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


Mitt Romney squeaked out an eight-vote victory over Rick Santorum in Iowa on Tuesday, with Ron Paul finishing a close third.

Reason.tv spent the night at a caucus in Ankeny, IA and at the Ron Paul headquarters at the Ankeny Holiday Inn. While there, we encountered hopeful Ron Paul supporters, many expecting a first-place finish. When those hopes were dashed, many expressed disappointment while also maintaining hope for success in future primaries and acknowledging improvements made since the 2008 campaign. 

Paul himself called Iowa a success, saying that his top three finish guaranteed him one of "three tickets" out of Iowa.

"I think there's nothing to be ashamed of, everything to be satisfied [with], and be ready and rearing to go on to the next stop, which is New Hampshire," said Paul.

About 3 minutes.? Produced by Sharif Matar and Zach Weissmueller.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live. 

NEXT: Don't Come Sniffing Around Here Unless You Have a Warrant

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. I still think it was a very odd thing to say, and that 99.9% of the population would have no idea what he meant.

    1. It is just more evidence that Herr Doktor would have let the Nazis annex us because of his hatred for the jooooz.

      1. They really think they can make agricultural city-Statism into something that works.

        They'd both be wrong.

        First, neither are for freedom. Both support a brutal Gambol Lockdown.

        Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

        MARX: NO!
        MISES: NO!

        1. You now, WI, I'm just waiting for you to make the wrong move. When you get hit with mail fraud, you can think Max your mail carrier.

          1. Takes just a little personal responsibility.

            Are you afraid of personal responsibility, "max," or mini-dick?

            1. You had your chance, basement boy. You chose not to hunt and gather when the opportunity was offered, you poser. You wouldn't gamble on your "gamboling" even so much as to find out something about the land.

              Calling yourself "White Indian" is an insult to Whites and Indians.

              1. Nothing legitimate was offered.

                Hardly anything from Liberards offered is legitimate.

                But we knew that.

                1. Nothing legitimate was offered.

                  How it must infuriate you to know with certainty you don't have the guts to take your dream, when it's freely offered, and run with it. Too bad. If you really desire what you claim, you would have loved it there.

        2. Yes, you are perfectly free to gambol. Strange isn't it; why more people don't want to?

          1. They wouldn't even let the Indians fucking dance, you city-slickin' KOCHsucker, much less live their Non-State lifeway.

            1. Everywhere. All over the place. Go for it. Just don't gambol where others are gamboling. they get pissed because gambolers are statists deep down.

        3. You'll be receiving your catalog and magazine subscriptions shortly WI.

    2. You'd be surprised.
      More people are waking up than you may think.

    3. How do you say that in Austrian?

  2. We're All Austrians Now

    Well let me be the first to throw a shrimp on the barbie! G'day!

    1. I was way off.

      1. Your wisdom flows like the salmon of Capistrano.

      2. ROFL... This was a good one to start the day... My hat is off to you sir.

    2. That would be Australians.

      1. Yep, just like my Barmah. http://www.downunderhats.com/i.....1018HC.jpg
        Mine's had a lot of hard use. Looks like it will take a lot more too.

      2. Same diff.

  3. Ha ha.

    You really showed 4th place, Ron. How unbelievably fleet of foot you are!

    Ha ha.

    1. Re: Oral Dope,

      You really showed 4th place, Ron.

      Turning off the war on drugs will be especially beneficial for you, Oral.

      1. Turn off the war on drugs?

        Such as the drugs you're on that cause you to fail to notice Dr. States Rights is actually totally cool with 50 local drug wars?

        Smug, dumb and suckered by authoritarian, oil billionaire propaganda wearing pretty panties labeled "freedom" is no way to go through life, son.

        Ha ha.

        1. 50 local drug wars is Constitutional.

          As is a National War With Drugs.

          I made my money as a government licensee, ya know.


          1. I recognize no victimless crimes.

      2. LOL

    2. Oh, fuck. Orel just *had* to darken our digital door again.

  4. I know the odds are against it, but, please god, make the phony-baloney conservatives choose between Romney and Paul. The several-month long gnashing of teeth and apoplectic fits would be glorious.

    1. I hate my self. So much. I use my greenbacks to wipe away the tears my goddamn soul forces me to shed.

    2. This was actually a pretty good article along those lines.


  5. I wonder if some of his supporters actually hurt him to some extent in a caucus format. In such a format, people are allowed to stand up and speak on behalf of their candidate. As we all know around here, despite our general sympathy and hope for RP, we know some of his followers can be near-religious in their devotion and state his positions in a manner that implies self-evidence. What Ron Paul lacks, and what a great deal of his passionate supporters lack, is an ability to speak to rank and file republicans in a way that won't scare them. I think that if his supporters spoke about his foreign policy as being the only thing that will truly enhance our national security by allowing us to balance our budgets and focus on truly defensive technologies.

    Sadly, a lot of Ron Paul's support comes from people with little to no history within the GOP and therefore they speak in ways that not only fail to attract the GOP rank and file, but alienate them. Being raised in a GOP household myself, I feel like I know how to articulate his message in a way that wouldn't scare the voters he needs off.

    1. Wait are you planning a 2016 run?

    2. Re: Sudden,

      What Ron Paul lacks, and what a great deal of his passionate supporters lack, is an ability to speak to rank and file republicans in a way that won't scare them.

