Politics

Ron Paul: Leading the Great Independent Masses?

|

Adding some credence to the notion that increasing amounts of non-major-party identified voters are leaning libertarian, Ron Paul would beat Obama handily among them, according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling:

Ron Paul is the most popular out of the whole group with independents. They see him favorably by a 35/25 margin. The only other White House hopeful on positive ground with them is Romney at a +2 spread and they're very negative on the rest: -5 for Huckabee, -16 for Gingrich and Palin, and -17 for Obama. All five of the possible GOP contenders lead Obama with independents, but Paul does so by the widest margin at 46-28.

This leads the pollsters on their blog to offer Paul some candid, pollster-to-pol advice:

If his goal is really to be President rather than to influence the national dialogue then he should probably keep on trying to win the GOP nomination, as improbable as that might be. But if he wants to guarantee himself a major role in the 2012 contest he should run as a third party candidate instead. Polling at 5-10% nationally in the general election would get his views a much wider airing than just trudging along through the Republican nomination process and hoping to get 10-15% in each primary.

While a more Paulite GOP would be a wonderful thing, in the current historical moment that we are existing in now in this world in which we live in, I think they are right on when it comes to how Ron Paul can make the biggest electoral splash.

However, slowly working toward a more Paulite GOP would likely in the long term, given our inescapable two-party realities, establish a more significant legacy for his ideas.

See Reason's Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie on the "libertarian moment" from Reason's December 2008 issue. And see my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement to see what a long way, baby, libertarianish ideas have come.

NEXT: The Vanity Tax

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.

  1. A more racist GOP? Might work.

    1. Your parents are extremely understanding and patient people. If I had spawned a black gloved freak such as yourself, I would only allow you to live on as a place to put my cigarettes out on.

    2. You are a fucking loser. Acknowledge that.

      1. Acknowledge it, while being thankful you aren’t an even bigger loser.

    3. Hm. Hard-assed father and doting, mollycoddling mother. It is said that Hitler had parents like that.

      (OMG! Did I just Godwin something?)

      1. Yes. Yes, you did. Thank you.

        1. Hitler experienced homelessness as well. This fact enabled Shirer to refer to Hitler as the “vagabond from Vienna” upteen times in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

          1. The South is gonna rise again! Right daddy?

    4. you’re nearly 40, well past the age where bitching about mommy & daddy is acceptable (15ish). Grow the fuck up and stop posting this shit here.

      1. Oh, but if his mother was Nancy Pelosi you wouldn’t be saying that. You would be like please tell us more or no wonder you fuck donut holes in public restrooms, she drove you to it. Hypocrite.

    5. Stop being a fag asshole.

    6. You guys ever read Either/Or? Beyond the ‘seducers diary’? This has a Judge Wilhelm vs. Johannes vibe to it.

    7. Have I missed SugarFree’s Brian Sorgatz fanfic, or is it still at the editor?

  2. And Clarence Thomas should run, too. And Penn Jillette. And that dead guy with the song about dog piss. And the Fargo lady with the scary pussy. And Brian Sorgatz. And Nader.

    Because Obama has to win, and only about 40% of Americans are utter assholes.

    1. Because Obama has to win[…]

      … as Americans deserve Obama, hard and good.

  3. Of course Ron Paul’s support would drop to single digits as soon as the Democratic Party started running ads accusing him if wanting to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    1. Or when he opens his mouth.

    2. Only a wide-eyed, true-believer fucking cultist libertoid could believe for a minute that a boring old fuck like Ron Paul could be anything but the most marginal of marginal cadidates. Un-be-fucking-lievable!

      1. Only fascists win elections in the US, case in point… – got it. Thanks, Max, for pointing it out to everybody.

        1. No, he’s saying Ron Paul can’t win.

          1. Because the bulk of Americans are hooked on the heroin of “government is my caretaker, I shall not want”, among other things.

            Too bad. We had real potential. Then RepubliCrats came along and fucked it up.

      2. I fuck my mom!

        1. It’s true. I go down to the basement with his cookies and Nestle Quik, and sure enough a few minutes later the roofies I put in his milk kick in…

          1. Aw, ma! I’d let you do it without the roofies but you are so rough with that wooden dildo, I need something to relax my ass hole.

  4. Keeping with the feel-good vibe of this thread:

    While a more Paulite GOP would be a wonderful thing, in the current historical moment that we are existing in now in this world in which we live in, I think they are right on when it comes to how Ron Paul can make the biggest electoral splash.

