JUDGE involved in the Cheney case seems to have played along in an issue that turns on constitutional misreading. I wish I could get copies of the legal arguments and the judge's decision in that case. I would like to know just how ignorant the respective counsels, or the judge, happen to be, concerning what the Constitution REALLY says. Bottom line is this: The electors from a particular State can only vote for ONE of their homeboys, not two. So it is to the optimum advantage of political parties to nominate Pres. and VP candidates from different States, in order to make each eligible for the maximum number of electoral votes.

  • ||

    The snopes article ignores the 12th Amendment, which makes the two persons explicitly the president and vice president. Moreover, disqualifying the electors of a state from voting for your party's ticket is a huge penalty.

  • ||

    If you mean ignores the 12th amendment by explicitly referring to it, I agree with you.

  • Seer||

    You're forgetting Rand. Ron Paul will not run 3rd party because he does not want to derail his son's political career, which probably has an even higher ceiling than his own.

  • ||

    Dude, Rand is a Senator. He already outranks his old man.

  • BigT||

    Rand has a long future ahead of him, Ron is at the end of the line. Current jobs are irrelevant.

  • cynical||

    Dude, no way. How many of us here wouldn't think for a second about "intervening" to make VP Paul into President Paul? And there are lots of people crazier than us out there.

  • RyanXXX||

    fair point. But if he decided to do it, the GOP would have no choice but to kill Ron Paul (I'm being serious, actually) or nominate him for VP or lose the election

    It would be interesting to watch. To say the least

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Only if Paul ran as a third-party candidate, but only if you believe votes belong to either Team.

  • Au H20||

    For all the pain they put me through, sometimes they really bring the lulz. The featured comment on Perry's announcement informed me that the only reason he will win is because he's white. Don't you love when the economy doesn't affect elections?

  • Pb Belly||

    Yes.

  • sevo||

    "The featured comment on Perry's announcement informed me that the only reason he will win is because he's white. Don't you love when the economy doesn't affect elections?"

    Pretty sure the present doofus-in-chief traded on the same issue.

  • ||

    There is no doubt whatsoever that Obama is president precisely because he is black, not in spite of it.

  • ||

    Well, Hillary's self-destruction helped.

    -jcr

  • rememberer||

    Obama ousted Hillary because he is black. The Democrat, whoever that was, was guaranteed to win because the Bush Admin. crashed the stock market.

  • ||

    When I think about the large number of votes for Bachmann, H.L. Mencken's take on the farmer comes to mind: http://www.bizbag.com/mencken/menkfarm.htm

  • BigT||

    Don't blame the player for the rules of the game.

  • PantsFan||

    50 Years after the Berlin Wall was built
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat.....63,00.html

  • SIV||

    (who I strongly doubt will be Bachmann)

    You think future-President Michele Bachmann will be elected as a 3rd party/independent?

  • ||

    Romney is a mormon. He actually believes that native americans are cursed with dark skin by god for the sins of their Jewish ancestors. Seriously.

    Romney is a technocrat. He is just one side of the "we can manage the economy" coin.

    Romney is a drug warrior. nuff said.

    Romney may even make things worse for us if he wins than if Obama wins.

    At least Obama is stymied by the House right now.

  • SIV||

    You forgot to mention Romney is a baby-killing gun-grabber who flip-flopped after "seeing the light" of running as a Republican outside of the People's Republic of Taxachusetts.

  • sevo||

    "Romney is a mormon. He actually believes that native americans are cursed with dark skin by god for the sins of their Jewish ancestors. Seriously."

    Is this still part of the mormom script? Really?

  • ||

    Yes

  • sevo||

    O
    M
    G.

  • PantsFan||

    along with magic underwear and after-death planets

  • Max||

    Ron Paul believes that the founding fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation" and that somebody is waging a war on Xmas. The GOP is becoming loonier by the minute.

  • max||

    arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!

  • sevo||

    Max|8.13.11 @ 10:37PM|#
    "Ron Paul believes that the founding fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation" and that somebody is waging a war on Xmas. The GOP is becoming loonier by the minute."

    I'm betting that Max (not the sock) really doesn't bleeve this, but Max (not the sock) is stupid enough to hope that others do.
    Which makes Max (not the sock) STUPID ^n

  • Max||

    The War on Religion

    by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

    As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it's hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn't feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don't celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation's Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

    Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

    This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel's Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

    The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

    December 30, 2003

    Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

  • ||

    Max just say christfag so we know you're a stupid troll to be ignored.

  • .||

    Hell, heller, Max just believes in freedom of religion - well for anyone except the religious, of course.

  • Contrarian P||

    Yes, the multiple references to a creator in the founding documents can't possibly be actually referring to a creator. Paul doesn't know what he's talking about. The Founders wanted an atheistic nation. Got it, Max. Thanks for clarifying. Seriously, if the guy thinks that the government has a hostile policy to his religion (and there are many possible examples that could be cited), why are you upset by this? Muslims certainly have no shortage of anecdotes as to how the TSA and everyone else singles them out. Maybe they should quit the complaining too, rather than risk being branded as loony by such an exalted authority as yourself.

  • Fluffy||

    There's a decided difference between being singled out for application of the police power without a specific individual warrant based on your religion, and not being allowed to usurp public property to propagate your religious message.

    I can cut Ron some slack on his abortion position, because reasonable people can disagree on that issue. But I don't see any way for this position to be anything other than pure pandering.