      That's a difficult one. Liberty scares a lot of people.

      1. Bingo!

        1. Watch you don't poke your finger gathering berries now. Old Nanny Statist Poodle is watching over you ever so carefully.

          1. Uh, huh.

            1. Domesticated shitty-slicker. Your daddy is third photo down in the article:

              13 November 2006
              Wolves & Dogs
              by Jason Godesky

              1. Uh, huh.

      2. Exactly. Although I go back and forth on whether people are terrified of their own freedom or others' freedom more. Hard to say.

        1. You're terrified of wilderness, city-statist slicker.

          1. B...b...bb... but gamboling!!!

            1. Voluntary Statism. It makes so much sense.

      3. Old Domesticated Poodle doesn't have the personal responsibility to live a Non-State lifeway.

        That's why Old Domesticated Poodle is an agricultural city-Statist slicker.

        He craves only the self-styled "liberty" LOL! of not bending a fingernail acting as a "autonomous and sovereign" individual "who bows to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975)

        Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

        1. B...b...bb... but gamboling!!!

          1. Voluntary Statism. It makes so much sense.

        2. I totally just gamboled in my shorts.

          And lost.

          1. Since they shit out so much shit they die from it.

      4. Who's going to tell me what to do?

        Who's going to take responsibility when I make a mistake?

        Who's going to take care of me?

        It's so scary!

        1. Takes just a little person responsibility.

          1. So does giving yourself head. How's the yoga coming?

            1. City-Statist pissant libertard to the core, ain't ya?

              1. Not that well I see. Well I wish I could give you some advice, but I'm not into that sort of thing.
                Good luck!

                1. ...for shit they don't know. You're typical. Fuck you.

                  1. You're welcome, have a great day!

                    1. I'll have a great day. Without your fucking nanny bullshit advice.

                    2. Some advice: when you and your yoga instructor get you to the point where you can go down on yourself, be careful not to bite it off in a moment of self induced passion. Doctors may be able to sew it back on, but it might not function like it did before.

                    3. Huh? I'm sorry, I was gamboling. Did you say something?

                    4. Did you say something?

      5. Liberty does scare a good amount of people. That said, I think that within the GOP, there are a fair number of economic libertarians that have been sold this party line about national security that perpetual war to advance US interests is the best form of defense. These are potential Paul voters, because deep down they realize that Paul is consistent on spending (these are the same people that sat out in 2006 and 2008 and cost the GOP elections because they were aghast at the profligacy). They are ready to make the leap to Paul, they just need to be convinced of his foreign policy, and his foreign policy is a winning issue if properly framed as protecting and enhancing America's superpower status through focusing on securing the US and ensuring fiscal sustainability.

        1. Honestly, I think we're not over the Cold War. That had a more serious threat, where our existence actually seemed at risk. More tempting to let shit slide back then, I suppose.

          Now, of course, we couldn't be much more secure in our military and even, for now, economic dominance. What's the point in all of this socialism and in maintaining the Pax Americana when we could do so much more good just being a major free market power?

          1. Hence all the whining in the late 90s from Bill Kristol and pals about how America needed a big bad in order to be great.

            Fucking American Greatness movement.

            You know what makes (made) America great? Economic freedom.

            1. Yes, shining city on a hill and all of that. Lead by a very successful example.

              We don't even have to go completely non-intervention. Just moving our use of force to the last resort would be a vast improvement.

            2. What about all those people who were cheering and high-fiving as CNN broadcasted explosions live from a Baghdad hotel?

              They're itching for a similar live broadcast from Tehran.

              What about their feelings, huh?

              1. That was entertaining and ushered in a new age of reality TV. With high ratings, too!

                There's no knowing for sure, but it's hard to believe the U.S. or its interests would be any more threatened if we'd just said, "Fuck it" twenty years ago when the Cold War ended.

                1. Nine out of ten defense contractors disagree.

                  1. That's part of the problem, but it's not all of it. A lot of voters seem to want us to continue our interventionist ways.

                    1. C'mon man! It's cool to be the baddest guy on the block!
                      Someone fucks with you and you not only beat them to death with their arm, but you first murder their family in front of them!
                      Fuck yeah!
                      We're America!
                      Fuck yeah!
                      Fuck yeah!
                      Kick ass!
                      Fuck yeah!

      6. Liberty scares a lot of people.

        Both liberty for themselves and liberty for others.

    3. "Dudes, seriously, hear me out. Okay dudes, see, we end the drug war, and then save trillions. No wait.. sit down. Dudes. Then we can put money into rehab instead of enforcement and imprisonment. It works, dude. Sersiouly. LETS SMOEK UP!"

      *crowd blinks*

    4. Well said. Though I think it is not so much scaring them off as it is making them feel stupid about what they have taken as their core beliefs.

  6. Your pathetic Doctor cannot stop us!

    1. You do it for free? Market failure!

  7. Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul WE GET IT.

    There is someone more important to care about: Barack Hussein Obama.

    It does not matter who our candidate is we need to mobilize to make sure they kick this Marxist tyrant out of office. That is all that matters.