    Brian, are you being intentionally obtuse here? It is not so much what you wrote, as it’s how you wrote it…this sentence makes my ears bleed.

    1. That had to have been intentional. I hope.

    2. While a more Paulite GOP would be a wonderful thing, in the current historical moment that we are existing in now in this world in which we live in . . .

      Linguistic FAIL.

      1. but if this ever-changing world in which we live in, makes you give in and cry… just live and let die…

      2. Look up the lyrics to Live and Let Die. Sir Paul might argue with you.

        1. I’m fairly sure the Live and Let Die lyrics you’re thinking of are;

          …world in which we’re livin’

          Not sure though, tried to find the lyrics but couldn’t.

          Someone with better googlefu find them and show me that I’m full of shit. 🙂

    3. I’m assuming it was intentional and I found it amusing as such.

    4. I was being intentionally something. I’ll leave what as an exercise for the readers. Sometimes a blogger needs to do little things for his own private amusement. If you actually want to know the thought process, I genuinely typed the words “current historical moment,” instantly began to correct myself to something more like “now” but the found it more amusing (to myself) to just let ‘er rip.

      1. …and thank you for giving me this chance to suck the post dry of any possible amusement value it might have had…

        1. a blogger needs to do little things for his own private amusement.

          and thank you for giving me this chance to suck the post dry

          Sorry I asked. Whatever floats yer boat, Brian.

          1. I’m a little on edge, Doherty, so don’t take it personally. Between trying to quit smoking, and the Sorgatz saga, I feel like ripping someone’s face off.

            1. We’re cool, pal. I’m overdosing on dry ironicalism and absurdities only I find funny myself.

              1. I understand. Posters have such moments and experiences, too, as well, also, like you.

            2. Smoking is fun capital l. It really helps you concentrate too. My only regret is the taxes.

              1. My only regret is the taxes.

                That is why I am quitting. I don’t mind the tobacco companies making a buck off of my health; they have a product and I buy it…simple. My choice.

                But, the government steps in and pretends that they are doing me a favor by taxing me, fuck them. They will get as little money from me from now on. The state really doesn’t want me to quit, if everyone quit then they would face drastic revenue shortages.

                Maybe I’ll grow my own.

              2. SIV, I see your website is getting along pretty good. The pics are a bit more racy, but still classy and stylish…good stuff.

                Nice layout, too.

                1. I’m still striving for “almost SFW”.
                  The layout is a template “theme” I just picked from tumblr (credit to the creators).I stick to the title for all pics but there is some music files and youtube vids that I like that kinda fit in with the primary subject matter.

                  1. Oh, you didn’t design the layout, then fuck you… I hate you, I hope you die!

                    Kidding, of course.

                    I think you could be a little bit more racy and be “almost SFW”, maybe tinsy bit of nip in a pic.

                2. Now all it needs is some Mexican women in their underwear …

      2. Move out of your parents house and declare war on them. That’ll liven things up.

      3. I’m guessing this is a reference to Live and Let Die.

        1. What does it matter to ya,
          When you got a job to do,
          You gotta do it well.
          You gotta give the other fellow hell!

  5. If he ran as a 3rd party, that would split the conservatives, and put Obama back in for a 2nd term.

    I say go for it as a Republican, I can’t imagine him losing to Sarah Palin.

    1. I guess you type faster than I. 😉

    2. Lets say he runs as 3rd party if he loses the repub primary? And then lets say some windbag like Romney won the repub nomination instead….I cant honestly say that Romney would be any better than Obama…possibly even worse..

      1. Romney would be much better, especially with a Democratic Congress.

      2. I’m not sure whether Congressman Paul would have the option to run as a third party candidate if a Republican bid didn’t pan out. There are “sore loser” laws in many states.

      3. I’m not sure whether Congressman Paul would have the option to run as a third party candidate if a Republican bid didn’t pan out. There are “sore loser” laws in many states.

      4. I’m not sure whether Congressman Paul would have the option to run as a third party candidate if a Republican bid didn’t pan out. There are “sore loser” laws in many states.

      5. Romney wouldn’t be proposing a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit.

        He’d suck at other stuff, though arguably not much worse than Obama, but keeping the country from going bankrupt seems like a good idea to me.

        1. There’s really no evidence for that, you know.

          The best we can hope for is that he’d be proposing a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit.