    I hope he's playing some kind of 11 dimensional chess here, and doesn't mind telling Christians he'll let them usurp tax-funded institutions, because he intends to destroy all those tax-funded institutions anyway. (In a sense, it doesn't matter what you promise people they can do with the public space if you intend to shrink the public space to nothing.) But that's kind of a forlorn hope.

  • Max||

    People used have such hopes about Stalin.

  • Fluffy||

    And Obama.

    In the end all we really have is our impressions of people's sincerity. And I just don't really see Ron freaking out and trying to jam a Christmas tree down my throat like a pike.

  • Fluffy||

    But I can definitely see Bachmann shoving me on to a cattle car to go to a camp to get re-educated out of my atheism.

  • Almanian||

    Fluffy - it's for your own good, now.

    Remember, one suitcase. For the whole family...

  • My Favorite||

    "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s" (D&C 130: 22)

  • Atanarjuat||

    Romney is a drug warrior. nuff said.

    That's a dealbreaker for me.

    Romney's main weakness is the Tea Party won't like him.

  • Mitt Romney||

    Romney's main weakness is the Tea Party won't like him.

    Tea is a drug. Screw 'em.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Oh yeah, the caffeine thing. I guess Mormons would disapprove of asi too.

  • ||

    I initially read that as "Romney is a moron".

  • ||

    An acceptable alternative reading.

  • ||

    No he's a mor(m)on.

  • PantsFan||

    he's really a mothman

  • ||

    Not that I like Romney, but to defend him a bit, I and my whole extended family were raised Catholic (I'm now agnostic), but not one of us actually believed we were eating the body of Christ during Communion. So much of religion is just tradition (you just do it because your parents did it, because their parents did it, etc.)

  • steve||

    ^ Why I believe the actual number of "believers" in this country is lower than people think. I know more poeple than not who think the whole higher power concept is a joke, yet go to church due to social/family obligations. Makes it all the more sickening to me.

  • ||

    You have no idea how many people are terrified that if religion goes, morality does as well. Stupid, I know. But, there it is.

  • a sure thing||

    "if religion goes, morality does as well. Stupid, I know."

    Not nearly as stupid as believing that a moral code can be perpetuated without institutions to teach and reinforce it. You are an idiot.

  • Fluffy||

    The problem is that the current institutions have embarrassed themselves by propagating absurd nonsense for several centuries.

    If you want to "reinforce" your idea of a moral code to me, you're gonna have to do it without insulting my intelligence.

    When you're claiming divine revelation as the basis of your message, you don't get to make the tiniest mistake, ever, and you don't get to change one iota of your message, ever, without invalidating the lot for all time. That means that just about every existing religion comes into the discussion already completely discredited.

    I would say that it's pretty stupid to believe that you can perpetuate a moral code by assigning its teaching and "reinforcing" to institutions that everyone with more than two brain cells knows have no credibility.

  • ||

    That'll do pig. That'll do.... :^)

  • Chupacabra||

    I used to go to meet chicks.

  • Max||

    Iowa either loves religious fanatics and Birchite racists or doesn't really know what they are.

  • sevo||

    Max is either a fool or a knave, or really doesn't know which s/he is.

  • .||

    Max is just worried that someone might be against his precious Joos.

  • fish||

    Iowa either loves religious fanatics and Birchite racists or doesn't really know what they are.

    Ya know who Iowans don't like? Tim Pawlenty!

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/......DTL&tsp=1

  • johnl||

    Is Bachman really just as awful as TPaw and everyone who finished after him?

  • Ted S.||

    Yes.

  • SIV||

    NO

    Bachmann is very good on fiscal and regulatory issues, the Constitution, and better than the establishment "mainstream" candidates on defense.

    Her "Tea Party" cred is that she has held and expressed these views ever since she entered politics and is no recent convert.

    She is as much or more "libertarian-leaning" than Reason-fave Jeff Flake.

  • BigT||

    Yeah.

    Having a snatch gets more votes than having pics of snatch (Paul). If she can just keep her piehole shut about her Xtian crap she'll win it all.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    If she didn't lean somewhat heavily socon, she would be an easy candidate to support. But her socon creds are going to help a lot in the nomination process. Call her "crazy" or whatever, but I wouldn't underestimate her chances. She has a real shot.

  • Fluffy||

    She makes no bones about the fact that she wants to be regarded as a social conservative first, foremost, and above all else.

  • SIV||

    In the GOP Primary, Fluffy. Bachmann's road to the nomination is getting the SoCons AND the "Constitutional Conservatives" who either can't stomach Ron Paul or don't consider him a contender.

    There are Paul supporters for whom Bachmann is a "second choice" and down here in JesusLand there actually are Bachmann supporters for who Paul is a second choice (they consider all other's RINOs).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Guys, chill...it's fucking' Iowa.

    Wake me up when the N.H. Primary starts.

  • A Serious Man||

    I love the logic fail among the political commentators who say that Ron Paul's success is only because he has an "active and robust" when in fact he came in 7th in the 2007 poll. So were his small group of followers simply more active and robust this time around or is it possible that there's more of them?

  • A Serious Man||

    Should say he has an "active and robust" set of followers in Iowa

  • Always a Bridesmaid||

    Marriage is overrated.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I don't know about you guys, but I'm really excited about Thaddeus McCotter.