    Fine, vote Ron Paul in the primaries and divide our party and endanger our country, but come the general election there is nothing more patriotic than making sure Obama gets his one term wish!

    1. A party that has 30,000 people willing to vote for Rick Santroum deserves to be destroyed.

      While I can tolerate Romney, I would vote for a turdsandwich before I picked Newcular Titties, Santorum, or Perry.

      And seeing as I live in the Socialist Republic of California I fully intend on voting for Ron Paul in our primary and, if he doesn't run third-party, writing his name in on the ballot in the general because it really doesn't matter who I vote for, now does it?

      1. So you'd rather throw away your vote in a narcissistic fit than save your country?

        1. How do you figure?

        2. reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons, when the aliens abduct Dole and Clinton and pose as them to win the election and become rulers over America. When it was revealed who they were, the people still voted party lines instead of third party.

          Sadly, if aliens existed and they did this, most Americans would still vote party lines, even if they knew the candidates were aliens.

          1. Well, the GOP would only vote for an alien if they were assured of his legal status.

          2. "Sadly, if aliens existed and they did this, most Americans would still vote party lines, even if they knew the candidates were aliens."

            But our economy would FLOURISH!

        3. Wait, you were actually serious?

      2. You should consider casting your general election ballot for Gary Johnson instead. Cali doesn't count write ins IIRC.

        1. I read somewhere that in Texas it is illegal to write in "Mickey Mouse" because he's a legal resident of California.

        2. KY doesnt even have a spot for write-ins for president.

          1. It's on the back label. Kinda hard to spot, but it's there.

        3. I'd like it if GJ came to California, I don't think I've ever heard him speak.

    2. Ooo, a conservative troll, how fun!

      Just an FYI the, "Well at least he's not as bad as the other guy" argument is not likely to get much traction here. Its Gary Johnson and the LP if Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination.

      1. So you'd rather throw away your vote in a narcissistic fit than save your country?

        1. I think Paul and Johnson are the only hopes to save the country right now.

          Is Romney going to cut $1T from the budget in year one? No? Then fuck him, HE IS THE PROBLEM!

          1. No, the problem is Obama. We need to get rid of him no matter what.

            It doesn't matter if Romney won't destroy our defense budget and let Iran get nukes, he'll get rid of Obama and save this country. And that's what matters.

            This election is not a joke, we have to take it seriously and get rid of Obama.

            1. If I may, can you point to one or several specific policies that you feel Obama is using to endanger this country that the mainstream GOP candidates actually have substantially different priorities on?

            2. The spending is destroying America. To save the country we must cut spending. Replacing a spendthrift with a spendthrift solves nothing.

            3. Excepting a few piddling wedge issues, you do realize that there almost no material difference between Romney and Obama (Obama's actual policy as applied vice his rhetoric), right?

              1. you do realize that there almost no material difference between Romney Republicans and Obama Democrats


                1. True dat.

                2. It's a false left/right dichotomy.

                  Both have harsh gambol lockdown regulations.

                  Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

                  MARX: NO!
                  MISES: NO!

            4. "This election is not a joke, we have to take it seriously and get rid of Obama."

              That is what Team Players say every election. It's always OMFG WE HAVE TO STOP THE OTHER GUY OR ERF WILL BLOWUP OMFG! Team Red and Team Blue count on this vote- it's called the base, and the base is predictable.


                1. Well, the final one, anyway.

              2. ERF

                Are you are a hippiemancer or something?

                1. Don't kiss her!

            5. No, the problem is Obama the republicans. We need to get rid of him them no matter what.

            6. The Downfall of Obama has been foretole by the Grand Warlock. Fear not little rino.

            7. Yeah, its super cereal guys!

            8. No you are wrong. Romney is literally more of the same, Rick Santorum is a fucking loon that will plunge us into another foreign war we can't afford. Newt is a slave to big money much like Obama his rhetoric is just different. I'm either voting for Paul on the Republican Party ticket or I am voting for Johnson on the LP ticket..

        2. How is voting for some other toxic dick eater a good use of my vote? So assholes like you can claim victory?

        3. How is voting for the candidate on the ballot that I would most like to be president wasting my vote?

          Is that not how I am supposed to vote?

          1. Exactly. I will vote for best candidate on my ballot.

            If not Paul, it will be Johnson.

          2. If your candidate cannot win (which Johnson, whoever that is and Ron Paul, who is insane, cannot) then you owe it to America to make sure that Obama does not get a second term.

            Voting for anyone who is not the Republican nominee is saying you're fine with four or eight or more years of Obama in power.

            1. Bullshit.

              Everyone on the ballot can win. All they need is more votes.

              If I vote for the LP candidate, it means I prefer the LP candidate to be president and NOTHING ELSE.

            2. I'm a Cubs fan, I am very used to not winning.

              That aside, it is precisely this mentality that has gotten us into the mess we are in. When you are voting for who you do not want to hold office you get the lesser of two idiots. The lesser idiot, is still an idiot and votes accordingly. The market teaches us an important lesson here, more choices results in a better product.

              1. It's one of the stupidest of a lot of stupid reasons to vote for someone.

                "Your candidate's a winner! Johnny, tell him what he's won!"
                "Dick, he's won the continuing destruction of every political belief he holds dear, possibly at a marginally slower rate!"