          And he’d replace Obamacare with his own health care plan – which is identical to Obamacare. Wow, what an improvement.

        2. Why on earth don’t you think Romney would spend like Bush and Obama?

  6. If Ron Paul really has that kind of support among independents, wouldn’t running as a third party candidate just take votes away from the GOP and give the election to the Dems? I seriously doubt that he could win as a third party nominee. He probably wouldn’t win a spot in the GOP either, but if he is really that popular, he might exert some influence over what issues get talked about.

    1. except you don’t understand, the GOP is as much as the problem as the dems are.

      1. No they aren’t.

        1. yeah lets not forget the patriot act, the 2 wars, medicare part D or anything….that was all team blues fault right?!? if this nation is going to see any positive change its when people wake up to the false left right paradigm and start voting 3rd party

          1. yeah lets not forget the patriot act, the 2 wars, medicare part D or anything….that was all team blues fault right?!?

            How’s that “repeal” coming along? Team Blue voted for all dat shit and where they opposed it was because it didn’t go “far enough”.

            1. i never expected the dems to repeal those things, which is exactly why i vote libertarian, who i would expect to repeal those things.

            2. +1 SIV!

  7. Rand Paul ya’ll.

    A “long term solution” is having a credible standard bearer to present the ideas on a national stage. A pro-liberty Senator is possible if those with libertarian leanings make it happen: Moneybomb on June 28th. Pledge @ http://www.gorandgo.com/ to get a reminder email or just donate on the 28th @ http://www.randpaul2010.com

    If you’re in Kentucky contact the campaign to volunteer!

    1. Rand Paul? I label him a pansy libertarian. He loves to bow down to the repub establishment. He has lost all respect for me.

      1. Nobody respects you so why worry about Rand Paul?

        1. SIV, GOP “anarchist”.

          1. BP

            Which “major” Party has libertarians and “leaners” in it? Which Party’s moderates are upset that they are currently being “taken over” by libertarians? Sure Republicans suck but they have a number of elected officials who don’t suck nearly as bad as any elected Democrat.

            1. The Republicans don’t have any libertarians, unless you count Paul. I’ll admit Paul and Johnson (who’s no longer in office) are decent. Flake is ok. However, the vast majority of Republicans spend their time talking about how un-libertarian they are, except to drop specific talking points about the “free market” – just enough to fuck up the reality of the concept in the public’s mind. They steal the occasional idea from libertarians, fuck it up beyond recognition, then govern like Democrats.

              I remember when Charlie Crist was running for governor of Florida, his primary opponent put out an attack ad that made him sound like a libertarian. I was interested, and was about ready to start researching him to see if he really was that decent. However, Crist fired right back that he was for more government, all the time, every time – and he has governed true to his word.

              1. Those you mentioned’
                Paul Jr (if he wins)
                Jim DeMint
                Michelle Bachmann
                Paul Broun
                and others…
                There are “minarchist Republicans” or “Constitutional Conservatives” as they seem to prefer. No, they aren’t perfect libertarians but then who is?
                I find these people preferable to the authoritarian collectivists from both parties.

                1. Michelle Bachmann a Minarchist? LOL, I’m sorry, I can see DeMint, but Bachmann? give me a break dude. she talks the talk but she doesnt walk the walk. mention legalizing marijuana and she’ll espose the evils of marijuana and how children will be smoking it 24/7 once it gets legalized.

              2. “except to drop specific talking points about the “free market” – just enough to fuck up the reality of the concept in the public’s mind.”

                Agreed completely. And the Democrats lap this shit up and use it as their chance to say “see, see, we told you free markets don’t work!” when the big government programs fail.

                1. AA – that’s what enrages me. People here (justifiably) get pissed off when Hopey McChangey talks about “deregulation” fucking everything up, but it was that fucking cuntsore Bush who set up that talking point for him. Bush spewed just enough free-market talk for it to become anathema, and a convenient target for the simple minded.

                  So who’s really to blame? President Urkel, or the moron who set the plate for him?

                  1. President Urkel, HAHAHA!

                    Personally I blame Bush and most Republicans for saying they believed in the free market while implementing tons of anti-market ideas, all while saying it was the Democrats who would do those things. Just confuses the voters who don’t usually understand much economics(not that I’m an expert, but I bother to read). This is why I still don’t completely trust the Tea Parties, and get a bit irritated when my so-called Republican friends start calling Obama a Socialist. But hey, with Obama in office, they are much more open to my Libertarian ideas.