  • RyanXXX||

    Tha. DDe. Us!!! Tha. DDe. Us!!!

  • BakedPenguin||

    I know you're joking, Art, but I hope you realize no one has ever said those words before.

    Including his wife.

  • coniefox||

    Let's dancing!

  • ||

    I always thought that Shirley Jones looked fairly radiant in this movie, more so than in any of her others; awhile back, I learned that she was with child throughout the filming (though apparently not showing yet, when the picture here was taken).

  • Joe M||

  • SIV||

    Good riddance!

  • ||

    That was quick. I expected him to hang around until Huntsman gives up.

  • ||

    ALLAH ACKBAR!

  • MNG||

    I think there should be a Pawlenty/Huntsman indie bid in 12 under the "Noone gives a shit about either of us" party banner.

  • Jerry||

    The sooner these clown candidates exit the stage, the more time Paul will have in the debates. Who's next, Santorum?

  • Joe M||

    No the storyline with him is that his fourth place finish has somehow energized his campaign.

  • Joe M||

    Of course, Ron Paul's second place finish is good news for Perry, Romney, and anyone else except for Paul himself. Such is the bias of the media.

  • ||

    He didn't even try. When he refused to go after Romney in the first debate, he as much as said "I really have no reason to be here".

  • MNG||

    +1

    He came off as ball-less, and since he was "the other GOP establishment candidate but with less money, organization and name recognition" his refusal to attack Romney made him superflous indeed.

  • ||

    I would give anything to see someone ask Rick Perry "just what makes you think God gives a shit about America?" I think God has bigger concerns than the fate of the US. There is nothing in Christianity that makes you anything but distrustful of government. Fucking ignorant hillbilly.

  • tarran||

    Judging by the signs on churches, the United States government is imposing god's will on earth and making Jesus the ruler of everything you can see from the tallest of mountains.

  • ||

    It's not that clear cut John, I think Christianity is more indifferent to government. It's that whole "to live outside the (government's) laws you must be honest".
    But for a guy who uses God a lot, he's got some brass balls campaigning on the Christian day of rest.

  • ||

    Indifferent is a good word. I don't know that the US remaining as it is is in God's interest. I don't get to talk to God. And if I did, I wouldn't understand what he sees and knows anyway. Who knows, maybe God plans to wipe out the US. To claim that you have some special access to God and God has some special interest in this or any other country is just nonsense.

  • Israel||

    To claim that you have some special access to God and God has some special interest in this or any other country is just nonsense.

    Dude, you are so in trouble now!

  • BakedPenguin||

    I've had this argument with a few others before. There is scripture that opposes, and scripture that supports government. I wonder if some of the later passages (esp. in Romans) were actually written after Constantine made Christianity the official religion, while the more skeptical writing were made while Rome was persecuting them.

  • Fluffy||

    I think the documentary evidence is that the epistles are pretty genuine.

    The gospels, not so much. But we're pretty sure there was a dude named Paul and that the epistles we have are reasonably good copies of what he actually wrote.

  • Almanian||

    Abbey Road - definitely real, and some of Paul's best work ever.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Thanks. I'm not knowledgeable about the scholarship regarding the NT. I had heard that the provenance of the canonical gospels was under question, but that's about it.

  • ||

    Wikipedia has a nice but largely unsourced table here.

  • Xenocles||

    IIRC from my Catholic high school days, it is fairly uncontroversial that the Gospels were written well after Jesus is alleged to have existed (AD 70 or so being the earliest).

  • ||

    It's unlikely they were written that late since the Church Fathers of the 200s and early 300s were already quoting them in their writings. But there is some question as to whether they were actually written during the mid-1st century and by the apostles and evangelists they were named for.

  • Robert||

    Jehovistic religions (well, maybe not the little one, but the big 3) are overwhelmingly pro-state, because they usually presume they will be administered by the state. When they don't, it's just a brief phase they think they're going thru before they retake their rightful place. Germanic paganism is at least neutral on the subject.

  • ||

    There is nothing in Christianity that makes you anything but distrustful of government.

    Page Options

    Add parallel


    >>

    Show resources
    Romans 13

    New International Version (NIV)

    Romans 13
    Submission to Governing Authorities
    1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

    6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
  • Pedant||

    God has some 'splainin' to do about North Korea.

  • Xenocles||

    Matthew 22:

    15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
    18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

    21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

    Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

    22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    +1

    At least the hyper-concern over Israel among the Protestant Evangelicals is semi-Biblical, but American exceptionalism is idolatry.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Let me add WHITE Protestant Evangelical. Black Evangelicals don't have the same obsession.

  • SIV||

    Fucking ignorant hillbilly.
    reply to this

    Perry is from a relatively "flatland" part of Texas.

  • ||

    Poor David Gregory; he is horrified by Bachmann's refusal to bow down before his panoply of authorities. I especially like his claim that Bennay and Timmay are elected.

  • ||

    Yeah I saw MTP too. Gregory went on and on about what the "experts" all said about the economy. Someone needs to remind him that these "experts" said unemployment would be over 8% if the stimulus wasnt passed; well we spent almost a trillion we didnt have and unemployment is over 9%. And the "experts" told us everyone should be a homeowner and that the govt. should get involved in the housing market.

    And for God's sake, not raising the debt ceiling was not the same as defaulting on the debt itself.

  • ||

    "Influential voices" in the business community say the teabagsterdz are crazy.