            3. I almost hope one of your precious Republican spendaholics wins so I can watch you clutch your pearls and wring your hands when NOTHING FUCKING CHANGES.

              1. Ah, but it would change, just not by the definition you are using. It would be like when Obama was elected. And Bush. And Clinton. And Reagan. And so on. Everything changed in these cases, because to the team mentality, when the team wins, it wins.

                Fucking tribalism.

                1. And the majority of the Tea Partiers would go back to sleep while the liberals would suddenly remember that they're, like, totally against Romney's Fucking Wars and start protesting again.

                  Oh, and liberals will suddenly start using words like "totalitarian" and "Orwellian" again to describe the Romney administration, while Republicans go back to labeling those who criticize the Romney administration as "un-patriotic."

                  It's like a big sick play where the actors just switch roles every four years.

              2. he wouldnt notice. i didnt hear any conservatives complaining about spending under bushs presidency.

            4. Or it might be that we see very little difference between them and thus prefer a 3rd alternative?

              I see little diff between any of the non-Paul "R's" and Obama except to a minor extent on economic issues. If it is neck and neck at election day I may consider if it is sufficiently worthwhile tipping the table the R way vs voting for the libertarian.

        4. when obama took over, if you remember, after 8 years with repuplicans we, werent in much better shape. somehow though, fox news has convinced its viewership obama is the only problem. maybe you have a longterm memory problem, but for me, i dont see a much prettier picture with (insert republican windbag) as president. maybe if enough libertarians go with johnson, the gop might stop makimg us feel guilty about it and start earning our votes.

      2. Exactly. I will do my part to remove Obama from office by voting for Johnson if Paul doesnt win the GOP nomination.

    3. Mitt Romney or Barack Hussein Obama? Meh, don't really care. In fact, I may prefer BHO with a fully R congress. Then we can get a real good and gummed up Federal government. But Romney to get rid of BHO? Can't say I really care. I guess that means I don't support America....

    4. Fuck off. This isn't redstate. We aren't motherfucking republicans. At best we are split between supporting Paul as a republican and supporting Johnson as a libertarian (the rest don't vote at all).

  8. Paul himself called Iowa a success, saying that his top three finish guaranteed him one of "three tickets" out of Iowa.

    It was a success in the sense that he has the delegates and a stronger following guaranteed. It would have been better if he won, but he was close enough to smell the foul stench of Santorum and Mitt when he was brought aboard.

    1. It would have been better if he won

      In one very real way, he did win, in it looks like he will get the most delegates, although we wont know for sure until June and people dropping out could affect that.


      Whether it is 1911:


      or 2011:


      1. He likes hierarchy below him. Not above him.

        It's his contradiction.

        And he won't check his premises.

      2. I love the simpleminded!

      3. You believe that capitalism has a rigid class/cast system, but you're wrong.

        I personally know several people who started life in the households of laborers and now, due to capitalism, they are millionaires. They went from oppressed worker to the man in the chair in just a couple of decades. And they did it by satisfying the demand for quality products.

        That's a mighty fine system.

        1. But the poor people have the oil wells in his illustration, so that rich man is pretty much fucked if he doesn't do business with them.

          Also, what self-respecting robber-baron wouldn't have a poor person act as his footstool in that chair?

          And what is this, the 80's? Those are pretty shitty TV's those people have.

          1. You idiot, the rich are using the military to steal oil from foreigners. That's the whole point of the tank over them.

            1. Then wouldn't they put the oil wells inside the tank line? I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but if you have an overwhelming military, wouldn't it be easier to steal something once and keep control of it rather than have to steal it over and over and over again?

              Oh, nevermind. I forgot I was dealing with a fucking retard.

      4. The stupid. It burns.

    3. He's got a golden ticket...He's got a golden ticket...

  9. Russia 1911:


    America 2011:


    Get it now?

    Wake up!

    1. You need a history book or two.

  10. Once I made a BIG poopy in my pants. Mommy wasn't there to change my diaper, so I reached in with a finger. Got a squishy mess of crap on it, and then I tasted it. Now I know what Ron Paul's dick taste like, like the rest of you.

    1. My house, you go away.

  11. Not a bad night at all, and with Bachmann out and Perry retreating to SC, the next New Hampshire debate should be only Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Paul. Paul will have a better opportunity to express his views and show what utter morons and emptys he is up against.

    So it's not bad at all for Paul, even if the media refuses to treat him with dignity.

    1. Perry is still planning wasting precious talking time at the New Hampshire debate.

  12. Hey, this is a spoof, I know because there's no annoying "Ha Ha"!

    1. Booo was meant for the Orel at 2:07.

      1. Ha! Ha!

  13. There is something other-worldly about Ryonen. It's got a lot to do with her flawless milk-white complexion.

    Mostly it is her eyes that captivate us. They are like pools hinting at mysterious depths. Let's not forget the rest of her though. This petite 21 year old girl is rich in sensuous curves and perfectly formed in every way. Swimming and yoga keep her gorgeous body in peak condition.

    Ryonen's talents have many facets. She is a student at university in her home town of Portland, Oregon. She is devoted to fashion and all aspects of art nouveau, as well as off-beat photography. Her interest art is wide ranging and original. "I love strange and interesting poses" she tells us "and I love to create images of beauty and terror, joy and sadness." Studies of the nude form have always fascinated her.