                    1. Should say “with Obama in office and most Republicans admitting Bush was a big failure…”

                  2. Mr. Penguin, you are right again, and your comment has validity in regards to foreign policy and civil rights.

                    “Indeed”, is all on can say when presented with the P.Townsend theory of government: that the new guy is indeed just like(exactly) like the old guy. Obama is just as bad, or worse, on civil rights, than GW Bush.

                    1. Oh jeez, I’m tryin’ to sound all learned and shit, when I ain’t.

                      What up, Mr. Penguin?

                      How did you end up on H&R late at night?

                    2. Oh jeez, I’m tryin’ to sound all learned and shit, when I ain’t.

                      What up, Mr. Penguin?

                      How did you end up on H&R late at night?

                    3. AA, why do you make me double post?
                      Why do you hate me?

                    4. The power of having the first letter of the alphabet as the first 2 letters in your name throws a lot of people off.

      2. When has Rand Paul bowed to the GOP establishment?

        If you’re talking about him saying he’s pro-life and poo-pooing the Libertarian Party, no shit. He’s always held those positions, long before he was running for office. (and frankly there’s plenty for even the most die-hard libertarian to poo-poo in the LP).

        1. “(and frankly there’s plenty for even the most die-hard libertarian to poo-poo in the LP).”

          Ya I’m not a huge fan of WAR.

          1. Ya I’m not a huge fan of WAR.

            Really?

  8. Just vote for the Commies or the Nazis. We don’t need no stinkig Libertarians.

  9. LOL, that dude is about as dumb as the day is long. Seriously.

    lou
    http://www.feds-logging.at.tc

    1. Prepare to get flamed, ano-bot.

  10. You’re right; running 3rd party would be his Perot moment, and it would be interesting to see how he compares.

    Alas, as with Perot, it would be splitting the Republicans, and libertarians can’t possibly tolerate that. Because Republicans are for freedom and stuff. Vote in batshit insane moosewoman just so long as it gets Obama out. That would be the ticket to freedom, no doubt. Although, a lot of you do define freedom as resembling a post-apocalypse. Perhaps you’re okay with the batshit insane person with her finger on the button.

    1. Why are you here, idiot?

      1. Wouldn’t you like to know.

        1. He’s paid to by BP — they want more green energy subsidies for their Beyond Petroleum programs and more oil regulation to protect their market share.

          Corporate shill!

      2. Why so asshole?

      3. Just post this in the right spot…

        He’s paid to by BP — they want more green energy subsidies for their Beyond Petroleum programs and more oil regulation to protect their market share.

        Tony’s a corporate shill!

    2. Tony you seem to be a bigger douche than usual today, are you feeling alright? Is your ass raw from the pounding you regularly take from H&R? Tell me what’s bothering you, it’s ok you can open up to Banjos.

      1. Car repair, driving in traffic, and a daylong headache. I appreciate your concern. But I washed down a klonopin with vodka and I feel like I’m just getting started! So demolishing libertarian douchebaggery must be that fun.

        1. me 😉

    3. People here support Palin? News to me.

      1. People here are apathetic know-it-alls who think all politicians are the same, so a delusional GOP freakshow is no better than anything else. But most especially the Evil One who currently occupies the white house. He must be stopped, and they’re willing to invite Republican apocalypse to make it happen. Just look at almost all the comments…

        1. Well they certainly aren’t pro-Obama, thats for sure. But I suspect if Palin were President we’d have a similar reaction out of most here- definitely from me. Have fun on the klonopin, sounds like it may be infecting your judgment….

          1. should be affecting, not infecting.

            1. You had it right the first time – his judgement’s infected, along with his brain.

        2. So, Chony, what’s NOT evil about ordering the Coast Guard to block the cleanup, pray tell?

          After we depose your beloved dictator and feed his carcass to the dogs, looks like we’re going to have an enormous number of you traitors to execute for your complicity in his treason as well.

        3. You weren’t around here when Bush was president, were you? I won’t deny that a teabagger or flat-out conservative might leak into the comments now and then and think they agree with us, since a lot of Reason articles disapprove of the current government. However, I’d begrudgingly rather have four years of Obama than Palin, and I suspect the majority of commenters would agree.

          1. Agree. Although I would vote for neither, nor do I think neither is quite as bad as most seem to believe.

            1. The second neither should be either. I suck suck today.

          2. I would certainly hope so.

          3. I’d begrudgingly rather have four years of Obama than Palin, and I suspect the majority of commenters would agree.

            Where are these people coming from?
            I would guess most commenters would have no preference of one over the other. A sizable minority would prefer Palin and only the liberal trolls,gay wedding planners and a few current and former Reason contributors/editors would choose Obama.

            1. I don’t care as long as we can get some gridlock in congress.

            2. Poo poo that mister.

              Obama is so yesterday.

          4. For what it’s worth, I do not believe that Sara Palin would do a worse job as President than Obama has.

            I suspect also that McCain would have done better though it pains me to say so, since I think mcCain is fucking awful.

            Either case, though, would have had an elephant Prez with a donkey congress. That has not worked out so well in the past. Not since Ike anyway.

            Of course solid single party control of the executive and legislative branch has been worst of all, no matter the party. Though frankly, it’s hard to top the Bush years. At least the Carter admin was characterized by deep divisions between Congressional Dems and the White House.

            All in all, I find myself nostalgic for the Clinton years. That’s actually the direction I thought, or, at least, hoped, Obama would go. Alas, having a fillibuster proof Congressional majority removed all restraint.

            1. For what it’s worth, I do not believe that Sara Palin would do a worse job as President than Obama has.

              It’s worth a lot… now I can ignore you forever as you’ve provided clear evidence that you’re an idiot.

              I mean seriously? Just for a second assess Obama as president qua president. NOT president as you would have him be, not a fantasy libertarian president, but as a Democrat and as the president. Then think about the moosewoman with her finger on the button.

              1. Could be worse… we could’ve had Cynthia McKinney.

                1. RACIST!!!

              2. Palin was a competent governor of Alaska, which gave her about two more years of executive experience than BO has. She was probably not the kind of governor you would have wanted, either.

                I mean seriously? Just for a second assess ObamaPalin as [potential] president qua president. NOT president as you would have himher be, not a fantasy libertariansocial democrat/New Deal president, but as a DemocratRepublican and as the president. Then think about the moosewomanChicago machine pol/race hustler with herhis finger on the button.

                I have made my objections to SP quite plain in the past. Her apparent lack of curiosity and her simple minded religiosity left her hopelessly ignorant of vital issues and utterly unprepared for any and all encounters with the press or a curious public. On the other hand Obama has gotten a free pass on a lot of gaffes that reveal his cluelessness as well (How do you say corpse-man in Austrian, anyway?).

                And, above all the incident with the “witch-hunter” (actually worse than BO’s association with Jeremiah Wright, IMO). If she really believes his schtick, then she’s a hopeless ignoramus, if she doesn’t she needs to dissassociate herself from him.

                She is not someone I would vote for. Being a Republican is only one reason, she provides many others with stands on issues that are far removed from any I would take.

                On the other hand BHO’s administration is a continuation of Bush, only harder and deeper. on everything from the economy to the war to civil liberties it is more of the same.

                People here are apathetic know-it-alls who think all politicians are the same,

                People here are apathetic know-it-alls who think all politicians are the same,…

                No, Tony, just Republican and Democrat politicians.

              3. Tony|4.29.09 @ 4:36PM|#

                I am having trouble seeing where the Republican party goes from here. They’re never going to win nationally again by appealing only to half of the white people in this country. It’s quickly shedding anyone who doesn’t represent some gerrymandered ultraconservative district, so those guys don’t have an incentive to moderate themselves, assuming they don’t actually think they’re on a direct mission from God to save the babies and what not.

        4. All politicians are NOT the same, Tony… just 90% of them or so.

    4. Here’s what I don’t get about you, Tony. You say Republicans are evil incarnate (I agree), you think libertarians currently favor Republicans over Democrats (I don’t agree, but it’s beside my point), and yet here you are on a libertarian blog, saying regularly that the pragmatic thing is to vote for the lesser of two evils and exert influence on it. According to your beliefs, you’re just short of literally asking for more votes for Republicans. Why is that?

      Incidentally, I do agree that Ron Paul should run as a third-party.

      1. What I’m saying is that only a delusional fool would vote Republican, so either vote Democrat, or if you can’t stomach it, support a 3rd party movement. Either way is fine with me.

        1. only a delusional fool would vote Republican or Republican

          There. That’s much better.

          1. shit shit shit

            or Democrat

            Makes much more sense now, except to Tony and his fellow one-party-rulers.

            1. I don’t like supporting one-party rule, I just have no choice given the reality of the situation. Priority one: keep the incompetent corporatist theocrats out. Once we get two sane parties we can move on.

              1. Some of your fellow liberals are saying Obama should have dictatorial powers, Tony, so pardon me if I don’t fall into a sense of complacent calmness with the current replacement for a corrupt, power-hungry presidency.

              2. Then why are you voting for Democrats? They’re incompetent, corporatist, and they are theocrats, even though the god they worship isn’t Allah/Yahweh.

  11. However, slowly working toward a more Paulite GOP would likely in the long term, given our inescapable two-party realities, establish a more significant legacy for his ideas.

    Well curing cancer or developing cold fusion may work just as well to create a legacy And he probably has a better chance of curing cancer than turning to GOP into libertarians.

  12. The Pauls are not libertarians. They are fakes, the means whereby the religious right has taken over the Libertarian Party.

    If “libertarian” doesn’t mean pro-choice on abortion, then it doesn’t mean anything.

    1. If “libertarian” doesn’t mean pro-choice on abortion innocent unborn baby genocide, then it doesn’t mean anything.

      Every genocidal pro-abortion “libertarian” like you deserves death by torture. May you be handed over to the Muslims, you mass-murdering psychopath fuckbag.

      1. If you anti-abortion freaks would really stand up your principles and call for the execution of a 14you girl raped and impregnated by her own dad, I might believe there was a shred of consistency in your fucked up beliefs. (Though I would still think you are wrong and bat-shit insane.)

        1. Re: Coarsetad,

          If you anti-abortion freaks would really stand up your principles and call for the execution of a 14you girl raped and impregnated by her own dad, I might believe there was a shred of consistency in your fucked up beliefs.

          Why would an anti-agression person ask for the execution of a raped teenager? I believe you posted an incomplete thought, in your haste to show your assumed cleverness.

    2. Actually, the core ethic of libertarianism (do not initiate the use of force) does not address the abortion issue at all. It is perfectly consistent to be a pro-life libertarian. Remember, the core of the abortion debate about when a fetus becomes a person. Everything else is a side-show.

      1. For once, Chad is spot-on. (As opposed to “a” spot on.)

        1. Must be a different Chad.

    3. Depending on whether you believe a fetus is a person or not, being anti-abortion could be very libertarian.
      Is it okay to abort a 9-months-along fetus? If you say yes, then I think you’re a monster. How about 8-months-along? 7-months-along? 6-months-along? All of them are viable and feel pain as is proven daily by premie births. Where is the cut off? Obviously, it’s some time after conception when it’s just a blob of cells, but how long after?

      People that see the abortion issue in black and white on either side are idiots. It’s an extremely complex issue that has no absolute answer. It’s based on your own personal beliefs be they religious, or otherwise.

      Personally, I like the argument that regardless of how you feel about abortion, Roe v. Wade should be overturned based on states’-rights arguments. Let the people of each state decide the issue for themselves. People can then have the option to move to a state that supports their beliefs.

      1. Socially there is only once concern that really matters with regard to abortion: the viability of the fetus should it be separated from the mother.
        If there is a very low or 0% chance the fetus will survive outside the mother, then the mother, and mother alone is the full and complete arbiter of its life, regardless of society or science says.

        1. You realize “viability” and “conception” will be the same point within the next 20 years?

          Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just pointing out that some of us dont like moving goalposts. But, hey, if you are okay with science outlawing abortion over time, thats fine by me!

          1. That was me. Not sure the Whig view on abortion.

            1. Was there such a thing as abortion in the Whig days?

  13. Okay, libertarians, I’ll hold this small government GOP football and you kick it.

    1. Do you have a signed document promising not to pull the football away ?

  14. I doubt that Paul could get enough Republicans to understand the distinction between Bush-style pre-fascism with a thin water-soluble coating of small government and a government that actually doesn’t do nearly as much stuff.

  15. An actual fucking libertarian wet dream. Ick!

    1. Max, if I were to die someone would care.
      People that I know and love would mourn, because my life outside of here is full, despite the fact that I am poor.

      You, on the other hand, would die with no one noticing. You should kill yourself. Suicide is better than a life of unfulfilled notoriety.

      You could show us all by committing suicide, show us that you truly do not care what we think. But, you do care; we are the justification for your being…annoy us and change the world.