    If Bill Gross says you're making it hard for him to get rich off the rubes, who are you to argue?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Warren "all-I-can-eat" Buffet and T. Boondoggle Pickens must be pissed that there's a sizable constituency fighting their rent seeking.

  • steve||

    Dear Gary,
    W T F O? Are you even trying?
    I can see being forgotten about during debates n such, but you couldn't at least show up w/ a beer in yer hand and eat a corn dog??

  • BakedPenguin||

    He skipped Iowa and headed to New Hampshire, where he's been campaigning and doing meet-and-greets.

  • ok bro||

    Gary had the good sense to know that Iowans didn't know and don't want to know him. Better for him to save his resources for other places that don't know and don't want to know him.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Johnson should skip the presidential bid, and go straight for being Ron Paul's VP. Might get RP some mileage in NM.

  • ||

    All Bachmann, all the time.

  • Fluffy||

    You know what?

    Before yesterday, Perry was a name on a screen to me. I had read a lot about him, but had never seen his face or heard him speak.

    Fucking SPARE US. He is capital-C Creepy.

  • ||

    Yes he is. I think people are going to realize that. He makes Romney seem like a sincere guy. He is pretty much an amalgamation of all the worst parts of the Republican Party, phony religion meets crony capitalism and faux patriotism.

  • Fluffy||

    He reminded me a little of Blagojevich, in that every time he spoke I grabbed for my wallet with one hand and put the other hand out as a screen to protect my balls.

  • ||

    Yeah and Blago had an amazing wig. I think Perry wears one too--seems like the type that would wear a toupee.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Blago stole The Jacket for a short while when Gillespie went to Chicago once. That's not the hair Nick or Blago were born with: it's the hair The Jacket bestows on you.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Don't forget completely unconcerned about government murder.

    I can understand a candidate who is "tough on crime". Perry is a fucking joke from the Simpsons - "he doesn't want to be seen as being weak on punishing the wrongly convicted" - come to life. If you don't care if the person you're responsible for killing is innocent or not, you are a sociopath.

  • MNG||

    +1

    Along those lines I remember Romney bragging that he did not parole one person as governor.

  • MNG||

    I mean "pardon" not parole

  • ||

    Massachusetts governors, clemency, and presidential campaigns don't mix.

  • ||

    Got that right!

  • Michale Dukakis||

    Don't I know!

  • Robert||

    I'm afraid there's a large sociopathic tendency in society -- that there's a large swath of society who relish the thought of having an innocent person put to death in all their names, because it shows how dedicated their ruler is to them. After all, what greater sacrifice could there be than human sacrifice?

  • BakedPenguin||

    If so, it's something that needs to be addressed, and condemned in straightforward terms. "Even if you believe in capital punishment, it is not acceptable to murder someone who has not been conclusively proven to have committed this crime. To do so reduces all of society to the level -at best - of accomplices to negligent homicide. This is a savage and atavistic position unfit for a civilized society..." etc.

  • SIV||

    Yes.

    I'm all for hanging criminals in the courthouse square until we can do away with the state and just lynch them.Nevertheless, I am appalled that our current system tolerates (and even encourages) prosecutors knowingly convicting the innocent and fighting (at taxpayer expense) justice for the exonerated or executing the condemned after exculpatory information has come to light

  • ho daddy||

    Voters are looking for a Hero, but once they find out what an establishment hack Perry is, they will look elsewhere.

    On the plus side, Perry isn't from the deep blue NE and he has done some pretty damn smart politicking.

  • ||

    The guys on FOX just mentioned Ron Paul: "Oh, by the way, That old guy from Texas who spent about one tenth the money as Bachmann basically tied her. This shows what an organizational juggernaut Bachmann is running."

  • ||

    It is called having a constituency. Paul could have not even shown up and gotten a good chunk of the vote. The question is can he win anyone beyond that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Success breeds success, which is why the establishment media is going to do their damndest to follow the "kooky Granpa" coverage of Paul. They may have to d/c that line when and if Paul wins somewhere.

    Paul could actually take a sizable constituency of the far left - even though they hate his economics, his anti-War, anti-WoD, and anti-Fed stances are very popular there.

  • ||

    A Paul nomination would be very instructive because it would force the mask to fall from the mainline soccer mom Democrats on the WoD. That would end any idea that the Dems care about civil rights.

  • MNG||

    "That would end any idea that the Dems care about civil rights."

    I realize you are using "civil rights" in an idiosyncratic way, but considering Paul advocates getting rid of the federal BoR being applied to police the states I don't think this is true at all. Paul has said that if a state wants to allow flag burning and sodomy bans then by God they should have that right without interference from the federal government.

    Of course when one talks about "civil rights" today they usually are taken to refer to things Paul exposes (like the CRA) for the same state's rights reasons.

  • MNG||

    opposes not exposes

  • ||

    Paul has said that if a state wants to allow flag burning and sodomy bans then by God they should have that right without interference from the federal government.

    Paul wouldn't be in a position to affect the BoR being applied to the states. That's a SCOTUS decision.

    I'll take flag burning and sodomy laws over mandatory airport groping and DEA no-knock raids.

  • Wayne||

    +10

  • Max||

    Ron Paul of Texas recently argued:"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it’s pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it."

  • ||

    IMO, the JBS gets 10 out of those 11 right on a consistent basis.