    Now it's time for the practical.


    1. She's polling well in New Hampshire, too.

    2. Sarah's prettier.

  14. Whew! Thank god Ron Paul came in third. It was looking like we weren't going to bomb Iran and that frightened me. Now the Empire is back on solid ground with Team Red Statists.

    Even if Team Red loses, there is still a chance Team Blue will bomb Iran anyway. I love the Empire!

  15. I predict that Santorum (aka anal cum puddle) is a fad seeing the same temporary popularity spike as Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and BitchTitties. Maybe Huntsman is next in line for this.

    1. That's what he's banking on in NH.

    2. Nah. Huntsman will never break 5%. Either Gingrich (again!) or Santorum will be the next temporary spike. Paul will continue his steady climb. Finally, after super Tuesday, all the not-Romneys will settle on Paul. I doubt it will be enough for Paul to win, but he should at least get a decent seat at the national convention.

      Then we vote Johnson and Obama wins a second term. Don't you love our approximation of Democracy?

  16. While there, we encountered hopeful Ron Paul supporters, many expecting a first-place finish.

    They were expecting him to be first?
    I think the world of Ron Paul, but what evidence has there even been that gave more than even odds of that?

    1. Polling + superior ground game. Paul was expected to outperform his poll #s.

  17. So finally and Support America are the exact same troll right?

  18. Caught a few minutes of Rush while I was running errands.

    Sure enough, he's totally in the tank for Santorum. Rush can spin a good yarn about the blessings of economic liberty, but, as with everyone who is a libertarian on some things, but an authoritarian on others, when push comes to shove, the inner authoritarian always wins out.

    1. What I heard yesterday and today on talk radio was the following:

      Talk Show Host: "I want X to win, but I will support whoever wins the nomination because this all about stopping Barack Hussein Obama."

    2. From what I heard he is still "anybody but Mitt Romney" "as long as it isn't Ron Paul". I want them whipping up that Romney-hate until it is a 2 man race. Some portion of the "not-Romney" constituency is going to break to Paul.
      Sarah Palin could really help here and it not clear she really has anything to lose by doing so.

  19. Paul has to triple his efforts and bury Sphinctorum and Rombama in the upcoming debates. As for Perry, I don't think he'll give up as easily as you might think, and that's a good thing -- he'll just split potential Santorum voters.

    1. split potential Santorum

      Couldn't we just put a centrifuge on stage?

      1. You know who else used centrifuges to split votes?

        1. Katherine Harris?

          1. Woodrow mother-fucking Wilson.

      2. it would be bombed quicker than you can say Newt Romney

  20. Hi. I'm sloopyinca, but I've sockpuppeted under the name "Slapdick McGee" on here.

    I just want everyone to know that this "Support America" character is not me, even though he seems to be plagiarizing the shit I wrote to the word.

    I wanted to portray a neo-con caricature. I never knew they existed in that extreme form of idiocy.

    1. Bullshit, sloopy. I happen to know you've heard of David Brooks.

      1. He's Mel's brother, right? I thought that shit was satire.

        (How that got posted above is beyond me.)

        1. tee hee

  21. I wonder if Rush and Hannity and that whole "hate on RP" crowd would be, as a poster above reminds us, "good Americans" who would hold their noses and vote for RP just to get rid of Obama? Why do I think that meme is only a one way street that is supposed to apply to libertarians???

    1. Today Rush Limbaugh called Ron Paul's foreign policy views "tin foil hat foreign policy."

      1. Was that before or after he took his double-dose of pain killers?

        1. Before and after. Rush is consistent in his love of the Empire.

    2. I seriously think the ABO talking heads would turn ABRP in an instant.

      Their love of empire is greater than their dislike of socialism.

      1. It's strange for me to see many Ron Paul supporters who simply do not understand why the average conservative despises Ron Paul.

        To the average conservative, Ron Paul condemning their foreign policy is akin to an atheist challenging a believer's faith. It is an undermining of their very conception of America and it is abhorrent to them. They live in a delusional world worshipping a Trinity of John Wayne, Jesus, and the Marlboro Man.

        1. Aw, that's bullshit and you know it. It's John Wayne, Jesus and Elvis Presley.

          1. Bullshit! It's Chuck Norris, Jesus, and Amy Grant!

            1. Bullshit again! It's Chuck Norris, Tim Tebow and Ryan Seacrist!*

              *Updated for Gen-Y retards.

            2. Funny because chuck Norris actually endorsed Ron Paul in the past and since Ron Paul believes in non-violence and the Golden Rule his foreign policy is the most Christian

              Who's amy grant?

    3. Why do I think that meme is only a one way street that is supposed to apply to libertarians???

      Because the GOP thinks they are doing us a favor by "allowing" us to be in their party. Little do they realize that if civil-libertarians who are fiscal conservatives left their party en masse, they'd never control either house or get a president elected again.

      1. They know that alright, which is why they pay all that lip service to small government.
        They also know that they have absolutely no intention of acting on their small government rhetoric, but the fiscal conservatives lap it up anyway.

      2. The bigger question is why fiscal conservatives actually believe the GOP rhetoric.
        Unless they, like the GOP, really don't want to cut government spending because they or a family member would lose a job or freebie.

