Ron Paul

A.M. Links: Romney, Santorum, and Paul Take Iowa; Perry Suspends Campaign; Bachmann to Drop Out; McCain to Endorse Romney

|

  • Iowa Caucus: Romney beat Santorum by eight votes. 

  • Paul took third, is still pretty happy about it.
  • Gingrich got his clock cleaned, vows revenge on mud-slinging Mitt. 
  • John McCain to endorse Romney. 
  • Rep. Michele Bachmann has cancelled her trip to South Carolina after finishing sixth in the Iowa caucuses. Will likely drop out at presser this morning. 
  • Rick Perry has suspended his campaign. 

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv: "Reason.tv in Iowa: 'We're All Austrians Now'—Ron Paul and the IA Caucus"

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on Why Ron Paul Should Be Proud to Be 'Outside the Mainstream'

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. You know who else was Austrian?

    1. Arnold Schwarzenegger?

      Uh, I mean: Arnold Schwarzenegger!

      1. No, you idiot. Sylvester Stallone.

    2. Sigmund Freud?

    3. Franz Klammer?

    4. Archduke Ferdinand? And Ludwig von Mises who was Jewish and immigrated to the United States because of the antisemitism in Germany which had “absorbed” Austria during WW2.

    5. Maria?

    6. Einstein?

    7. Carl Menger?

    8. This is like the worst chat room ever.

      1. How ya doin’?

        I’m Austrian.

    9. Olivia Newton-John?

    10. The Trapp family?

      1. That’s Von Trapp to you, sir.

        1. I always thought The Sound of Music would have been better if the Nazis caught the von Trapps.

  2. According to John, A-Rod must have latent homosexual tendencies due to his ex-girlfriend Cameron Diaz’s insufficient curves.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..awaii.html

    1. Her body looks better than her face – quite the feat at her age.

      1. Her body looks better than her face – quite the feat at her age.

        The French have a saying that a woman has to choose between her figure and her face. Basically, if a woman starves herself to keep a thin figure, her face will look thin, wrinkly, and saggy.

        1. Bring on the foie gras!

    2. Don’t be dissin’ on Cameron Diaz, because she is smokin’ hot in my book. Partly because she’s got a wacky sense of humor and a dirty mouth. But also mostly because she’s got a rockin’ bod.

      1. What part of “According to John” leads you to believe I’m dissing her?

        1. I issued my statement as a prophylactic warning.

          1. Nice. Quite the ribbing.

              1. I’m tired of H&R men rating women’s bodies, and as a service to attracting more female Reason readers, I suggest you link to photos of your own bodies below.

                1. So, you think by posting pics of our beach bodies more women will find their way here? Really?

                  Hint: If you are posting on a website you probably aren’t at the gym burning calories and sculpting abdominals.

                  1. What? That can’t be true!!
                    All the pics of men I get on this site are of well-endowed delicious bodies.

                    You obviously don’t believe in sharing this gold Latinum mine. You’re so libertarian! 🙁

                2. I’m sure when the paintings of the Renaissance artists were completed, male viewers went out of their way to focus on the landscapes rather than the naked women.

                  1. “male viewers went out of their way to focus on the landscapes rather than the naked women.”

                    What part of attracting females to Reason do you not get?

                    Advice for women only

                    1. What part of attracting females to Reason do you not get?

                      Females who are put off by TEH MALE GAZE are probably not going to be sympathetic to Reason-type arguments to begin with.

                    2. I’m scardedddd of girls who check out my fingers for bulge size. They never want to intellectually discuss “the size of the boat, not the motion of the ocean” theory

                    3. rather, why must society pay for your daddy issues?

                    4. We’re the He-Man Woman-Haters Club.

                      No stoopid gurlz alowd!

                      Hi sign!

    3. I think you’re the first person in history to suggest that A-Rod doesn’t have latent homosexual tendencies.

      1. KDN just made my case for me. Thanks.

        1. This one’s for you!

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..exual.html

          1. A Preuvian women’s javelin thrower. She is way too fat for you. So look at your own risk.

            http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c…..nco_1.html

            1. Fat? No. Fakies? Yes. I’m not into fakies.

              1. Fakies? [Further Research Needed]

              2. Those are not fake. Those are real. She is a world class track athlete. You don’t get fake boobs and do that. Boobs are a liability.

                And those don’t look fake at all. I guess you have gone so long without really looking at a woman with breasts, you don’t know what they look like anymore.

                1. They’re totally disproportionate to the rest of her body. That and athletes tend to have low body fat, and when a woman loses body fat her breasts are the first thing to go. Because of that I think they’re fake.

                  1. I dunno; I’ve seen (and known) plenty of women who are thin/trim/fit but still have a swell rack. These don’t look fake to me, but just one guy’s worthless opinion.

                  2. I know too many exceptions to that to agree. The genetics are kind on occasion. It’s not common, but it’s not that rare, either.

                    1. A quick google search revealed that I am not alone in my opinion.

                    2. In the first one, they were pushed together. Look at the next few photos. I’d say real.

                    3. In the first one, they were pushed together. Look at the next few photos. I’d say real.

                      Perhaps.

                    4. In the first one, they were pushed together. Look at the next few photos. I’d say real.

                      I agree. There’s a good amount of sag and smush there; her boobs seem to be supported by the clothes rather than vice versa. If that’s an augmentation then it is a slight and really good one.

                  3. Most women lose it in their tits. But not all And lots of very thin small women have really big boobs. See Giada for example. She is like 5’2 and weighs 80 lbs. Her body is so small her head is too big for it. Yet, she has very solid C boobs. Sometimes God likes to show he loves us and wants us to be happy.

                    1. She’s a thrower. Throwers need to be strong, and a little body fat is helpful for strength. She’s just lucky enough that all her fat is in her incredible little amazing bubis.

                  4. They’re totally disproportionate to the rest of her body.

                    This girl in my highschool, maybe 5’2″, skinniest frame you could imagine, and she was toting around atleast 1/4 of her bodyweight in her rack. So, yeah, there’s no rigid biological basis for the idea of Perfect Proportion.

                    1. I’ll be in my South American bunk.

                    2. I’ll be in my South American bunk.

                      Some sort of hammock arrangement, I assume.

                    3. You guys…did know that is a man…

                      Right? you knew?

                      *the horror..the horror…*

                    4. we have a woman on our weightlifting team. low bf. large breasts. natural. it happens.

                      karpinska at 105 lbs has nice ones

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

            2. First, what is preuvian? Are all of us who have never uvied before considered preuvian? And if you have uvied, are you then postuvian or just uvian?

              Or perhaps you meant Peruvian, which would still be wrong since the caption clearly states that she’s from Paraguay.

      2. he has purple lips… ’nuff said.

    4. I think you’re confusing Diaz’s sufficient curves with the absent ones in your usual Auschwitzian babes. Betting John would agree.

      1. Diaz is very hot. But she is a woman. And I like women. I am frankly surprised saracasmic doesn’t think she is fat.

        1. She doesn’t have huge hips like your mom so I figured you’d say she’s a boy.

          1. Diaz is fucking grotesque, both inside and out.

            John just got a pass from me for the next month for that goddess of a find.

  3. Whiskey in the jar?

    Try whiskey in a can!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..tates.html

    1. Egads! Don’t they know this can be added to caffeine and consumed by ‘teh chirrens’?

      1. I give it two days on the market before it’s banned.

        1. Yeah right. Government doesn’t move that fast.

          I give it 2 months.

          1. Good point.

          2. This is why we need a more powerful, more encompassing, Federal Regulation Apparatus.

            1. What wylie said

              1. ^ “Libertarians” post this kind of nonsense day after day and bitch and moan about how nobody ever takes them seriously.

                1. Oh Slapdick McGee. Will you ever learn?

                  1. WW – I’m not a libertarian.

                    Does that help?

                    Now go cry your delicious tears of butthurtedness elsewhere, you thin-skinned, scrotal-nosed, tea-bagging rat fucker.

                    1. You sound butthurt. Hug?

                    2. I’m fat, and also, when you say he sounds butthurt in response to his clam that you’re butthurt, you prove you can’t even constuct an insult without stealing it from someone else

                      So, if you can’t even elevate yourself to 2nd grade level discourse, why would anyone care what you thin l about real issues

    2. It’s sitting right there on the front page

      In addition, I’ll stay far away from whiskey in a can… That’s what flasks were made for.

    1. We like to poop early.

  4. Dammit. No comments when I opened the home page; two when I opened the Morning Links page. I wanted to be 1th!

    1. Firth? You lithping?

      1. I read it as oneth.

  5. It’s Rasmussen – so take it for what it’s worth.

    Partisan Trends
    Partisan Trends: Number of Democrats Falls to All-Time Low
    http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..san_trends

    At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year. .

    The number of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties rose to 32.0% in December from 30.8% the month before.