    With the exception of "national sovereignty," they are spot on, and I'd be willing to bet that most libertarians agree.*

    *or half agree on 10 of 11 and half agree on 9 of 11 because of the abortion issue. Either way, that's a high %.

  • Robert||

    The JBS gets its bad rep from conspiracy mongering, which is actually pretty inconsequential but what they're best known for. Their aims have been practically wholly good.

  • Brandon Magoon||

    At the risk of feeding the insane troll, this sounds like an endorsement.

  • Max||

    bIRCHER!!11!1!!!

    BIRcHER!!!11!!!11

  • Underzog||

    Ron Paul also has an antisemitic, ex CIA agent as his advisor in the Middle East. That might have contributed to Dr. Paul's view that Iran getting the nuclear bomb was a swell thing.

    Incidentally, not only did ex CIA agent, Ron Paul advisor, Philip Giraldi, write an antisemitic screed that was featured in the antisemitic blog, "Veterans Today," but the ex CIA agent identified in a photo a person he said was David Horowitz when that person was not David Horowitz: HERE

    Some spook this guy was /sarc No wonder this incompetent has the same antisemitic views that so many of you Libertarian Rhoemites do.

    Ron Paul 1488
    The Final Solution for America

    the two eights stand for the two eighth letters of the alphabet -- which is two Hs --as in "Heil Hitler." The number 14 stands for those fourteen words that every white supremacist knows: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

    Ron Paul 1488
    The Final Solution for America

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • MNG||

    "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

    I guess Underzog doesn't see the hilarious irony in he, a hardcore Likudian Zionist, posting this.

  • Almanian||

    Jesus Christ in Hell, what is U even saying there? Can you decode it, MNG? I can't...

  • Underzog||

    This so-called "new antisemitic rhetoric," is ironic, coming from this person from the misnamed Human Rights Watch group. A group who had on its staff a person named Mark Garlasco who bashed Israel while at the same time wearing Nazi regalia.

    After it was exposed, an embarrassed Human Rights Watch dismissed Garlasco, but tolerated Garlasco's Nazi fetish until then.

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here."

  • Almanian||

    Huh - you don't say?

  • ||

    Underzog's Alzheimer's is acting up again. Don't mind him, they'll take away his computer at the home soon.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Maybe he could read this before they do.

    ...and what the hell: re-read this.

  • ||

    Did you know that if you google "rhoemite" all the results are underzog's stupid posts here?

  • ||

    Crazy talk.

    “Extremely powerful institutions, both financially and politically, undermine the long-term strength of our system and make us look like a financial oligarchy,” he told me. This view, of course, receives little applause in Washington and on Wall Street.

    Mr. Hoenig has espoused this view for more than a decade, and he has grown accustomed to being ignored or criticized for it. Back in 1996, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he presciently warned about the dangers of expanding the federal safety net to cover financial institutions trading complex derivatives and structured finance vehicles.

    Pushing for a new regulatory regime that would deny a safety net to institutions engaged in risky activities, he told the attendees: “The threat of failure keeps a bank honest and inhibits it and the industry from trending toward excessive risks. Without this market discipline provided by creditors willing to withdraw their funds when they suspect a bank of being unsafe, banks have an incentive to take excessive risks.”

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Shirley Jones once showed up at our office to yell at the critic who panned her performance in a concert (or touring show?) here. A real catfight. I understand it was awesome, although I missed it.

  • MNG||

    Is there a more wretched creature on the face of the earth than Mitt Romney? Here is a man who has flip-flop and pandered on nearly every major political and moral issue of the day in his various quests for power and is likely going to still come up short again. He reminds me of the John Hurt character from A Man for All Seasons: Why Mitt, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for the GOP nomination?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I believe that a Romney nomination all but guarantees a Paul LP run.

  • ||

    As has already been noted, Ron Paul dares not poison the well of the GOP. The only party where a Rand Paul presidential bid is viable.

  • Fluffy||

    I can't decide whether an indie run poisons the well or not.

    Prodigals sometimes get more respect when they return.

  • ||

    That's a good point. And it's not like Rand would get any help from the establishment anyway.

  • Almanian||

    a more wretched creature on the face of the earth

    Barack Obama. Bitter, twisted Al Gore. John "WTF??" McCain. But Romney is RIGHT up there...

  • MNG||

    Sorry, but I don't think any of those three have flipped and pandered so basely on so many big issues. He was pro-choice, now he's pro-life, he was for gays in the military, now he's not, he was for stem cell research, now he's not, he was for gun control, now he's not, he was ok with taxes, now he's not. I don't know of any bigger flip on so many pivotal issues.

  • MNG||

  • ||

    Obama flipflopped on nearly every civil rights and foreign policy issue he campaigned on.

    And of course there are worse things in the moral universe than flipflopping. Perhaps not to a Dem attack dog who sees his mission this morning as attacking Mitt Romney at all costs, but to a rational person yes.

  • MaxNG||

    Not Blue?!

    arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!arf!

  • ho daddy||

    "I don't think any of those three have flipped and pandered so basely on so many big issues"

    Al Gore flippity-flopped on just about everything when he went from TN Senator to Presidential hopeful. Funny how regional positions vanish when professional pols go national.

  • ||

    Judging by your constant ragging on him, he also scares leftists which is a plus.

    What has he flipflopped on since 2007?

  • Fluffy||

    What has he flipflopped on since 2007?

    Dude, come on.