        1. Because, oddly enough, most fiscal conservatives are also war hawks and big advocates of a huge national defense apparatus.

          Seriously, the was our political spectrum is divided, there really ought to be 4 major parties. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Nationalist.
          Democrat: fiscally wreckless/socially liberal
          Republican: fiscally conservative/social conservative
          Libertarian: fiscally conservative/socially liberal
          Nationalist: fiscally wreckless/socially conservative

          How the hell the two parties have kept themselves from fracturing to this is beyond me.

          1. Most fiscal conservatives are not fiscal conservatives.

            You know the story. Cut government, just don't cut anything that might affect me or my family. My son's in the military, I work for a contractor and my parents use both Social Security and Medicare. So cut government, just don't cut anything that might affect me or my family.

            1. Then those people would belong in the Nationalist Party...which is basically today's GOP.

              1. You may like this if you haven't read it already.


          2. Except that the Democrat Party is just as phony in being "socially liberal" the the Republican Party is in being "fiscally conservative".

            The Democrats are "socially liberal" only to the extent that individual behavior or social outcomes are politically correct.

            The Republicans are "fiscally conservative" to the extent that it doesn't impinge upon military spending, homeland security spending, drug war spending, and their ability to garner votes from geezers and cronies.

            Also, the characterization above neglects the spectrum regarding individual liberties related to property and income.

          3. Well, if you look at the Times Mirror-Whoever surveys, there are several more than 4 socio-political clusterings in the USA, and if there were 4 major parties, they'd probably split along lines other than the above. Remember that ideology doesn't tell the whole story; there can be other factors such as demographics and particular interests that produce factions.

    4. Pray to God that Ron Paul is never the only possibility to replace Obama. Iran would probably not even wait for the election results.

      1. To do what exactly?

        1. To attack another country, of course!

        2. Use their patented camel-ICBM delivery system to nuke a major American city.

          1. patented camel-ICBM delivery system


            1. Shouldn't it be a camel-TOW missile?

              1. Hi-yo!

              2. I saw what you did there.

      2. What are they going to do, take our embassy? Oh, wait.

      3. Grow a fucking spine and quit being scared to death of Muslims. What a pathetic life if must be to live in constant fear.

        1. He's obviously a troll.

      4. Yeah, Support America Israel, the thought of an RP presidency really scares you because Israel would have to stop hiding underneath our skirts. Tough shit.

      5. They would probably start inching toward some type of war with Israel. America would end up being forced to stand with her allies in that case.. I would rather chance that than "preemptively" striking Iran a sovereign nation..

    5. Limbaugh and Hannity will vote for the GOP nominee (or tell their listeners to) no matter who it is, even Ron Paul. I'm more interested in which anti-Paul figures on the right would prefer him to Mittens.

      1. No way. Better to give Obama four more years and field a better Republican in 2016 than to put someone in office who would try to withdraw our troops from around the world and end the war on drug users.
        I mean, pull troops from Germany? That's crazy talk!
        Allow people to put unapproved chemicals into their bodies?
        Better to have four more years of Obama than that.

        1. I would agree with you except I heard Hannity shit on McCain in 2008. I mean he hammered McCain. One night he did a satire show where he pretended to support McCain. His lemmings were calling him up in tears.

          Yet, when McCain won the nomination, Hannity stepped in line like Every Fucking Team Voter does during the Presidential election.

          But.....they do hate Ron Paul. It would be interesting to see. But, it won't happen. Ron Paul will not get the nomination. Conservative 'Merica will see to that. Romney will get it.

          1. Except that Romney is a creepy Mormon and there's that whole RomneyCare thingy.
            Why do you think Santorum is gaining popularity?

            1. Romney looks and sounds Presidential. He's a moderate Who Can Beat Obama. Santorum will get the fundamentalist vote like Huckabee, but he'll eventually flame out.

              1. Romney looks and sounds like a used car salesman. A used car salesman worth $250 million, but still.

                1. As as said, Romney looks and sounds Presidential for modern American voters. Look at that hair! And those teeth! He's got my vote.

                  1. Movement conservatives fucking hate those shitty "safe" moderate candidates the establishment is always shoving down their throat. If Ron Paul was lookin' to kick some raghead ass they'd overlook the other shit. I'm still thinking he's going to pick up some "not Romney" votes from that bunch. More if some of their damn "leaders" would get behind him.

  22. He's Mel's brother, right? I thought that shit was satire.

  23. The Austrian comment will be played over and over again on conservatalk radio. I will never understand if Paul just gets a wee bit too excited, or if hes arrogant enough to think that republicans who are on the fence will support him when he says shit like that. Just a lil bit more USA!!! and Paul might do a lot better don't ya think?

  24. Did anyone else notice how strange the voting results were in terms of how they came in?


  25. The beauty of us all being Austrians now is that no reason or evidence is required. Truth is truth, Saint Hayek be praised.

    1. As opposed to Keynesian economic theory which has a proven track record of abject failure.

      1. Um, you're responding to Tony, for fuck's sake.

        Tony, dude.

        1. It's a spoof.

      2. No, it doesn't. It saved capitalism with the New Deal, struck down poverty with the Great Society and saved the economy yet again with the Stimulus.