      Why you devote so much time to us, seeing that we are impotent, stupid, powerful yet inconsequential, and all together wrong…is a mystery to me.

      Maybe you have a lot of spare time, maybe if you died no one would notice, maybe the only recognition you get is as MAXTROLL.

      Death is painless, Max, you could do it without ever feeling pain…So do it, kill yourself, Max.

      It is the ultimate taboo, the ultimate ‘fuck you’ to the world…Take yourself out , bleed on your bedsheets, eat the bullet… make ’em see.. JUSTDOIT!!!!!!

      1. Go suck Ron Paul’s cock, moron.

        1. You didn’t even have to post this morning, I knew you didn’t have the courage to take your own life.

          Also, the stench of your inadequacy still fills the morning air…the poor birds, forced to fly low; under max’s dark sulphurous stank.

  16. Everyone assumes Paul would only split the conservatives, but why couldn’t wrangle a good portion of the liberals as well?

    He could point out Obama’s pro-war presidency, his reluctance on DADT and Guantanamo, the perils of the war on drugs, etc. etc.

    1. Liberals are only anti-war when the GOP in office. The mere fact that the Tea Party (i.e. “racist white males” in their eyes) supported Paul would be enough to keep the liberals voting democrat.

    2. Everyone assumes Paul would only split the conservatives, but why couldn’t wrangle a good portion of the liberals as well?

      Because when you get right down to it, liberals are pro-control and pro-state, and would never vote for someone who is anti-control and anti-state.

      1. Liberals are smart, and Ron Paul is a moron, that’s why they wouldn’t vote for him. I mean have you ever heard him speak? Some of the libertarian commenters here are smarter than that guy. Granted, he does spew his simplistic nonsense with a certain air of condescension, so he may have confused some of you into thinking he’s wise.

        1. …but liberals aren’t elitists!

          1. Tony took “liberals are pro-control and pro-state” and turned it into “liberals are smart”. No wonder so many people vote for Democrats… they’re fucking stupid.

            1. …to believe that kind of shit.

              Sorry, not enough coffee yet.

          2. Better an elitism of intelligence than an elitism of plutocracy, masked in folksiness and demagoguery.

            1. Between that and the egalitarian pipe-dream, Tony, I’m not sure I could pick either unless there was a third option of “just fucking shoot me now, soldier”.

        2. Re: Tony,

          Liberals are smart, and Ron Paul is a moron, that’s why they wouldn’t vote for him.

          Ha . . . almost fell for it. This is insanely obtuse, even for Tony.

  17. http://www.nationalreview.com/…..eridge.jpg

    Hint: Look closely at the end of the tie.

    Another Hint: Slowly move your eyes towards the CBS logo . . . .

    That’s right! The alpha channel on the superimposed PNG is at the wrong setting so you can’t see through the square bit!

    Awesome.

    Oh, there might be something else, but it hardly matters.

    1. lol. Also at smallz for not catching it.

    2. Classic.

    3. Schweet! A simple typo, I’m sure. No MSM media bias here!

  18. ROMNEY IS AS PLASTIC AS THEY COME- HE IS NEO CON ESTABLISHMENT SAME OL SAME OL CRAP!

    PEOPLE WHO LIKE ROMNEY DON’T GET IT YET HE’LL CHANGE NOTHING. REMEMBER HE SAID HE WANTS TO DOUBLE THE SIZE OF GUANTANIMO- SAYS IT ALL RIGHT THERE.

  19. Paul is popular with every group except self-described libertarians, who are still waiting for Godot.

    1. Ron Paul is not very popular with African Americans. Can’t imagine why.

      1. Maybe because he’s not a liberal douchebag, Max?

        1. Blacks should LOVE me, then!

      2. The offending Ron Paul news letters did not say anything about African Americans that I have not heard from other African Americans.

        And they didn’t say much that other politicans weren’t saying at the same time.

        Remember Bill Clinton’s midnight basketball. That was based on his theory that if we gave fleet footed negroes a place to shoot hoops in the middle of the night they wouldn’t shoot white people.

        OK, Bubba didn’t say fleet footed but he was all on board with the idea of the young black male super criminal.

        In fact, everybody was talking about a new class of young black male super criminals in the early nineties. Depending on whether you were a conservative or a liberal, it was because we gave their mothers too much welfare or not enough.

      3. Doesn’t have a “D” by his name. That explains why Etheridge is polling so badly with them right now too.

  20. given our inescapable two-party realities

    You were saying?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.