    How many people has Charles Manson killed since 2007?

  • ||

    to the best of my recollection, i don't think manson killed any people BEFORE 2007 either.

    he certainly orchestrated squeaky et al's murderous spree ("it's too late, to fall in love with sharon tate"), but *he* didn't kill anybody

  • Robert||

    but we want our elected officials to pander, don't we? How else can they represent their electorate? They flip flop because the people, in the aggregate, do, even if individuals in the electorate don't change their minds that often. (Think marginal.)

    Romney is representative of the tendency toward political dynasties around the world regardless of the fact that hereditary office has been mostly abolished.

  • Max||

    Talkin' the paranoid John Birch Society Blues

    Well I was feelin' sad and kind of blue

    I didn't know what I was gonna do

    The Communists were comin' around

    They was in the air, they were on the ground

    They were all over


    So I ran down most hurriedly

    And joined the John Birch Society

    I got me a secret membership card

    Went back to my backyard

    And started looking on the sidewalk

    'Neath the rose bush


    Well, I was lookin' everywhere for them gold darned Reds

    I got up in the mornin' and looked under my bed

    Looked behind the kitchen, behind the door

    Even tore loose the kitchen floor, couldn't find any

    Lyrics provided by http://www.kovideo.net/

    Source - http://www.kovideo.net/talkin-.....98373.html


    I looked beneath the sofa, beneath the chair

    Looking for them Reds everywhere

    I looked way up my chimney hole

    Even looked deep inside my toilet bowl

    They got away


    I heard some footsteps by the front porch door

    So I grabbed my shotgun from the floor

    I snuck around the house with a huff and hiss and

    "Hands up, you Communist" it was a mail man

    He punched me out


    Well, I quit my job so I could work alone

    I got a magnifying glass like Sherlock Holmes

    Followed some clues from my detective bag

    And discovered they was red stripes on the American flag

    Did you know about Betsy Ross


    Well, I was sittin' home alone and I started to sweat

    I figured they was in my television set

    I peeked behind the picture frame

    And got a shock from my feet that hit my brain

    Them Reds did it, no one's on the hootin' nanny


    Well, I finally started thinkin' straight

    When I run outta things to investigate

    I couldn't imagine doin' anything else

    So now I'm at home investigatin' myself

    Hope, I don't find out too much, good God

  • moM s'xaM||

    Wow, cool story, bro.

    Now get back to bed, honey - you've a temperature from masturbating to Rachel Maddow too much again...that's a good boy...

  • Max||

    *fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAP*

  • moM s'xaM||

    MAX! STOP THAT THIS INSTANT!

  • Almanian||

    Fuck Rick Perry, that statist prick from the right.

    Vote Almanian in 2012!

    "Why Not™?"

  • ||

    "Why Not™?"

    I suggest you change that to

    WHY THE FUCK NOT?

  • ||

    Idiocracy is on Comedy Central right now.

  • Firesign Theatre||

    PAPOON for PRESIDENT - He's NOT INSANE!

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    The Martian Space Party gets my vote.

    ... "NOT RESPONSIBLE" Hobbit

  • ||

    Speaking of appeals to authority...

    The boasts of Congressional Republicans about their cost-cutting victories are ringing hollow to some well-known economists, financial analysts and corporate leaders, including some Republicans, who are expressing increasing alarm over Washington’s new austerity and antitax orthodoxy.

    Their critiques have grown sharper since last week, when President Obama signed his deficit reduction deal with Republicans and, a few days later, when Standard & Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of the United States.

    But even before that, macroeconomists and private sector forecasters were warning that the direction in which the new House Republican majority had pushed the White House and Congress this year — for immediate spending cuts, no further stimulus measures and no tax increases, ever — was wrong for addressing the nation’s two main ills, a weak economy now and projections of unsustainably high federal debt in coming years.

    Instead, these critics say, Washington should be focusing on stimulating the economy in the near term to induce people to spend money and create jobs, while settling on a long-term plan for spending cuts and tax increases to take effect only after the economy recovers.

    "They're EXPERTS! And they say stuff we agree with! Why won't you listen?"

  • ||

    The absolute refusal to increase any tax ever is in fact bad policy, as it guarantees there will never be a balanced budget.

    Otherwise, the so-called experts are full of shit.

  • ||

    That's simply not true. The budget can be balanced purely with cuts that have already been proposed.

  • ||

    Mathematically it can be done.

    Politically it can't be done -- and it's a political feat, not a mathematical one.

  • ||

    Bull. Shit.

  • Xenocles||

    Unfortunately, the evidence is pretty strongly in Tulpa's favor on this one. If it were not so the actual proposals considered would have at least come closer to closing the deficit than they did. Yeah, I could come up with an infinite number of budgets that balanced with the same taxation or less, but that doesn't mean they will ever happen. Getting it passed is a political act, and the political environment still doesn't seem to support even a balanced budget, let alone one balanced with only cuts. (I know what the polls say. The only polls that matter are elections, and they don't support your thesis.)

  • ||

    Which is like saying that one should not be a libertarian because libertarianism will never be adopted by the government.

  • Xenocles||

    There was absolutely zero normative content in that post. It was nothing more than an accurate depiction of reality, which is that at present a budget balanced neither with cuts nor with a combination of cuts and new tax revenue is in the cards.

    Yes, we have to work against the current but we gain nothing from self-delusion.