        The only failures have been free market Reaganomics that gave up all the gains from proper government investment in the name of Wall Street profits.

        1. There is no other god but Stimulus, and Keynes is his prophet.

        2. No, it doesn't. It saved capitalism with the New Deal, struck down poverty with the Great Society and saved the economy yet again with the Stimulus.

          How do we know any of that? There wasn't a control group in any one of those cases.

    2. There was no reason or evidence for "We are all Keynesians now" either, but that didn't stop you libruhls from have a forty year circle jerk over it.

      1. Except everything successful about the economy in the 20th and 21st century.

        If Austrian economics are so successful, surely you can name one or two countries where they've been implemented successfully. How about implemented at al?

        1. Tony sure likes his phalluses fallacies.

          In this case we have a textbook example of "Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment".

          Class dismissed.

          1. And yet, our population grew from 1776 to today. Even before St. FDR walked the earth. Go figure.

          2. You are a bad teacher. You don't even know what your logic 101 vocab words mean.

            Asking for a single shred of evidence is not a fallacy of the crucial experiment.

            Do you just have a list of these and pick one you think sounds right?

            1. You didn't ask for a single shred of evidence. You asked for a particular kind of evidence - a kind you're not entitled to. If you want arguments in favour of Austrian theory, I suggest you read a fucking book.

              1. I'm not entitled to an example of Austrian theory being implemented successfully somewhere in the world before I acquiesce to its being implemented in my own country?

                What's amazing is that Austrians feel they are entitled to beliefs without evidence.

                1. But Austrians don't have beliefs without evidence. You just claim they do. My guess is that you have no idea what the arguments for Austrian theory are, which is why I suggest you read a book. On top of that: Hong Kong's doing pretty well. The western world got extremely wealthy extremely fast during the industrial revolution. There are any number of industries in the western world today which function with barely any regulation. And, hey, black markets actually seem to be pretty efficient. All of that is evidence that laissez faire policies work. Several Austrian economists predicted the financial crisis several years before it happened. That's evidence that Austrian theory works. But you demand a country which implemented Austrian theory - which misses the point of Austrian theory. You're not entitled to that kind of evidence. That's not how rationality works - you don't get to set impossibly high standards of evidence. For one thing, it's not Austrians' fault that they have never been in power, especially when there are assholes like you saying it has to be tried somewhere else first. For another, Austrian theory is a largely descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one. Really the only claim it makes about government involvement in the economy is that the government doesn't have a chance of running the thing. Now I wonder if there's any evidence for that...

                  1. Which is to say, you sound like the economic equivalent of a creationist saying "show me a videotape of a monkey turning into a man, and then I'll believe it". If that's the kind of evidence you demand, you're not going to get it, and so you're going to end up with false beliefs.

                    (Disclaimer: I'm not, strictly speaking, an Austrian. Nor would I have high confidence in any economic theory, because, as I mentioned above, there are no control groups, making it difficult a lot of the time to verify whether your predictions were accurate or if a particular policy worked.)

                    1. Perhaps it's too much to ask that a system must be implemented first before we can know if it works. Still, you do have some kind of bar to cross, especially given that you're offering a wholesale replacement of what has proven to work and has been implemented all over the world at times, if imperfectly.

                      "The black market is efficient" I don't think cuts it. No one disputes that the market mechanism is efficient, the problem is that it can break down, such as in monopolies. And there are many macro-scale problems that markets don't solve but that democratic people are free to demand attention to.

                      So the question is whether the government actually can do anything about inefficiencies. Government intervention in the market produces simply a measurable alteration of incentives. The efficiency of the market mechanism can still apply; perhaps there is simply a buyer on behalf of the people. It can screw things up but it doesn't necessarily have to. Economies with government intervention are the norm in this world, and things have hardly been apocalyptic at all times. Europe found a way to save money on healthcare costs and grant access to everyone. No free market has ever produced what intervention has with respect to healthcare--how could it? How does a market know that people deserve healthcare whether they can afford it or not?

                      That is a powerful tool for democratic action, which is freedom.

                    2. Still, you do have some kind of bar to cross, especially given that you're offering a wholesale replacement of what has proven to work and has been implemented all over the world at times, if imperfectly.

                      I would argue that Austrian theory has crossed whatever bar any other rigorous theory of macroeconomics (and I know there is some controversy as to whether Austrians are talking about economics at the macro level, but they are) - no government gets out, say, Keynes' playbook (which is also largely descriptive) and implements it wholesale. If they did, we wouldn't end up with deficits during boom times as well as busts. If this is going to be our standard (and I really don't think it should be, fucking pathetic excuse for science that it is), then what we're going to have to do is take our set of actual policies and alleged outcomes (and matching those two is going to be a hell of a job), and compare them to what various economic theories said would happen. My guess is that you end up saying, of every theory, "it's been implemented partially and was an imperfect success/ not complete failure" (and yes I'm including Marxism). And then you shrug your shoulders because you haven't gained any knowledge.

                      No one disputes that the market mechanism is efficient, the problem is that it can break down, such as in monopolies.

                      Well, then you are disputing that the market mechanism is efficient, in terms of being impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to exploit. Again, if you think Hayek or Mises or Rothbard don't address the problems of monopoly in their work, you're wrong. Find a book. Read it.

                      And there are many macro-scale problems that markets don't solve but that democratic people are free to demand attention to.

                      Sometimes you speak about democracy like it's a moral imperative. If you think that democracy is always superior to autocracy, I'm inclined to agree - at least as long as the autocrat is human. If you mean that the majority should get what they want in virtue of being major - well, tell it to the gays and the Jews.

                      Now, the requirements for the claim are this: first demonstrate there are problems the free market cannot solve (easy enough), second demonstrate that government policy can solve these same problems, and third demonstrate that it's okay for the government to put people in jail for not helping it solve these problems.

                      So the question is whether the government actually can do anything about inefficiencies. Government intervention in the market produces simply a measurable alteration of incentives. The efficiency of the market mechanism can still apply; perhaps there is simply a buyer on behalf of the people.

                      See, this is what makes me think you don't know what people mean by the "efficiency" of the market mechanism. It comes from individuals only having to make decisions for themselves at the local level: you only have to determine in an economic decision whether what you're giving away is worth more or less to you than what you're receiving. If you act irrationally, it hurts you: which gives you a pretty good incentive not to act irrationally. Everyone making these judgements leads continuously towards a better allocation of goods, because everyone involved in any particular transaction is better off when it's done than they were before. When a government makes an economic decision, it makes it on behalf of everyone, without access to everyone's preferences, and when it is irrational it hurts everyone, creating a negative externality. So, the government (or, more specifically, the person in the election booth) doesn't have the usual incentives to behave rationally, but it does have the usual problems of calculation, multiplied by the complexity of making these decisions for the aggregate "utility function" (and don't get me started on the interpersonal incomparability of individual utilities). So you can't say that market efficiency still applies when one buyer does so on behalf of everyone: that there were many buyers making decisions at a local level was the whole point!

                      It can screw things up but it doesn't necessarily have to.

                      I agree. Having a supergenius in power might work - but he'd still have to put people in jail for disobedience.

                      Economies with government intervention are the norm in this world, and things have hardly been apocalyptic at all times.

                      Nobody claimed they were, and nobody needs to claim they are for the sake of their argument.

                      I'll leave the stuff about healthcare. It's a big argument with a lot of bad information, and I don't think it's going to be possible to actually get into the weighing of pros and cons in an objective way.

                      That is a powerful tool for democratic action, which is freedom.

                      Craziest thing anyone has ever said.

                  2. And the first Thanksgiving, post revolutionary American collonies, the Western frontier homesteaders, the depression of 1920-21, the post WWII economic recovery of Belgium, etc.

  26. Off the snot stained cuff: Santorum has big neon target on his back now. His rapid rise will pale next to his plummet. Gingrinch and Perry are on the way out. Thus the rest of the primary season is going to be between Paul and Romney. And much of the GOP base despises Romney.

    This will be a brokered convention and Ron Paul will have most of the cards.

    1. I think Paul will get some surprising (to some) endorsements once it is down to a 2 man race. For now let the "anybody but Romney" crowd whip up the anti-establishment hate.

  27. In other news Justin Timberlake proposed to Jessica Biel and she said yes.

    Lucky dude.

    I give it a year.


    1. I give it "won't even have a wedding"

  28. OT: Texas Police Kill Armed Eighth Grader in School

    A male 15-year-old student was shot and killed by Texas police today when he "brandished" a weapon in the main hallway of his school.

    At around 8 a.m., school administrators from Cummings Middle School in Brownsville called 911 and the school went into lockdown.

    The Brownsville Police Department responded immediately and "the student engaged the officers and was shot," according to a statement from the Brownsville Independent School District.


    Isn't this just a bit over the top? Can't they shoot rubber bullets or a taser? The damn kid was 15.

    1. I don't care if he was 8. If the kid was threatening others with that gun they should have shot him.

      1. **IF** he was threatening others, then disarming him, however it needed to be done (including shooting him) would be OK. 'brandishing' a weapon or 'engaging' the police is not enough information to make that call. Unless, of course, you are a killer yourself.

    2. If the kid drew a gun and/or pointed it ant anybody, they had no choice.

      I'd like to reserve judgement until more details come in. I'm especially perplexed as to why the police keep referring to it as a "weapon" and not a "gun." If it turns out they shot him three times because he pulled a knife, there's gonna be hell to pay an internal investigation and some vacation time.

      1. Don't forget the medal.

        Someone's gonna get a medal!

  29. I wonder if maybe he meant Nazis.

  30. I made the mistake of visiting Dondero's "Libertarian Republican" shitstain blog. I shit you not, he claims that Mitt Romney is the champion of small government Reaganism and that Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are the big government candidates.

  31. G'day mates.

    What? Y'mean we're not all Austrailians?

  32. With his vintage sideburns and old-school rock hair falling in his face, Jimmy is an irrelevant curio with no place in the modern world. Cut loose from the only life he knows, he returns to his childhood home in Forest Hills, Queens, where he tells his ancient mother (Lois Smith) that he's actually the Cult's manager and sometime songwriter, and that he has only dropped by for the day before shoving off on another international tour. After rather too much interaction with mom

  33. hamed of, everything to be satisfied [with], and be ready and rearing to go on to the next stop, which is New Hampshir

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.