    1. ^ First on-topic comment!

    2. Why would you say “take it for what it’s worth?”

      You realize that Rasmussen uses a “likely voters” formula instead of the “registered voters” most polling agencies use? That’s why they get different results. There’s a Democrat polling agency (can’t remember what it’s called) that uses “likely voters” as well and gets similar results as rasmussen.

      1. Don’t get your panties in a twist. Some people, for political reasons, just get jumpy about Rasmussen. They seem competent enough to me and have historically done pretty well.

        but then there’s stuff like this:
        http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n…..-strongly/

  6. Perry, Bachmann drop out, Hunstsman to follow…leaving Gingrich, Santorum, Romney and Paul.

    Romney in a cakewalk.

    1. Bachman supporters will probably go for frothy anal sex byproduct. Perry supporters probably aren’t big Romney fans either. Huntsman supporters will vote for Obama.

      1. Santorum will be done once the caucuses go west. McCain won in the west, Santorum will evaporate there.

        Santorum will suffer the same fate as huckabee and once again the socons will suck up to the neocons and ask to come back to the party.

        1. But the Duggars support Santorum. By themselves, that’s enough votes to take New Hampshire.

          1. Dear god, they live in NH?

            1. Someone’s got to counter all the Massholes moving into the state.

              (FWIW, I think they actually live in Arkansas)

              1. For some reason, I had assumed Utah.

        2. Santorum probably can’t win in PA again.

        3. I think Santorum just got lucky with the timing. Everyone took their turn riding high, than comes the attacks, than the numbers drop. He caught his wave just in time for this vote but before anyone had a chance to challenge him with attacks. Although he could pick up some of Bachmans evangelical vote. Paul could benefit from some her tea party support. Not that she had all that much support to hand off.

          1. Santorum will say he’s blessed by God, not Luck.

            1. I’d think the Luck blessing would be a big help in Indiana this year.

              1. So ya think that’s funny do ya’? Just because it’s Indiana, home of the Irish, it’s gotta be Luck, does it? Sure, and yer stereotypin’ makes me sick!

                1. Dear monkey-face,

                  You don’t follow the NFL draft talk, do you?

            2. So when he gets his ass kicked in NH we can assume he is being smited by God? Or will he just say NH is godless?

            3. Santorum > Tebow?

            4. Also, how does he explain the Mormon being more blessed than him?

          2. Santorum has already conceded NH, saying that Mitt spent all his time there so he has no shot at winning.

            Of course, Mitt spent little time in Iowa while Santorum visited all 99 counties and Mitt still won.

            1. I read somewhere that Santorum has basically lived in Iowa for the past year.

              1. I read somewhere that Santorum has basically lived in Iowa for the past year.

                I’d think that would give Iowans plenty of time to get a clue…

        4. Santorum will be done as soon as the media takes a serious look at him.

          Most corrupt Senator in 06.

          1. It’s called “Being Presidential”, get with the program.

    2. Romney has a cap. Im not sure where its at and it might be high enough to win a multi-player race, but he aint gonna be pulling in 50% of the vote anywhere outside a few core states.

  7. http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri…..nstitution

    Is ‘Occupy movement’ trying to replace Constitution?

    … “Restraints like requiring a declaration of war to commit troops and holding those troops to an Oath-Keeping standard are hardly reflective of ‘progressive’ ideology. Nor are petitioning for sound fiscal policy, rejecting debt incurred through unconstitutional legislative actions, or the other petitions for redress of grievances they present for our consideration. If I have one beef, it’s that they don’t specifically include a petition for the right to keep and bear arms, although they do address it?along with our right to form militias?in the sidebar video.” …

  8. Yeesh, sorry to see Santorum did as well as he did. Blech. I had hoped he would have gotten his creepy ass kicked to the curb.

    1. The indpendents in New Hampshire will show him the door. South Carolina won’t be able to help him then.

      1. NH, home of “Live Free or Die” and the Freestate Project, will be the moment of truth for Paul. If he can win or come in a tight second there, then he’s for real this time and we’re on our way!

        1. A clear (not necessarily close) second-place finish there would be enough to ensure that he still must be included in the conversation. The media don’t want the horse race to end so soon, even if it means face time for Paul.

          1. The media don’t want the horse race to end so soon, even if it means face time for Paul further reassurances that Paul isn’t electable.

    2. Santorum would guarantee a second term for Obama.

      1. So do Romney & Paul and the other GOP candidates. Better hope that Republicans take House and Senate.

        1. Romney would smite BO and cast his ruin upon the mountain side.

          1. Will Obama diminish and go into the West, and remain Barack?

  9. So Bachmann’s miracle from god didn’t happen? I’m so surprised!

    1. My prayer was answered!

    2. She said God wanted her to run … he just wanted it for the lulz.

      1. Kind of like Tebow’s playoff berth.

        1. Tebow > Santorum

        2. He’s just testing your faith.

    3. Obviously, Santorum’s god can kick Bachmann’s god’s ass.

  10. Daniel Hannan: Eurozone leaders warn that a recession is coming. Yup: and whose fault is that?
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..t-is-that/

    Such pronouncements beg the question. The reason that the eurozone faces such hard times is that its leaders have decided to keep the single currency together at any cost. The coming recession is not some inexorable force of nature; it is a consequence of the policies being pursued by Merkozy, Monti, Barroso and the rest.

    They deny it, of course. As far as they’re concerned, this is a crisis of debt, not of the euro. Latvians and Hungarians, they point out, kept their currencies, and are suffering just as badly. This is true, but it rather misses the point. Heaven knows European governments have been borrowing too much. Yet it was the single currency that turned what ought to have been a containable problem into a catastrophe.

    1. They didn’t deficit spend enough.

    2. As far as they’re concerned, this is a crisis of debt, not of the euro.

      A false dichotomy. Fiat currencies are debt.

      1. Yeah, I noticed that too–sure, the debt is the problem, but having everyone tied into the same currency is threatening to take everyone down at once, rather than just the weakest.

    1. The key is Paul will have to be reckoned with at the convention. That may force some concessions from nominee Romney and provide a platform for a Libertarian wedge in the republican party.

      1. He’s holding out for Treasury.

      2. The platform doesn’t mean shit.

        Libertarians need to be a cohesive block willing to sit out the election, in order to force politicians to pander for our votes.

        The problem with that strategy is that the neo-con cocksuckers are so fucking arrogant that they’ll need to lose multiple elections in a row to get the message.

    2. “I *told* you he’s a dangerous man!”

      Seriously, the fact that “crazy Uncle Ron” did this well should *start* putting to rest the notion that he is a fringe candidate.

      Fringe candidate! BWAHAHAHAA!!

      1. Naa, it only gives the Dems more ammo for their ongoing “Repubs as extremists” propaganda.

      2. But no matter how well he did in Iowa, “it wouldn’t have mattered.” Crazy uncle Ron wins? “Oh, well …. he does well in caucuses … [more excuses follow]”

    3. We wife and I are both fully committed as delegates all the way to the state convention.

      1. Who has the bigamy vote?

  11. Neely Steinberg: “20 Things I Love About Men”
    http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-…..about-men/

    guys
    20 Things I Love About Men
    Neely SteinbergJanuary 2, 2012
    28 Comments // guys, Highlights
    Tweet
    Guys To Date
    Here are 18 guys you should give a shot in 2012. Read More ?
    Bad For Men
    The 10 worst things to happen to dudes this millennium. Read More ?
    Resolutions For Men
    We have some suggestions… Read More ?

    This is a list of things that I love about men. Pure and simple. No talk of feminism or slut shaming or gender depictions in the media or rape culture here?just an unadulterated tribute to men, a panegyric, a compilation of reasons to be thankful for the male species, in ways both big and small, superficial and profound, personal and professional. They are in no particular order, the creation of my stream of consciousness. I could have gone on for hours, but it’s my hope that you, readers, will add to this list, to show that we appreciate and adore men and what they bring to our lives and the world.

    awww…

    1. For a good time you should cross-post this on Jezebel.

      1. I dare not enter that hive of villainy.

        1. They’re easily startled, but they come back, and in greater numbers.

          1. so they’re like cockroaches? Or is the word ‘cock’ part of the patriarchy?

            1. Fun Fact: cockroaches themselves are a tool of the patriarchy, forcing women to clean more to prevent infestation.

            2. +1.

    2. 15 and 19 are confusing me.

  12. LOL, OK so wow why didnt I ever think of that?

    http://www.privacy-tips.tk

    1. Because bots don’t think?

  13. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.c…..afft/i-can‘t-believe-i-shot-one-of-our-own/

    “I can’t believe I shot one of our own!”

    “A cop comes across a crime in progress and sees someone with a gun. The cop immediately assumes the guy with the gun is a Bad Guy. He yells at the ‘perp’ to drop the weapon and when the ‘perp’ turns towards him (possibly to show his badge, or tell him ‘I’m on the job’!) he has to assume he’s about to take fire and shoots. Then, tragically, he finds out that the ‘perp’ in this situation was an off-duty law enforcement officer. This is the sort of story the antis really don’t like to talk about … To be honest, I don’t like talking about it either. But unlike the antis my reluctance stems from compassion for everyone involved, not from underlying guilt. Yes I said guilt . . .” …

    ———

    “AH AM THE ONLY WUN PROH-FESHUNAL ENUFF TO HANDULL THEE-US HERE GUN!”

  14. A hugely disappointing night. I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I really smell something here. I kept checking in through the night and Santorum’s lead was about the same (around a hundred) through several updates. Then I wake up and find that in the late counting Romney comes out on top by eight…Fishy if you ask me.

    I guess the question I have for John and other GOP supporters here is: WTF is wrong with your voters that they would pick these two men at the top? Santorum is a big government socon and Romney has demonstrably flip flopped in whatever direction he thinks is favorable given what election he is currently running for. Jesus, WTF?

    1. Romney and Obama are pretty similar in policies, so he’s not surprising.

      Santorum just happened to be the last name on the ballot unsullied by vetting.

    2. They wanted someone to match Obama, A big government solib and flip flopper

      1. As someone who is personally pretty disappointed with Obama I still don’t think Romney’s flip flops can be matched. Obama tried to be pretty vague and non-committal in his campaign. He reneged on medical marijuana (though even here he slimely hedged saying only something like “in my admnistration we won’t push that [raids]). He didn’t push hard for his GITMO proposal.

        But Romney has flipped on what you might call the “heavy” issues. Abortion (Obama has always been pretty pro-choice), guns (no one is going to call Obama pro-gun much), gay rights.

        1. Obama also flipped flop on asking Congress about going to war. And on NAFTA. And on holding people accountable on the banking meltdown. Or did nobody believe him in the first place so its not flip flopping, its just the normal Washington lies?

        2. Obama tried to be pretty vague and non-committal in his campaign.

          Two responses to that:

          (i) Except when he expressly made specific promises – like no signing statements, close GITMO, bring all the troops home, restore our eroding civil rights, the most open and transparent administration in history, he would be open to all ideas from both sides of the aisle, and one of my favorites – that all legislation would be posted on-line and publicly available for five days before he signed it.

          (ii) And yet he still got elected. Just how credulous and susceptible are Obama voters?

          1. The problem you have is most of that stuff is not very cut and dry. He said he’d be more transparent, and while critics can certainly point out many instancs where he has opposed transparency some transparency watchdogs have said he is indeed “more” transparent than previous administrations. He said he would bring the troops home and he they are coming home (though of course not on his original timeline); he said he would be open to ideas from all sides-well, as he’s noted the mandate is straight from Romney and AEI white papers, the stimulus contained tax cuts, the payroll taxcut was originally a GOP floated idea, etc; he did push for closing GITMO but got blocked by a hysterical congress (separation of powers, how do they work?)…*

            It’s different with Romney, he took firm stands on pretty much every hot button issue, and then took opposing firm stands on them when he changed the electorate he was aiming for.

            * A lot of goofballs are going to see this as “Defending” Obama. Defending someone against the most negative intrepretation of what they did does not mean overall defense. Obama was and is a chump and misleader for his spineless wiggling on GITMO, civil liberties, medical marijuana, etc.

          2. Don’t forget that he was going to use matching funds if his opponent agree to it too until he realized he could own his opponent if he didn’t.

        3. What? I’m not saying that Romney doesn’t deserve scorn and ridicule, but Obama hasn’t stayed still on most issues from day one. If nothing else, the presidency provides more opportunities and incentives to change positions, so maybe Romney would catch up if he were to win.

          To answer your other question, voters are very short-sighted and foolish people, voting often on issues of total irrelevancy. That’s how we’ve ended up with a long line of bad presidents and worse Congresses. The GOP is no worse than the Democrats on that score.

          Note, too, the absence in this race of candidates that might’ve been easier to vote for–like Ryan, Christie, et al. Some of these are politically astute enough to know that the next occupant of the White House is going to hard pressed not to come out looking bad.

          1. “The GOP is no worse than the Democrats on that score.”

            Granted on that. I said this during the Dem nomination in 08 many times. Look at who did well: a guy who had won one statewide election in his entire life, and that after his opponent dropped out in scandal (Obama); a woman whose claim to fame was being married to a PResident (Hillary); and a one term senator who could not carry his own state as a VP nominee in 04 (Edwards.). This is who the Dems electorate preferred to someone like Warner, a man who started a big tech firm, easily won the govenorship of a traditionally red state, had superhigh approval ratings there, and went on to win two Senate terms there.

            That kind of shit makes you throw your hands up and go WTF?

            1. At one time, I thought Warner was going to be the next president.

        4. As someone who is personally pretty disappointed with Obama I still don’t think Romney’s flip flops can be matched.

          Got to agree.

          Mitt (I’m not a Reaganite) Romney getting the nomination, by pretending to be a conservative, will prove that republican voters are idiots. Which is hardly surprising since it is the stupid party.

    3. I agree. Romney’s people definitely padded Santorum’s vote-count to make their candidate seem like a more appealing option by comparison.

    4. Guys like you that elect a lowlife piece of shit like Block Yomomma are in no position to criticize anything.

      1. Yeah, I oppose Obama in the Dem primaries pretty strongly. I plan to vote Johnson this time around. But nice deflection attempt.

    5. Obama and Hillary had me asking the same question in ’08, along with Huckabee and Romney. Iowa, you are now up to 5th in the “states in which I’d not live” list. California, NY, NJ, and Michigan are just so far ahead.

      1. But… but… where else will you turn when you seek a pleasant peninsula?!

        1. My current state of residence, the dong of the US.

          1. I said pleasant.

            1. Just which part of that frozen tundra is “pleasant” right now?

              1. Look about you

              2. Better than the venomous-creature-infested steambox that is Florida.

                1. God put those creatures here to eat the tourists, and the yappy little dogs that retirees bring down here with them.

              3. Just which part of that tundra isn’t frozen?

                1. Alpine tundra isn’t permafrozen.

                  1. Alpine tundra isn’t permafrozen.

                    Lack of precipitation is cheating.

              4. The part that has home field advantage and will be playing in Indianapolis on Feb. 5.

            2. The good thing about cold climates is that the bugs get a chance to die. I’m not a huge fan of living in Michigan year-round, but at least the bugs don’t grow to be as big as my toes, and I don’t have to empty my shoes before I put them on. Eeew.
              Also, when the cold weather goes away, everyone turns so friendly. Why? Because: It’s the first time I have spoken to my neighbors in months, and it’s as if I like them again! Go figure 🙂

              1. So what’s your excuse for Minnesotan/Canadian mosquitos? Now palmetto bugs (giant roaches) can be a little intimidating, but this ain’t the desert. You don’t get scorpions and spiders crawling into your shoes. Also, learning whether I’m the Jack Nicholson type or the Shelley Long type from The Shining has no appeal to me.

                1. That was Shelley Duvall, not Shelley Long. Huuuuuge difference.

        2. We here in Virginia have four pleasant peninsulas. Fortunately for us, though, most people are unaware of them.

          1. Keokuk, Iowa is sort of on a peninsula…

      2. Oops. 6th. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in Illinois again. So congratulations Iowa, there are only 43 other states I’d rather live in.

        1. I dunno. You can pretty much have everything north of the Mason-Dixie line for me. Too fucking cold.

          1. My “preferred” zone is nothing more than 100 miles north of I-10. And I only made that rule so I could live in Austin if the opportunity arose.

            1. typical residential gerrymandering.

            2. My favorite quote from a Louisianan:

              “No one born north of I-10 can cook worth a fuck.”

              1. That’s the sort of regionalism I can support.

    6. Santorum did old-fashioned campaigning. He kissed every baby and hugged every haus-frau from one corner of iowa to the other, and did it back again. He bet all his chips on doing well in Iowa, and it’s paid off for now.

      Long run–Santorum’s going no where, but this bump keeps his name int he headlines.

    7. Perceived “electability”.

    8. The Iowan heart wants what the Iowan heart wants: Romney then Santorum.

    9. The entire political class sucks. It is not like Hillary, soon to be convicted felon Edwards and Obama were any better.

      In 2008, it was obvious that the Dems were probably going to win. And they had a responsibility to produce at least a competent candidate. They failed miserably.

      Now it is 2012 and we have a President with all the competence of Hoover but who makes up for it with all the likability and ethics of Nixon. It is clear the Republicans are going to win and they have an obligation to produce a competent candidate. And they are failing.

      At this point Huntsman is the only realistic alternative to Romney. That is bad.

      1. “Now it is 2012 and we have a President with all the competence of Hoover”

        Hoover may have been an incompetent President, but iirc he was a pretty competent engineer, which I think would put him above most recent national pols in competence in something…

        1. Hoover was a very good engineer and a very smart guy. But not exactly an effective President.

          1. Depends on how you define “effective.”

            I mean, he did get FDR elected for 4 terms.

            1. I don’t think those who want Obama out should use this Hoover line. That is EXACTLY the kind of thing Obama would want. To most people today Hoover is seen as having inherited a mess that no one could get out from under. That’s going to be Obama’s smokescreen for his failures.

              1. To most people today Hoover is seen as having inherited a mess that no one could get out from under.

                Um, what? I learned in school that Hoover was a libertarian ideologue who stood still due to his rigid laissez-faire beliefs while the economy fell apart.

      2. “with all the likability and ethics of Nixon”

        See, there you go with the crazy hyperbole. I know you don’t like Obama, but “the ethics of Nixon?”

        1. How many people died because of Watergate? How many American citizens did Nixon whack? Illegal war in Cambodia? Obama has Libya and Yemen and Pakistan. Spying on US citizens in the US with intelligence agencies? Check. He hasn’t broken into the Watergate hotel yet. Maybe he should just to complete the circle.

          1. John, if it is so obvious that Obama has done all these things comparable to what Nixon did, then why isn’t he being run out of office like Nixon was? I mean, surely the GOP congresscritters would make that charge and push if they had that ammo, they have even more reason than you to do so (they are professional partisans by occupation)?

            You and reality don’t seem to want to hang out together for some reason.

            1. And I forgot Solyandra. Even Nixon wasn’t brazen enough to give a $500 million loan to one of his cronies. Did anyone who wasn’t an Obama donor get a DOE loan?

              The Obama administration is just a sewer. It is just Chicago government brought to Washington.

              1. I said here when he was running for the nomination that he would bring Chicago style corruption to DC.

                But most of what you are complaining about are common things in administrations (“spying on Americans,” crony capitalism, “limited police actions/kinetic military operations” without congressional authorization didn’t start with Obama). Nixon got caught breaking the law to blackmail and sabotage his political opposition, among other things. There’s no equivalent charge against Obama, if there were the GOP would be pushing it (this is the same party that pushed a hummer as grounds for impeachment with Clinton).

                1. If Bush ever had given $500 million dollars to a failing oil company in Texas who was a big donor, he would have been impeached.

                  There is corruption in every administration. But Obama is significantly worse than any administration in my lifetime. He makes Bill Clinton’s reading of FBI files and blowjobs in the oval office seem down right quaint.

                  And don’t forget the Gibson raid. Obama is using federal LEOs to punish companies that don’t donate to him or actively support his political opponents. That is as bad as anything Nixon ever did.

                  1. “If Bush ever had given $500 million dollars to a failing oil company in Texas who was a big donor, he would have been impeached.”

                    See, this is why you are not to be taken seriously. Do you think people here don’t remember all the Haliburton and “no bid” contract suggestions of scandal under Bush? Remember the suggestions he was chucking money to friends through the “faith based” programs?

                    1. Haliburton was the only company who could provide that service. They didn’t have time to bid. And last I looked they provided the service. There was a war on.

                      That is totally different than just giving away money to a failing company.

                    2. “That is totally different”

                      I love that line.

                    3. I am sure you do. You generally hate the truth when it doesn’t agree with your prejudices.

                      The fact is the government bought services from Haliburton it needed and only Haliburton could provide. How is that in any way the same as giving hundreds of millions of dollars to donors for nothing in return?

                      You won’t answer this because you can’t. But the answer is obvious. And it is not “they did it too”

                2. —“There’s no equivalent charge against Obama”—

                  OBAMA 2012, HE”S NOT AS BAD AS NIXON!!

            2. if it is so obvious that Obama has done all these things comparable to what Nixon did, then why isn’t he being run out of office like Nixon was?

              Only a racist would even ask that question.

            3. John, if it is so obvious that Obama has done all these things comparable to what Nixon did, then why isn’t he being run out of office like Nixon was?

              Because the mainstream GOP supports all those things. If they try to curb Obama’s ability to wage endless undeclared wars whenever and wherever he wants, spy on American citizens without warrants, and indefinitely detain and assassinate US citizens, then the next Republican president will not have the ability either. They don’t want that.

              1. Sort of. It’s because there is a difference between breaking the law and policy differences. Lots of Presidents enact policy that seems contrary to the Constitution or spirit of our nation but which there is going to be debate about, and lots do things that are legal but seem crappy, like crony capitalist deals. Nixon was caught in flat violations of the law. The Dems moved on him like a pack of dogs on meat and his party backed off supporting him. That’s kind of an indicator when someone has gone from “debatable policy choice” to flat out crook. No serious person would say Obama=Nixon in that area, because they would be laughed off any stage in which they said it.

                1. Nixon was caught in flat violations of the law. The Dems moved on him like a pack of dogs on meat and his party backed off supporting him.

                  That dynamic will never repeat with Obama no matter what laws he continues to bread because the media covers for him, where the actively hated Nixon, and there is no way in hell the dems will fail to defend him because it will mean the loss of their most loyal base of voters.

            4. You and reality don’t seem to want to hang out together for some reason.

              A strange comment coming from the King of the Obtuse. Yeah, MNG, knows “reality”. Just like you knew that Fast and Furious was simply a snafu? Cause you are reality based, one supposes?

              1. I’m curious “Field Marshall.” If FF is so obviously what you and folks here say, why are even the political partisans in Congress investigating it, who have every interest in pushing it in the worst light possible, not pushing it that way? Is it because they know that it is still largely in the “conjecture and assumption” mode and don’t want to look silly? Or are they just secretly buddies of Holder and Obama?

            5. if it is so obvious that Obama has done all these things comparable to what Nixon did, then why isn’t he being run out of office like Nixon was?

              Umm, slight difference in treatment by the press maybe?

              1. I don’t think that plays. We’ve got plenty of media outlets not friendly to Obama, and they’ve been pretty good at getting topics on the table. If he did something obviously that bad he’d get run out too.

                1. Orders of magnitude, man, orders of magnitude.

          2. He hasn’t broken into the Watergate hotel yet. Maybe he should just to complete the circle.

            Actually, we don’t know that.

            Watergate became a scandal after Nixon’s re election. Of course, Nixon didn’t have a sycophantic press corps licking his balls continuously.

        2. Yeah, I know! What an insult to Nixon.

          1. Quite a feat to be a worse pres than Nixon.

      3. Still spit shining that Bush turd? Let me know when Obama lies us into a war, spends a surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit, creates a new entitlement, and works us into the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

        1. He has done all of that Shrike and more. We know you are voting for Obama like the good little tool you are. So spare us. Yeah, you don’t like Bush. I promise I won’t vote for that guy again.

          1. yeah, I’ll vote for Obama to avoid another Bush (Santorum would be just as brain addled – if not more). Gingrich is even slimier and Romney is just as feckless.

            Huntsman (the smart one) has no chance in the GOP.

            1. yeah, I’ll vote for Obama

              Then shut the fuck up. We know where you stand.

              1. Gridlock!

                Obama will be like a hockey goalie keeping the insane shit out of the net. Like when the new GOP Congress tries to outlaw birth control.

                1. Oh shit shrike, Obama will and has let plenty of crazy into that net and he will try to ram through some of his very own style of crazy.

                  1. It’s tough to block a shot when you’re facing into the net.

                2. Gridlock!

                  Yeah, I bet you really voted for McCain in ’08 too, you lying bullshit artist sack of crap.

        2. I… uh… huh. Where to begin? Wow.

          1. I honestly thought this was a spoof until he replied to John.

        3. Let me know when Obama lies us into a war, spends a surplus into a $1.3 trillion deficit, creates a new entitlement, and works us into the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

          Libya & Yemen; has maintained deficits of over $1 trillion since taking office; Obamacare; and the employment to population ratio remains at its lowest levels in 30 years, perpetuating those deficits.

    10. And Iowa is a state comprised mostly of the worst sort of SOCONs and their evil twins old time free land progressives. There is a reason why no one since Ford has won in Iowa and got the nomination. It is hardly America.

      1. I agree. Given how shitty Iowa’s recent track record is, it makes no sense for the political class to continue to kiss their asses the way they do.

      2. South Carolina is just as bad.

        The Bob Jones SoCons plus a few ex military neocons.

        They pray for war in South Carolina – the original traitor state.

        1. I will say the South will vote for whoever promises them the most military pork and saber-rattling…

          The South was solidly unfriendly to Paul last go around. Here are the states where he did the best, note w/the exception of N. Carolina none are in the South:

          Nevada, Montana, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, South Dakota, New Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands

          Paul’s best hopes are in the West.

          1. shrike, south carolina was a principal, not an agent. It tried to remind the agent of that fact and the agent betrayed its principal.

          2. Northern Mariana Islands is a state?

            1. A state of paradisce.

      3. There is a reason why no one since Ford has won in Iowa and got the nomination.

        Bob Dole in 1996 & George W Bush in 2000….

        Though they have failed to produce the GOP nominee in 1980, 1988, 2008.

    11. “WTF is wrong with your voters that they would pick these two men at the top?”

      The GOP is still largely suffering the after-effects of George W. Bush. Bush was a big-government supporter who was conservative-enough on social issues to placate the so-cons. There are only two GOP candidates I would consider voting for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

      1. Psst… PIRS – Gary Johnson isn’t a GOP candidate…

        1. True, he dropped out and is now going to run for the nomination of the “Libertarian” Party which nominated Bob Barr in 2008. In that case the only GOP candidate for POTUS I would support this year is Ron Paul.

    12. The more urban (and thus less evangelical) counties took longer to process results, apparently. I was watching the county by county breakdown and Romney pulled into a virtual tie with Santorum when Polk Co. (home of Des Moines) posted its results with Romney winning big (to be expected). Also, Story Co. (Ames/ISU) didn’t start reporting until the rest of the state was almost fully reported.

      1. Polk County has loads of insurance company middle management and execs who fear that the life business will be devasted by a Paul presidency?

  15. We need ‘radical reform’ of the initiative-zapping, soul-destroying welfare state
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..are-state/

    The radical Left once believed in the power of the working man not only to hold down a job but also to remake society and the future ? to watch them now fight tooth-and-nail in defence of the idea that much of the working class is pathetic and weak and in need of permanent care by the welfare state is genuinely depressing.

    It is always those with ample cash and cushy jobs who rush to defend the welfare state. That’s because they have no idea what living under the welfare state is like, and how harshly it impacts on community life and the individual soul.

    1. I used to be an Anglophile until I started paying attention to modern Britain.

      1. I used to be an Anglophile until I started paying attention to modern Britain took an arrow in the knee.

      2. same here. It sounds like a PC/Statist hellhole. But I’ve never been there myself – sadly, when I was 18, my parents left me at home when they took three weeks to vacation through the UK.

        1. Half of my blended family is from there. My father met my stepmother in London while on a business trip there many many moons ago. I’ve been there once. It’s a really neat place, with lots of cool history, and a lot of the people are exceedingly pleasant and polite – particularly when you get out into the suburbs and villages outside of the big city.

          But they also have become exceedingly left-wing. I had a bit of an argument with one of my step-sisters and also with my other step-sister’s husband a couple years ago about gun control. They have lived with it so long they just accept it as the natural order of things. They kept saying only the police and military should have guns, and “if it saves just one life” to ban and confiscate all privately-held guns, “it would be worth it.”

          They of course could not even comprehend the argument that doing so actually could COST someone’s life, because the criminals would remain armed while the law-abiding citizens would be unarmed and thus more easily victimized.

        2. I like a lot of their television programmes. And the crown jewels were pretty cool.

    1. I prefer mine barely suppressed.

      1. doesn’t it still seethe under the suppression?

        1. Yeah, there’s some seethage happening.

    2. STOP MARRING THESE PAGES!!!11!

  16. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01…..afety.html

    “The House showed its utter disregard for public safety in November when it approved the National Right-to -Carry Reciprocity Act, that would take away the authority of states to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun within their borders.” …

    “Proponents contend the measure will make it easier for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves, no matter where they travel. But a recent report in The Times by Michael Luo shows what has happened in North Carolina, one of dozens of states where a concealed carry permit can be easily obtained …” …
    ——-

    KABA Note: The Grey Lady should get out more: Michael Luo’s piece (inadvertently) proved North Carolinian permit holders are five times less likely to kill someone, 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm and 6.6 times less likely to commit DWI than the average citizen. So, to paraphrase Fred Thompson, that boogeyman won’t hunt.

    ——–

    It’s hilarious when prohibitionists shoot themselves in the foot

  17. Cop caught on camera allegedly planting drugs.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..s-car.html

    1. And your point is …?

  18. WTF is wrong with your voters that they would pick these two men at the top?

    Fear of small govt rhetoric actually being put into practice. That, and christfagism.

    1. Compassionate conservative = anti-abortion big government liberal

      1. don’t forget the gays, Santorum (despite his name) is really really anti-gay.

        1. That fucker really doesn’t like gays. It’s like he got butt-raped at Bob Jones University or something.

          I despise Santorum with a passion. He represents everything that has gone wrong in the Republican party over the last 30 years.

          1. Yeah, it’s a close call between Gingrich and Santorum for top douchbag in this race. I wouldn’t pull the lever for either one.

          2. That fucker really doesn’t like gays. It’s like he got butt-raped turned down to be a common room bottom at Bob Jones University or something.

  19. What happened to the grownups in the comments? Its like home room in here.

    1. DJ, is there something you’d like to share with the class?

    2. I don’t feel tardy.

      1. New here? But I like the idea of H&R as libertarian home room. It’s a fair cop.

        1. ** nails CN with a spitball **

      2. Dave! Still hot for teacher?

    3. The grownups are working

      1. Well, maybe 91% of them are.

    4. Grownups? Where did you think you were? This is actually pretty well behaved.

  20. “When Hillary Clinton was justly excoriated by conservatives for her book It Takes A Village, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives, Rick Santorum countered with his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives. Among the many government programs he supported: national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in “every school in America”.

    Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush?style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.

    He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.”

    He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.

    True liberty, he writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.” ”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ael-tanner

    1. Good article. Thanks for the link.

    2. Santorum is just awful. A less bright, more earnest, and less interesting Gingrich.

      1. I agree with you that Santorum is just awful. But I would change your second sentence a tad bit. A less bright, more earnest, and less interesting George W. Bush. He reminds me far more of George W. Bush than Gingrich.

        1. Bush was a fairly tolerant guy when it came down to many social issues. Santorum is Huckabee without the smile and guitar.

        2. What LIT said. Bush was more like his dad. He had Rove to tell the SOCONS what they wanted to hear. And he had a great personal story about finding God. But he really wasn’t a SOCON at heart, at least not in the way Huckabee is and Santorum claims to be.

          I compare Santorum to Gingrich because they are both insider crooks out of Congress.

      2. Did anyone see his campaign ad he ran in Iowa? It was like a “pop-up video” ad, showing him strolling through a meadow with his wife and kids. The factoids that popped up about him were things like “he has been married for 21 years,” “he has seven children” and “he homeschooled them all.”

        He didn’t have a lot of money for ads. When he gets 30 seconds to make his case THAT is what he trumpets?

        1. Well his biggest fans were the Duggars, who probably made up 10% of the vote by themselves.

        2. Some people buy that kind of stuff. Don’t ask me why. But I bet it was an effective ad. And yes, we are doomed.

        3. It’s the socon version of “we are ones we’ve been waiting for”.

      3. Santorum is way worse than Gingrich.

        He’s really an old style populist democrat, if he was running for office sixty years ago he’d be defending Jim Crow.

        1. Today he’s shouting,

          “Zionism Today! Zionism Tomorrow and Zionism Forevah!

    3. True liberty, he writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”

      This is straight out of Catholic doctrine on Free Will. While it may make some sense in a theological discussion, it has always given me the willies when applied in a political discussion.

      1. Luckily, most catholics don’t give a shit about their supposed doctrine. Church is just someplace you go on Sunday to see your neighbors and suffer your hangovers in relative quiet.

      2. If you are left alone you are free to do all that stuff. If the government forces you to do it, you haven’t exactly chosen have you?

        1. God’s not one for details.

        2. Note that the Catholic doctrine doesn’t say that government should enforce those duties; that’s a contribution from secular statism.

          And Santorum’s foreign policy beliefs totally contravene the Catholic just war doctrine.

        3. Santorum needs to brush up on his Catechism. Are they skipping over this part in his kids’ homeschooling?

          All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, “once all peace efforts have failed.” [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

          As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

          In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

          “1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

          2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

          3. there must be serious prospects of success;

          4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition” [CCC 2309].

          1. Smite thy enemies!

      3. True liberty, he writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”
        This is straight out of Catholic doctrine on Free Will.

        Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were catholic after all.

    4. True liberty, he writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”

      /headdesk

      My father, who literally does nothing all day but watch Fox News and read whatever newest e-mail has come out of the Obama hate machine, would not vote for Rick Santorum against Barack Obama, and he is the only candidate that I can say that about. This should be a giant red flag for the GOP. IMO, the worst possible outcome for the GOP is a Santorum victory; they’d lose whatever secular upper-middle class backing they have and turn a reliable if not necessarily enthusiastic GOP group into at best a swing group and at worst a Democratic one.

      But hey, being a rump minority has its benefits too. I mean, Reconstruction was fantastic for the Democratic party.

      1. “My father, who literally does nothing all day but watch Fox News and read whatever newest e-mail has come out of the Obama hate machine”

        Your dad is John?

        1. That was pretty lulzy.

          PS Happy New Year, MNG

      2. On the bright, Santorum losing in a landslide would make the socons STFU and crawl back into their hole for a generation or two.

        1. I don’t think there’s anything in the universe that can make them shut the fuck up & go away.

    5. The publicly financed trust fund for children was tried in the UK.

      They dumped that crap as fast as they could. If it’s a bad idea even to lefty merrie olde England, it’s a *spectacularly* bad idea.

    6. It Takes Some Pillage.

  21. http://cnsnews.com/news/articl…..rafficking

    “An alleged Mexican drug trafficker awaiting trial in a Chicago federal court claims that the notorious Sinaloa cartel received weapons from ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ under an alleged immunity agreement that the U.S. government made with cartel leaders, in exchange for information on rival gangs.” …

    ———–

    Can you smell that? I can! It’s burning flesh on an electric chair — ain’t treason grand?

    1. Can you smell that? I can! It’s burning flesh on an electric chair

      Crap! I was certain it was raw marijuana!

    2. CNS News? preoccupied with something as absurdly trivial as gunwalking?

      And they tell me this place isn’t filled with conservatives?

      Libertarians, my ass.

      1. D+

    3. Anybody else hugry for barbecue?

      1. *raises hand*

      2. mmmm, pork.

    4. Governments grant immunity to criminals in exchange for information all the time. This is standard practice. Please move along, nothing to see here.

      1. spoofing aside, that sort of action usually works better when you grant the littler guys immunity in exchange for information that helps you get the bigger badguys, not the other way around.

  22. Iowa Caucus: Romney beat Santorum by eight votes.

    Oh fuck, we’re so screwed.

    1. “Santorum Comes In Behind Romney”

      1. Better headline: “Romney leaves Santorum in his wake.”

  23. Making a Home in an Abandoned House
    http://www.metropulse.com/news…..ned-house/

    By late summer they were sick of traveling. With no money or job, the couple took up residence in an abandoned house in Knoxville. Squatting is illegal, of course, hence the pseudonyms. Tae and Joon live there without paying rent and without permission from the owner. They live without running water, and, until recently, without electricity. Now they run an extension cord from a neighbor to power a lamp and a radio. In a small downstairs room they have a composting toilet.

  24. http://www.boston.com/news/loc…..aign_push/

    “After weathering a full-on assault in Iowa, Newt Gingrich and his allies planned Tuesday to hit back hard at rival Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential campaign pushed east.” …

    “Still, Gingrich insisted his ads would not be negative.”

    “‘All we have to say in a happy and positive way is ‘Newt believes in the Second Amendment, here’s what Romney said about guns. Newt believes in right to life and here’s what Romney did with Romneycare,’ he said. ‘You can do that pretty happily and have happy music.'” …

    1. I hope they set this to michael Buble music.

      1. The Polyphonic Spree.

    2. Ah, politics, the only place where they shiv you while wearing a big, fake grin.

      1. Shanks alot

    3. If he’d change his name as instructed, his stock would rise.

  25. http://www.eagletribune.com/ne…..w-gun-laws

    NH: N.H. battle lines drawn over new gun laws

    “Gov. John Lynch is asking House lawmakers to reject three gun bills.”

    “Votes are expected tomorrow or Thursday on the measures that would loosen gun restrictions.”

    “Lynch will be joined by police chiefs, sheriffs, state police and college officials at a press conference today opposing House Bill 334.”

    “The bill would give the Legislature sole authority to regulate guns on public land or in publicly owned or financed buildings, according to the governor’s office.” …

    1. The bill would give the Legislature sole authority to regulate guns on public land or in publicly owned or financed buildings, according to the governor’s office.

      Umm, doesn’t the legislature have the sole authority to pass laws, period?

    2. I wonder if people compliment him on his hard tackles.

  26. You know what else rankles me about this? Supposedly the exit polls showed that the biggest reason people supported Romney was his supposed “electability.” Where the f*ck did the meme start that Romney has “electability?” In 2008 not only did he get his ass handed to him by McCain (who ultimately lost himself), but he got less delegates than Huckabee. He got whomped by Ted Kennedy. The man has won only one statewide election in his life. THAT is the foundation of his much vaunted “electability?” WTF?

    I guess the GOP, being traditionalist, have to follow their “next in line tradition.”

    1. Electability always means “good looks”.

      1. Don’t forget “clean and articulate”.

        1. Height is the number one factor in getting elected. Seriously, it is.

          1. Lucky for Taft there was no TV then.

          2. Manute Bol for President!

            1. Manute Bol: I will block any unconstitutional legislation!

              1. … from the grave!

            2. I think this gives that Lindsay dude a real shot.

    2. Where the f*ck did the meme start that Romney has “electability?

      I believe it started with “Ron Paul is not electable”, followed by the question “well then who is?”.

    3. You’re just in a pissy mood because it’s obvious now that Romney is going to win the nomination easily, and that your guy is going to lose to him in ten months.

      1. Well, it looks like one GOPer thinks he found his man.

        I was saying the same thing about Romney way back when I was opposing Obama’s nomination, so fuck you.

        1. You were a Clinton fan? NTTAWWT. At this point, I’d probably be ok with giving her a shot too.

          1. I supported Richardson and Warner.

            I loathe the Clintons (I was a Jerry Brown booster back in 92 and remember Clinton’s dirty tricks).

            1. Richardson, forgotten about that great liberalitarian hope.

            2. I supported Richardson and Warner.

              Talk about long shots and lost causes. No wonder you hang here.

      2. You’re just in a pissy mood because it’s obvious now that Romney is going to win the nomination easily, and that your guy is going to lose to him we’re all going to lose in ten months

        FIFY

    4. He’s the most like Obama, and Obama got elected. The electability meme needs to be given a blindfold and cigarette and then shot dead.

      1. “Electability” means not being pinned down on anything substantive or having any character.

    5. given the general awfulness of the rest of the field, electability (or the ability to hold multiple contrasting positions at once) is all romney has.

      Its also why the republicans will be forced to nominate him.

      Perry and Bachmann looked electable until they opened their mouths, Gingrich until we remembered who he was and Santorum may last a week until the moderates kick him to the curb. Santorum and Gingrich will split South Carolina and keep Romney alive until the west votes. Once they go overwhelmingly for Romney (with some Paul thrown in), Gingrich and Santorum will run out of cash and hope and Romney and Paul will trade delegates until the convention.

    6. If you say something long enough people will take it as “conventional wisdom”. Romney left office in 2006 as one of the most unpopular governors in the country. His signature accomplishment Romneycare is a disaster. What exactly has this guy ever done?

      1. He’s spent money on a campaign, do you need any other reason?

        I think we’re just going to have to declare 2012 a mulligan and start planning for 2016.

        1. He has spent the last six years running for President. He couldn’t do anything else. It is not like he had a prayer of winning an election anywhere.

      2. The quote from an Iowa Romney supporter on NPR yesterday was that “everything [Romney] touches turns to gold.” Being journalists, they did not follow up or provide any more context.

        1. good god, don’t let romney touch you!!!

        2. I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to you … uh, nice ideas!

      3. He was born rich. That’s a big plus in a stolid establishment setting such as politics.

        1. Our entire political class is affirmative action babies and idiot sons. Of the last five Presidents we have had two relatively self made people (Reagan and Clinton), two idiot sons (Bush I and II) and one affirmative action baby (Obama). I am seeing a trend here.

          1. Hell, even Carter could be considered “self-made.” Other than JFK, I’m not sure about the others.

            1. Truman, Eisenhower and Johnson and Ford were all from middle class backgrounds. FDR was a rich kid.

    7. The man has won only one statewide election in his life. THAT is the foundation of his much vaunted “electability?” WTF?

      It’s coming from the same dumb fucks that thought Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina were the most electable republicans in CA in ’10. Both lost 41-59 in the biggest republican wave year in a century.

  27. 8:30AM A.M. Links? I’m switching my allegience to P.M. Links.

    1. Splitter.

      1. Let me be clear.

        ** rubs hands gleefully **

  28. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…..z1iJUIcPB8

    A teen carjacker was shot and killed after trying to rob an off-duty cop in Newark this morning, the second time in a month a car thief was shot trying to hold up police officers in the New Jersey city.
    Vincent Owens, 17, was shot at least once after trying rob the officer around 5:15 a.m., and was then thrown from a getaway car that crashed while trying to flee, Acting Essex County Prosecutor Carolyn Murray said.
    Owens died a short time later at a hospital.

    SUBMITTER’S COMMENT: In the Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey, if you’re a cop, you stand a chance. But if you’re one of the hardworking residents who pay the cops’ wages and buy their costumes and equipment, you’re on your own.

    1. Am I missing something? It seems like a car-jacker got what was coming to him…

      1. It’s about how cops have a defense against thugs like that kid, but the rest of us don’t, because you can’t carry.

        1. Ah, okay. I avoid New Jersey like the plague, so I didn’t get the implication.

          1. Q: Why are people in NYC pissed off all the time?

            A: You would be too if the light at the end of the tunnel was NJ.

        2. That’s the cops’ fault or the voters’?

          1. ‘Cause you seem to be blaming the cops, as usual.

        3. You can carry.

    2. Did nothing else happen? Or are you complaining because only cops get to shoot carjackers in NJ?

      1. Complaining because only cops get to shoot carjackers in NJ.

        1. understood. when guns are criminal only criminals….

  29. http://boston.cbslocal.com/201…..-for-deer/

    Police say a 66-year-old woman walking her two dogs just after sunset on Saturday was shot and wounded by a hunter who claimed that he thought she was a deer.

    The hunter is State Trooper John Bergeron who was off-duty at the time.

    Police say the woman was on a wooded path Saturday evening when Bergeron fired a single shot at her.

    State Police said in a statement that Bergeron, an experienced hunter who lives in the area, did not see the victim, and mistook the tails of her two dogs as the tail of a deer.

    State regulations allow deer hunting until 30 minutes after sunset.

    Sunset on Sunday was at 4:21 p.m.

    Police say the shooting took place around 5 p.m., but did not give an exact time.

    1. An “experienced hunter” took a shot based on seeing only what he thought was a deer’s tail?

      “Experienced arboreal gun-firer” is more like it.

      1. *insert Leslie Knope from the hunting episode*

    2. What idiot walks through the woods during hunting season, let alone at sunset, without any hi-vis on? Not that is any guarantee you won’t get shot, but still.

      I don’t even hunt and I know that much.

      1. Stupid all around here. People should not be walking around in hunting areas during hunting season without blaze orange. They should have blaze vests for their dogs too. Hunters should folloe the well known rules of gun handling: Know Your Target and Have an Adequate Backstop.

        As a shooter I think the hunter, especially as a trained firearms handler (cop) was wholly negligent, but the victim was stupid.

      2. According to another article, the address near(whatever that means) where this occurred seems to imply to me that this happened no more than 0.5 mile from the nearest homes(in all directions). Is that where hunting typically takes place?

  30. Bachmann dropping out makes sense, but Perry? I thought for sure he would linger on and pick up steam again as the only well-funded “conservative” anti-Romney.

    A five way race between Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman, and I don’t see Huntsman going past New Hampshire unless he comes in second or maybe third.

    1. No way Huntsman will have the money to get past SC unless he finishes 5+ points ahead of Santorum and Paul.

    2. By super Tuesday, probably only Romney and Paul will be actively campaigning. Romney is inevitable.

    3. From what I understand Perry has lots of money. What happens to that money, which was given to him to run for President, when he drops out?

      1. “According to the FEC, if a candidate for federal office (a presidential hopeful, say) loses and is a congressperson, he or she can roll over unused money into a re-election kitty. They can also repay themselves for personal funds used during the campaign up to a certain amount, depending on the race and when those funds were used. They can contribute the dollars to a charity. Candidates may also return money to contributors, but determining who gets how much is a delicate operation avoided by most, if not all, candidates. For local elections, state rules vary. “

        link

      2. Hookers and blow, my friend. Hookers and blow.

        1. I need to get in on that action.

      3. What happened to Occupy Wall Street’s cash reserves?

        1. They bought Zynga.

  31. http://www.ammoland.com/2012/0…..-triumphs/

    IL: 2011 IllinoisCarry ? A Year of Triumphs & Near Triumphs

    In a near triumph, we fell just 6 votes short of the needed super-majority of 72!

    The narrow miss can be blamed directly on Gov. Quinn and the city of Chicago who pulled out all the stops in the final days before the vote to campaign against the measure. The bill, HB148, was put on postponed consideration and can be recalled for another vote between now and Jan. 2013. All supporters are working tirelessly to secure the needed handful of votes.

    A major triumph ? the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Ezell vs Chicago. The court ruled the Second Amendment must be given the same measure of respect as the First Amendment…

  32. This is a chance for libertarians to actually accomplish some good for this nation. Time to recognize that Republicans are the foolish path and to stop wasting time on them.

    Instead, libertarians can roll up their sleeves and help America get back to work. To restore the America that can get things done for all people and reject the Republican agenda that wishes to profit off dragging this country down.

    Time to volunteer for restoration of the America we love and help this President succeed instead of sitting in the corner and whining that he hasn’t been able to single handed rebuild the ruins and roll back years of Republican destruction and deregulation.

    He needs your help, we need your help. Let’s stop fighting over petty differences and grab our tools and get back to work for the President and our country. Like we used to when this country was the envy of the world, and we were loved and respected by all in the world, not a rundown struggling people pitied by the civilized nations.

    1. When he stops pissing on my back and telling me its raining, I’ll consider it.

    2. Nice sentiment, except for the “this President” part.

      1. That’s just precious. Slapdick McGee, is that you?

        1. Nope. Tee-hee!

          1. That was meant for “finally.” I never got the hang of these gol-danged newfangled comments.

            1. Tee-Hee!

    3. Dear Leader needs YOU to help realize his Glorious Five-Year Plan!

    4. When Obama gives me my money back to start growing America, then I’ll help him. If he insists I give him more money to hand to the UAW, I can’t imagine what my motivation would be.

      1. “Awful nice stuff you got here, be a shame if anything were to happen to it. Or to you. I trust that yous have reconsidered your intransignace.”

    5. Fuck Obama, and fuck you.

      1. Bumper sticker!

    6. When you say help this president do you mean help push him off a cliff?

      1. Please go stand by the stairs.

    7. Maybe you should grab my tool if you think I’m not doing it right.

  33. http://www.sfexaminer.com/blog…..t-arrested

    The day after it became illegal in California to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public, a man showed up at a Daly City mall Monday with an unloaded shotgun strapped to his back ? and he wasn’t arrested, police said.

    A security guard called police after spotting a man with a shotgun outside Serramonte Shopping Center about 9 a.m., before the mall opened for business, Daly City police Sgt. Michael Barton said.

    ———-

    NOT arrested? Holy fuck, what’s happening?

    1. You mean the cops correctly interpreted the law and let him go because rifles and shotguns are legal to carry. That is a bit surprising. Also, the Examiner badly needs someone with gun familiarity to review their headlines. Rifle != shotgun. Both are long barreled firearms fired by depressing a trigger, but there’s a reason they have different names for the two types.

      1. but there’s a reason they have different names for the two types

        Lexicons are for losers.

    2. I’m surprised they didn’t take him in for Disorderly and drop the charges after confiscating the weapon and making him spend the night in jail.

      1. I’m surprised that he didn’t receive a visit from his friendly local SWAT team.

  34. Paul took third, is still pretty happy about it.

    This just in: Ron Paul enthusiastic about the Bronze Standard.

    1. Hah. This really is my favorite chatroom!

      1. This is NOT a chatroom!
        This is a serious forum!

        1. If I wanted a serious forum, I’d know where to find one. I prefer something a little more light-hearted.

          1. How are we expected to remain serious when the whole fucking process is a sick joke?

            1. Exactly. The remedy to toxic levels of absurdity is embracing it. Seriousness in the face of a world that refuses to bow to the logic of liberty is a path to madness.

  35. http://articles.boston.com/201…..wners-bill

    New Hampshire could become the fourth state to eliminate the need for a permit to carry concealed, loaded guns anyplace not prohibited by law under legislation before the House and Senate.

    The House could vote as early as this week on a bill to make the permits optional so gun owners could travel to states with reciprocal permit agreements. It also would increase from four to five years the length of time a permit is valid. The bill also would make it legal to transport unlicensed guns.

    ——

    Awesome.

  36. Can we bust out the crying Santorum daughter pic today? I love the taste of sweet, sweet SoCon rage.

    1. Why not google-image it while you jack off?

    2. That link is appropriate for any thread.

      1. It’s Santorum kids and Lobster Girl, all the way down.

  37. http://www.examiner.com/gun-ri…..ious-story

    AP ‘top 10’ list confirms media still ignoring Fast and Furious story

    “The other stories selected were all noteworthy in their own ways as well, but there is one more that is remarkable in its absence from inclusion: Fast and Furious.”

    “Officials of the United States government allowed guns to be smuggled across international borders into a sovereign neighboring country?where they were received by murderous cartels, and which resulted in the deaths of American law enforcement officers and untold numbers of Mexican (and U.S.?) citizens?all the while leaving the Mexican government in the dark and stonewalling numerous Congressional inquiries to prevent exposing how high up in the administration approval and direction came from?and that does not make the top 10?”

    —————-

    IT ONLY COUNTS WHEN A REPUBLITHUG DOES IT

    1. Jesus. I mean, this could be worse than Watergate–people died, and it very likely goes up high, maybe to the president himself.

      But that’s not news when a Democrat holds office I guess?

      1. “Worse than watergate”. Too bad you don’t write the history books. Because that’s not how it’s going to go down.

        1. No, probably not. Heck, I don’t even know what happened, mostly because people with potential access to the facts seem really dedicated to not exercising that access.

  38. Officials of the United States government allowed guns to be smuggled across international borders into a sovereign neighboring country?where they were received by murderous cartels, and which resulted in the deaths of American law enforcement officers and untold numbers of Mexican (and U.S.?) citizens?all the while leaving the Mexican government in the dark and stonewalling numerous Congressional inquiries to prevent exposing how high up in the administration approval and direction came from

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  39. Isn’t it time for another RPA link? More! More!

    1. Or a First link.

      1. “First” is always funny!

  40. kinnath|12.22.11 @ 2:40PM|#

    You are wrong if you think the SoCons that dominate local Iowa politics are going to be swayed by Ron Paul walking off CNN, cause they all watch Fox.

    I had a nice talk with a youngster in the Paul campaign last night. I agreed to give a little speech on Ron’s behalf at the caucus, but would not commit to calling people or walking door to door.

    The Paul campaign is showing plenty of life and is very well organized. I still think he is going to sneak out a win in Iowa (contingent on the anti-Romney vote not bolting to Santorum).

    In the words of the late, great Rick Perry “Oops.”

    1. contingent on the anti-Romney vote not bolting to Santorum

      That is exactly what happened. I would say you called it right.

      1. About a week ago, the evangelical crowd somehow settled on Santorum. Key local politicians and religious leaders started backing Santorum. There were even calls in the last few days from religious leaders for Bachmann and/or Perry to drop out to prevent the evangelical vote from being split.

        At the same time, evangelicals started trashing Ron Paul’s foreign policy primariy because “Paul doesn’t care if the Israel — the holy land — falls into the hands of the mullahs”. This was far more damaging to Ron’s campaign than the “racist newsletters”.

        1. Jon Stewart did a piece on this recently. He noted that while the mainstream press was trying to beat up Paul for the newsletters that the GOP and conservative talk machine was focusing on the “he wants Iran to get a nuke and he hates Israel” meme. The piece was interesting, but being Stewart I don’t think I need add it was not funny.

          1. Why would evangelicals wish to stop strife in the middle east? I thought their particular TEOTWAWKI scenario requires it. Or do they want the U.S to be instrumental in starting the End Times? Or are they inconsistent in their beleifs?

    2. That’s not an oops. Pretty correct, IMO, Bachmann voters galloped over to the Santorum camp.

      1. Santorum got the “Like hell I’m going to vote for a Mormon” vote.

  41. I just hope that when Santorum eventually announces he’s dropping out, his family is on stage with him.

    1. Is it bad that there are few things I enjoy more than watching the brats of politicians on stage cry when daddy drops out? “Oh no Pupsie won’t be President”

      1. Isn’t Santorum’s god down with visiting the sins of the father on his descendants?

        1. No. That is more of an Old Testament thing. I, however, am a little more hard nosed about the subject. I think the idiot sons and daughters of our political leaders have a patriotic duty to live, dull, uneventful lives lest the people not think it is a meritocracy.

        2. “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

          1. Problem is, Crying Girl is no longer little. Won’t be near as much fun to watch her cry.

            1. Yeah it will.

            2. depends on if her parents let her wear mascara.

              1. Well, now I know what kind of porn you like, wylie.

                1. Why can’t we get a better class of commentator here?

                2. my tastes in porn and schadenfreude are actually quite distinct.

              2. Mascara? I’m pretty sure that’s a sin.

                1. Though you clothe yourself with crimson, though you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, though you enlarge your eyes with paint, in vain shall you make yourself fair; your lovers will despise you, they will seek your life.

                  Jeremiah 4:30

                  1. your lovers will despise you, they will seek your life

                    And people think dating is hard nowadays, sheesh.

                    1. I think it means only vampires will want to date you.

            3. Crying Girl is no longer little.

              No kidding. They showed her on C-SPAN at one of the caucus meetings. She’s blossomed quite a bit (and has thankfully lost the doll).

  42. In Bowl Pick-em’s, Banjos is well ahead.
    At least I won’t finish last.

    1. I think I’m statistically eliminated from winning and losing. 2-7 in Big 10 picks. I bow before Banjos’ superior picking ability.

    2. Holy shit I’m stinking up that contest. I can’t finish last, but bottom three is almost certain. Swell.

    3. Me either. I didn’t do too bad actually.

  43. Has Perry endorsed anyone?

    I don’t think Santorum’s people will ever go to Paul, they would be more likely to go Romney, so it is actually good for Paul to have Santorum in the race keeping this the kind of race where 30% wins. At the least if it stays a three way race Paul will be more likely to always come close to the eventual winner, giving him a platform to popularize his ideas.

    1. All the primaries up to April 1 must allocate their delegates proportionally.

      So having the early contests split three ways will almost certainly prevent anyone from locking up the nomination on the first vote at the national convention.

      1. I think that is a good thing.

    2. You really think the fundies will vote for a Mormon?

      That’s a cult, man!

      You want an occultist in the White House?

  44. Won’t someone please think of the poor TSA agents!!!

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/wo…..s_hurt_us/

  45. So Santorum’s god isn’t Yahweh?
    So who was that dude Jesus was talking to?

    1. They should has disavowed the first two movies in the franchise early on, but they were trying to hold onto the small core audience. Which they mostly lost anyway. So they are now stuck with all this continuity they can pick and choose from when convenient and ignore when they feel like it.

      And the poor, forgotten Gnostics razz from the sidelines.

        1. I thought it was ancient aliens.

    2. So who was that dude Jesus was talking to?

      Himself.

  46. Hey, Michigan won the Sugar Bowl! WTF?

    Also – fuck Iowa. Speaking of which, I took a santorum in Iowa, once. And I need to go take one now – see ya’ll later.

    1. V Tech kept getting in the red zone in the first half and coming out with only field goals or nothing, that’s a recipe for a loss.

      Of course, neither team should have been there, but that is a bitch for another day.

      1. Kansas State says they are proud to go to the Cotton Bowl, but they should have told the truth. This was a ****ing sham! They should have gone. Boise should have gone. But they both, being top 10 teams, were snubbed in place of VT and Michigan, who were 11 and 13 respectively.

        South Carolina and Arkansas were only out because the SEC had 2 teams competing. That left Kansas State and Boise State. They should have gone. **** VT and Michigan.

        And the only reason Oklahoma State went to the Fiesta Bowl (or any BCS game for that matter) was because they HAD to take them. They didn’t want them there. If you’re not Texas or Oklahoma, then you don’t count for **** coming out of the Big 12 in football.

        1. Seroiusly, I don’t know why the hell you wouldn’t want Boise at your BCS game at this point, other than the majors are scared shitless to play them–they’re competitive, entertaining, and can hang with the big boys. Plus, it would give ESPN an excuse to rerun that Statue of Liberty highlight every year.

          1. I love ’em because they beat OU. Practically anyone who beats OU in a bowl game has my support. I may not like USC very much, but I still have a soft spot for that massacre they handed them in the Championship game.

            As a Georgia fan, I hate Florida. But, they beat Oklahoma, and Tebow was the QB that did it. I have a little love for them for that.

  47. What was that about a GOP Congress keeping Obama under control if he wins reelection?

    In a defiant display of executive power, President Barack Obama on Wednesday will buck GOP opposition and name Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer watchdog even though the Senate contends the move is inappropriate, senior administration officials told The Associated Press.

    Obama’s decision to make a recess appointment is certain to cause an uproar from Capitol Hill to Wall Street. He is essentially declaring the Senate’s short off-and-on legislative sessions a sham intended to block his appointments.

    This dude is just out of control. He doesn’t give a shit about the law or even the dilapidated remnants of the Constitution. He must be extirpated from the reins of power at all costs.

    1. Yeah, he just openly announced to the world a couple of days ago that he’s going to “govern without Congress”!

      WTF?? That’s the closest any president has probably ever come to declaring that he’s an absolute dictator.

    2. You know, Congress needs to grow a pair. If it exerted its power, the president would be fucked and totally marginalized.

  48. speaking of athletic women with beautiful bodies

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

    marilou – wonderful woman, talented weightlifter, beautiful

    when women come into our gym and worry about becoming “muscle bound” if they start weightlifting, show them this

    phenomenal athlete

    1. did I see some bad form at ~0:42?

  49. and speaking of beefcake… women (and men) of crossfit (i say as I am off to the gym myself!!)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

  50. one more Xfit woman

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..RXNoCo3S8U

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.