  • ||

    What self delusion? I am talking about an ought, you are talking about an is.

  • Xenocles||

    Tulpa said it can't be done politically. You called BS for some reason. Both of those read like is statements to me. It sounds to me like you forgot what you were talking about.

  • ||

    There is no way the Dems will accept $1.5T in budget cuts and cuts to Social Security while leaving the Bush tax cuts in place. And neither will the American people if the question is put to them, so good luck campaigning for those 60 Senate votes necessary to ram such a proposal through.

  • ||

    Tulpa if we are talking realistically, there will never be a balanced budget period.

  • ||

    That's definitely a danger. But the probability plunges to 0 even faster if one party swears off tax increases.

  • ||

    Yes Tulpa, the highest ambition for a politician is to be a tax collector for the welfare state.

  • ||

    You guys would be squealing like stuck pigs if Democrats swore to never cut spending in any way. And rightly so.

  • johnl||

    They drew the line in the sand with cowboy poetry. They will cut only things that are less important than cowboy poetry. Which is pretty much nothing.

  • ||

    So you're surprised that we are against theft AND the spending of stolen money?

  • Fluffy||

    It depends on your long-term goal.

    If your goal is to obtain the lowest possible long-term tax burden for the people, raising taxes in the short term to speed up the timetable of balancing the budget and paying down debt lowers the long-term tax burden. Depending on where on the Laffer Curve we are. (I tend to think we're at a pretty flat part of the curve right now.)

    I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but if a tax increase was part of a larger package of taxes and cuts that got the debt paid off faster than other alternatives, I'd make that deal.

    Debt service is the wild card here.

  • Au H20||

    I'd take an effective tax increase in return for a comprehensive tax reform. However, most plans doing this lower the overall top rate, and I think that the idea of a lower top rate would send many liberals up the wall.

  • Fluffy||

    That's a good point.

    There are LARGE NUMBERS of tax credits I would happily see wiped out, in order to make the tax code less of a social engineering exercise.

    But if those tax credits were closed, while rates were left exactly where they are, right now the GOP considers that a tax increase. I'd consider it a reduction in rent seeking.

  • ||

    Are we nowhere safe from Progressives' fetish for "benevolent" dictatorship?

    No one is in charge.

    For all the billions of dollars, millions of fans and boundless passion that surround college football, that has always been its glaring and bizarre flaw. No one is looking out for the greater good of the game. No one is guiding the sport toward long-term prosperity and short-term sensibility. No one is building consensus and channeling all of the ratings, financial success and popularity toward an outcome that is positive for everyone in the sport.

    Where is our one true Saviour, who will guide us out of this morass of chaos and despair?

  • ||

    Sounds like someone has daddy issues.

  • Kevin Drum||

    I wish Obama would govern my life for me.

  • The Stand||

    BOOM DE BOOM!

    MY LIFE FOR HIM!

  • Trashcan Man||

    It's "bumpty, bumpty, bump!", you retard.

  • Almanian||

    one true Saviour

    The One True was actually a duality. But I'm sorry - Woodie and Bo are dead, Jim.

  • ||

    David Gregory, evidently looking for some sort of GOTCHA moment, asked Bachmann if she was in favor of continuing the payroll tax holiday. She, to my complete lack of surprise, fumbled the ball, jabbering incoherently when she should have looked him sternly in the eye and said:

    "You see David, that is EXACTLY what has gotten us into this mess. Short-term tinkering and social engineering through misguided "fine tuning" of the tax code. We need to have a gigantic bonfire on the front lawn of the White House, and throw the entire federal tax code on it; I'll invite the Congress and the Senate, and we'll have a a giant pig (pig = pork; get it?) roast. And then we'll replace the tax system in this country with a simple, straightforward one, which will allow individuals and businesses to make decisions based on their real financial merits, instead of trying to subsidize special pleaders."

    But she did not say that, and she never will.

  • ho daddy||

    DG: President Obama, should the current payroll tax holiday be continued?

    BHO: Only until after I am re-elected at which time we will need to reevaluate the need for revenue enhancement. Requiring shared sacrifice will be necessary if we are to have any hope of solving the current fiscal crisis.


    DG: Gov. Romneny, should the current payroll tax holiday be continued?

    MR: Part of being an effective leader is understanding that compromise is necessary in order to get things done. We will need a combination of spending cuts and revenue enhancements if we are to have any hope of solving the current fiscal crisis.

  • Mike M.||

    How in the world do liberals manage to get away with pretending that we have a problem with too little revenue while at the same time pushing for these payroll tax holidays?

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Because the payroll tax is regressive, so liberals hate it.

  • FIFY||

    Because the payroll tax is regressive, so liberals hate it pretend to hate it.

    Liberals actually love anything that sucks money out of the private sector and into their bottomless governmental innards. They posture, but they don't really care who it is stolen from. Tax the cigarettes, tax the booze!

  • SIV||

    The SCHIP tax on "roll your own" cigarette tobacco should put the nail in the coffin that liberal/progressives give a flying fuck about the "losers of life's lottery". Seriously, a 1700% tax on something vital to the happiness of many of the most destitute. They fucking raised taxes on the homeless, mentally ill, disabled, poor etc.

  • coach madison||

    Se non avesse un po 'magra pesantemente Socon, sarebbe un candidato facile da sostenere. Ma la sua creds Socon intenzione di aiutare molto nel processo di nomina. Chiamare il suo "pazzo" o qualsiasi altra cosa, ma non vorrei sottovalutare le sue possibilità. Ha un colpo vero.

  • ||

    !?!?!

    President Barack Obama said Congress needs to do more to address unemployment and the country’s economic problems when lawmakers return next month from the annual August recess.

    “Many Americans are hurting badly right now. Many have been unemployed for too long,” Obama said in his weekly address. “Putting these men and women back to work, and growing wages for everyone, has got to be our top priority.”

    A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT!

    What a fucking retard.

  • mr simple||

    Everyone knows people are only unemployed because those greedy republicans are being too obstructionist to pass the "Everybody Gets a Job" bill.

  • Amakudari||

    A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT! What a fucking retard.

    THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

  • ||

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....=obnetwork

    Kids to jail for cash judge gets 28 years. Seems light. But he is 61 years old. Under the federal system of 54 good time days per year he will have to do around 23 of that meaning he will be 84 when he gets out. That is pretty much life.

  • Wayne||

    too bad we can't invent a time machine to make him 21, then sentence him 63 years.

  • ||

    Problem is, it wouldn't be life for a younger judge.

    IMHO if a court official blatantly and knowingly commits misconduct that results in someone getting unjust judicial punishment, that official should get the same.

    And then we tack the bribery and honest services fraud on top.

  • ||

    I mean to include prosecutors as "court officials".

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    Rick Perry is George W. Bush without the blue blood. And do you know what that makes him? Someone who can't get the GOP nomination.

    These people who are the supposed saviors of their parties that enter in August or September before the Iowa caucus never go anywhere. Ask Presidents Wes Clark and Fred Thompson.

    Romney is now the nominee.

  • SIV||

    Romney is now the nominee.

    Not if Perry splits the "RINO with good hair" vote.

  • ||

    You have to admit that the Paul family needs to start patronizing a different Supercuts.

  • The Worst Christian in America||

    I wonder how many of you Reasonable folks who support the same ideas as Ron Paul actually would support him as a nominated presidential candidate?

    Libertarianism is an idea on the rise, but it is a precarious idea. That is, if there is ever a viable candidate, it almost certainly a one-shot opportunity in the normal course of events. So, do you really want to take your one shot with Dr, Paul?

    I certainly didn't read all the comments, but I sense no enthusiasm. Where is Reason's ringing endorsement? The discussions here seemed to quickly meander away from him. You can claim he's right until the Iowa State Fair Butter Cows come home (trust me, they are magnificent) but if the Reason crowd is, meh, what does that truly say? I think it's time for the rational ones to start being rational.

    Asked how he would get his agenda through a divided congress he was nonplused. I don't think actual governance has ever occurred to him. This is your standard bearer who will transform America into the utopia of Reason? Please.

    So why not do the rational thing and say it out loud? Beloved, revered, and best retired.

    Or, if you think he's the guy you could spend some time here trying to convince yourselves. Enjoy.

  • Pedant||

    I wonder how many of you Reasonable folks...

    Drink!

  • squarooticus||

    It doesn't matter: if he shows any strength in the primaries, Reason will just run a hit piece about the racist newsletters and syndicate it to every newspaper in the nation. The cosmotarian wing can't afford to let someone like Ron Paul represent libertarians.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    reason ran a "hit piece"?

    "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

  • ||

    "I don't think actual governance has ever occurred to him."

    The guy has spent years in Congress, so he definitely understands how the sausage is made. If you doubt that, read some of his Texas Straight Talk columns at his congressional website, wherein he explains the kind of chicanery he witnesses regularly.

    As a Libertarian, the thing that bothers me most about Ron Paul is that he seems doggedly determined to run as a Republican, and to not challenge the GOP from third-party ranks or as an independent candidate, should the party spurn him (as it infamously did last time). I voted for him on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988, and I would do so again. I would not lie and call myself a Republican to get him nominated in the GOP, either last time or this time. I would have to think long and hard before voting for him as a Republican, instead of voting for a good Libertarian candidate. After all these years, I can't fool myself into thinking that the LP candidate will win in any particular election, but I think that if more and more people vote LP as a way to show no confidence in the two-faced monoparty, and as an endorsement of the ideals that are championed by the LP, eventually the political Berlin Wall that keeps the LP (and other third-party efforts) out of the mainstream will fall.

    In my mind, Ron Paul is not a "perfect" libertarian, so I suppose his decision to remain within the GOP makes sense. But he is orders of magnitude better than the dreck handed us by the monoparty over the past several decades, so he remains on my short list of people I'd like to see on the ballot in November 2012. If the Democrats had a similarly libertarian-leaning, principled, consistent politician, that person might be on my list, too. But in either case, the attachment to the monoparty would he a big red-flag and turnoff.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    If you doubt that, read some of his Texas Straight Talk columns

    I used to listen to Reagan's talk show on the radio where he sounded like a small-government proponent. So, in 1980 I voted for him. I haven't voted for a major party candidate since.

    ... Hobbit

  • ||

    Nice title reference to the 1957 musical which had the first appearance of rap music ever, as sung by early 20th century midwestern middle aged white traveling salesmen.

  • canada goose chilliwack||

    just a comment !

  • Betty Wilkinson||

    Good article more useful to me, I will continue to pay attention, and I love discount evening wedding dress,I hope you lot just my site! discount aline wedding dresses

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement