Ron Paul

You Again, Eh? Open Thread for the 15th GOP Presidential Debate Starts Now!


Miss the fun last night? Re-live our Lou Reed-enlivened liveblogging, re-read our 679 fabulous comments, or review the debate transcript for a discussion in which contraception and talking to your gay friends on the couch outnumbered the euro-zone crisis by a factor of about 30 to 0. Sadly, that performance will not ruin the careers of ABC News' Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos, and even more sadly, the candidates are back for more at a 9 AM NBC News/Facebook debate. Before subjecting yourself to that, here is your 18-minute highlight reel for Ron Paul:

No liveblogging this morning; it's all up to you. As per usual, here is our GOP candidate quiz, and here are our candidate profiles of Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman. At least two of these cats, one suspects, will be out of the picture before the Super Bowl. Happy Sunday!

NEXT: "If They Cross Us, They Should Fear Us": Santorum Said It, Not Sure Who Believes It, That Settles It!

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. First! (Get it?)


    Kids have a god given right to straight parents. Did I read this right?

    1. let’s not stop there. Kids should have a right to parents who can buy them everything they want, who can spend all the time with them they need, who can discipline without ever yelling, etc etc etc

      Silly me, thinking kids were stuck with the people who bred them.

    2. the god-given part came from the writer, not from the candidates. Believing that kids are better off stuck in the foster system instead of a home that happens to be headed by a gay couple is why Repubs often scare the hell out of normal people.

      1. Usually, it’s Team Blue going on about how kids have rights… like the right to food stamps, which kids do not get, but that’s another Team Blueism.

        1. Take the most expensive and restrictive elements of Team Red and the most expensive and restrictive elements of Team Blue, and you have National Review, Team Lieberman/Bloomberg.

    3. “Marriage is not a right,” Santorum said. “It’s a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason ? We want to encourage what is the best for children.”…..-hecklers/

  3. Lot of catfighting early on.

  4. Romney never got the State Police to enforce immigration laws. That was a lie!

  5. The god damned video won’t load. Thank you NBC.

    1. There doesn’t seem to be a live stream as far as I could see.

          1. Are you from Coffee Cty Eduard? I just moved from Manchester last year.

            1. Wish I could drive over, but I’m from another state, just got this link from some other site which I forgot. 🙁

    2. I’m having enough of a problem getting H&R to run properly.

      I’ve been finding that more and more, H&R is an extreme memory hog. This page took three tries to load, and every time, it brought the rest of the browser to a screeching halt — even though I’ve got satellite internet, other pages were onluy loading at 1KB/sec. This has been going on for months, and happens 100% of the time I visit H&R. It got worse since they aded the Google Plus antisocial networking shit.

      Please, please, please reasonoids, fix your site’s severe memory problems. Note that I visit with images turned off and plug-ins set not to load to try to cut down on the memory usage, and still have problems every single time I visit H&R, problems that I don’t have on most other sites.

      1. This. I know my phone absolutely hates this site. It somehow doubles the phone’s battery consumption while surfing this site. It seems to be constantly loading something as well. No other site I go to does this.

        I would love to see Reason address this.

        1. Do you guys have slow broadband connections? This site loads within a couple of seconds for me.

          1. Of course the more resources you have, the better…but why should Hit & Run be such a resource hog no matter what? Is it all in the ads?

            H&R routinely crashes my less advanced setup, and now even with my more powerful one it’s problematic.

            1. Reason is against top-down design in its web development, too. Having hundreds of bits of code demanding resources and operating at cross-purposes seems more appropriate for free market supporters.

              1. Yeah, well I’m tempted to look for a Unix shell I can telnet into to browse H&R with lynx. It’s like with tax money: You make more resources available, they just suck them up and ask for more.

                1. I’ve done that with Terminal on my Mac, but the non-chronological comments make the threads a mess in Lynx, unfortunately. The indentation doesn’t show up.

                2. I’ve actually been working on a plugin to chronologize comments but hadn’t thought of doing it in Lynx. Are there even Lynx plugins?

                3. It’s all the Facebook/Twitter/etc. buttons. It has nothing to do with text or image content (that loads almost instantly no matter where you go) and everything to do with the hundreds of separate requests those fucking buttons are making to external servers. Those are all mini-webpages with their own stylesheets, scripts, content, etc.

                  In reasonable, you can turn on an option to block those buttons, which reduces external requests and data by about a third. Honestly, your best bet is something like Adblock or that before you resort to text-only browsers.

                  Also, the newer versions of WebKit-based browsers like Chrome and Safari handle all those iframes a billion times better than Opera by only loading them when they come within the visible area of the screen.

            2. As I said above, I don’t see the ads as I’ve got images and plug-ins turned off when I visit here, and I still have the problems.

              The one good thing about not having images set to load is that I automatically see the alt-text. [And when I don’t see any alt-text, I wonder how many comments it’s going to take before somebody bitches about the lack of alt-text. ;-)]

              1. FWIW, images and Flash have very little to do with H&R memory-hogging. It’s all the iframes.

                1. For reference, in Opera try going to Preferences… > Content > Uncheck Enable Javascript. The Twitter/Facebook/Google Plus APIs use JavaScript to identify specific tags on the web page, then load in the content from their respective external sites (all of which have their own JS, of course).

                  1. If I turn off JS for in the site preferences, how will that screw up the comment threads?

                    1. Oh, it will screw up the “reply to this” button/link, unfortunately.

                      Methinks you’ll have to rely on something to block those buttons specifically, and IIRC Opera has the built-in ability to do that, but I can’t help you beyond that. I can just tell you the problem is within the proliferation of Like/Recommend buttons and YouTube videos. I use Chrome, which does a better job of handling those, plus I block those Like buttons with an extension.

        2. I don’t know if this helps, but if you’re the type that leaves his computer on all the time, it’s worth a try to reboot it. I was noticing the same behavior you describe, then after being forced to reboot (for another reason entirely), the website is much faster.

          1. I’m not the type to leave my computer on all the time. Closing Opera and reopening it helps, although that’s usually because I’m doing a hard kill. Eek.

      2. Switching to Chrome helped a lot with that. It’s generally much better at handling memory hogs and poorly behaving sites without locking up every single page you have open in a browser window.

        1. I agree.

          But lately I’ve been getting complaints from AVG about chrome hogging memory.

      3. Yeah, just having one Hit and Run page open on my phone takes up between 120 and 230 MB. Yes, that’s right. This is insane.

  6. 9:44: Let it be recorded that Newt Gingrich is talking, in a presidential debate, about how the “sacrament of marriage” needs to “be protected.” Jesus Christ.

    9:51: Katrina vanden Heuvel: “Newt is on a newt-rant about bigotry and anti-Christian bigotry and claims none of it covered by news media. Lost me/But GOP applause/”

    From last night’s transcript.

    Newt better hope that every Baptist minister in SC doesnt do a sermon on why marriage isnt a sacrament next Sunday.

    [In the SBC, there are ordinances, not sacraments, and marriage isnt one of them. There are two…baptism and communion.]

    Anyway, I found his reference to protecting the sacrament of marriage to be a form of anti-christian* bigotry.

    *well, protestant.

    1. He was doing his Catholic signaling.

      1. And that seems really stupid with SC coming up.

    2. My overall point being, pushing a very PRO-catholic message may not play well in South Carolina.

      1. Not in normal circumstances. But today the split isn’t RC versus protestant.

      2. Yep, those SC voters are going to flock to Santorum rather than that papist Gingrich.

    3. Fuck vanden Heuvel.

  7. He said, “Mitt, never join the army. You might get your ass shot off.”

  8. OMG! RP said we are worse than the Soviets! Newsletters!

  9. I worked last night. I am too lazy to read any of the 679 comments from the schleppiest commentariat on the planet. How did it go for Paul?

    1. My take away is that he either did awesome or horrible. He spoke a lot and said a lot of memorable things. I thought he did well. The standard-bearing Republicans in my life may not have.

      1. Hugh Hewitt said everyone did good except for Paul who was awful. I think that means he won.

  10. Paul again refuses to attack Romney directly.

    1. He doesn’t need to, yet. If he gets rid of these conservative pretenders and becomes the “anti-Romney”, the vote will coalesce around him as he attacks Romney. Right now, it is just as like that Romney’s support of 25-30% will be just as likely to go to Santorum or someone else instead of Paul.

      1. He needs Romney siphoning off 25% of the vote, so none of the faux conservatives can run up the numbers. And, I suspect he is hoping to become VP under Romney, or Romney VP under him, depending.

        I mean, who else in this field of arseholes could RP pick as VP?

        1. I’d like to see him pick a little-known genius. Someone like Tom Woods.

        2. I really don’t see either of them accepting the VP slot under the other. Romney’s invested too much time and money to play second fiddle to someone else, and Paul is too old to use it as a stepping stone to the presidency.

          1. I believe romney will choose biden as his running mate. And more focus on gay marriage next time, moderators!

        3. I’m hoping he picks Rubio to lock up the Mesican vote.

      2. But to knock off those pretenders, RP needs to attack Romney. If he does it well, it will impress.

  11. Rick Perry is 2 seconds away from launching into a Billy Joel song

  12. Did anybody else go red in the face when that shithead moderator in last night’s debate called Paul a liar?

    1. I missed that. What was it in reference to?

    2. I’m pretty sure it was Santorum. He looked pretty pleased with himself as he cackled on camera a second after the “not telling the truth” line was uttered.

      1. I’ll rewatch the video after my neighbor and his posse leave, but I thought it was the moderator throwing that in right after he asked the question.

        And Tuna, it was a question about Ron Paul’s new South Carolina anti-Santorum ad and whether Paul was willing to stand right then and there and defend those charges.

        1. That was Santorum who called Paul a liar after ABC mistakenly dinged the “time’s up” bell. (Maybe it was just my ears, but through Ron Paul’s whole answer I kept hearing something dinging). ABC SUCKS.

          1. It wasn’t the ding – it was feedback on the mic.

            1. It sucked.

        2. Chatting in a chat room with guests in the house. Maybe it’s time to step away from the blog.

          1. Depends on the guests.

            When your host starts chatting on a blog, maybe that’s a great sign it’s time for them to go home.

      2. Santorum didn’t like it when Paul referred to him as a big spender and someone who loved earmarks.

    3. Wasn’t that Santorum?

    4. If it was the incident I’m remembering, RP was getting some feedback or audio breakup and said, “There it goes again.” Santorum then made some crack about “them” catching him lying.

  13. Huntsman, “Voters are confused.”

    1. with shitbag candidates like these, who can blame a voter for being confused.

      1. All infinitely better than Obama. Just trying to figure who is least worst.

        1. Why, because they’re not black? I don’t see the difference otherwise. If Obama was running as a Republican, he’d be a shoo-in for the nominee.

          1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure that had McCain won, and then enacted a stimulus bill that spent a lot, Obama’s criticism would mirror Romney’s that it was “poorly managed”.

  14. Why on earth is Romney spending his time attacking Huntsman? He has absolutely nothing to gain and Huntsman is destroying him, routinely.

    1. Because the rest of the field is good enough at shooting themselves in the foot. (Though speaking Chinese and forced U.S. Navy shoutouts weren’t a good idea either) And since there’s no pro-Hunstman faction there’s no down side (also he was prodded specifically by Gregory’s question).

      1. No pro-Huntsman faction? I believe you are forgetting that one guy from Manchester.

      2. Seriously, was speaking Chinese supposed to impress the few people who were actually watching this debate with his brilliance?

        How clueless and out of touch with America can a guy possibly be? Go Huntsman, just go. And don’t come back.

  15. Welch: “As per usual”

    Oh. I see. You went there. That’s unfortunate.


    1. Roughly, “as expected”.

  16. At this point, Huntsman has to be the 2nd least objectionable person on stage… until he starts lamenting the lack of trust these darn kids have in our glorious governmental institutions.

    1. No, I agree that there is a lack of trust. I don’t agree that this either a bad thing, or that it stems from some notion of hyper-partisanship, because government is often worst when it screws us over in a “bipartisan” manner, like with the NDAA.

  17. DAMMIT!! Apparently my local NBC affiliate airs a weekend morning edition of their worthless news coverage @ 0900 and broadcasts a tape delayed Meet The Depressed @ 1000.

    1. I’m watching on MSNBC.

    2. It’s on MSNBC and online…

      1. Thanks guys.

  18. Heh, Newt just said duty. What’s awkward is that Santorum is standing like 10 feet away.

  19. Newt, “Warshington.”

    1. That’s really how they say it in Washington (DC). My parents grew up in and around Washington. Took me years to break the habit. “I warshed the car.” ugh.

      1. That’s how they say it in Missouri, too.

        1. East Central Indiana, too.

          1. Rural Ohio too.

            1. Nebraska, too.

      2. Not everyone from there has that speech impediment.

  20. Well, at least you can say Gregory has been more successful at trolling this debate that last night guy’s were and is really getting them to go after Mitt.

  21. Instead of watching the debate, I ran to Taco Bell, loaded up on methane and farted in 7 jars.

    1. With food stamps, yes?

    2. loaded up on methane and farted in 7 jars.

      You posted a new entry on your blog?

      1. Yes – its titled Past Gas.

    3. be fair people, it does sound more productive than watching the debate.

    4. Taco bell isn’t open this early, you harpy.

      1. For some reason that, “you harpy” thing just gets my funny bone.

        1. I love that I wouldn’t be caught dead in a fast food joint but libertarians have to eat somewhere -NTTIAWWT

  22. Seniors can make choices because they are always of sound mind and body.

  23. I shouldn’t be shocked when Santorum has the gall to pretend to care about people making decisions for themselves instead of government making decisions for them, yet I still am each time.

  24. For Heaven’s sake!

  25. Rich people are assholes who are out for themselves and every comment they make is about exploiting the economy.. unless it’s Warren Buffet, then he’s a genius on macroeconomics.

    1. And any “isolationist” Republican is a traitor and a danger, except for good ol’ Howard Buffet – he’s just a foreign policy expert. And it’s quite unfortunate that his son did not follow his father as a member of the Old Right…

  26. Why is Huntsman getting time like he’s running #2 instead of 8th?

    1. This is co-coded as the first debate of the 2016, as well.

      1. My gawd, you almost made me shoot myself in the head.

    2. Because he sounds like he’s giving a lecture on the beauty of ornate Chinese vases into a shitty camera on some cheap Sell Our Shit at Auction-type TV show. It makes me cringe, but this is NBC, dude.

  27. I know it’s the wrong debate, but seriously, Ron Paul’s reply to Gingrich’s “I was married and had a kid, so I didn’t go to serve” was made of win. The flinch on Newt’s face was very noticeable, and I bet all the Paul supporters watching the debate pissed themselves laughing, and justifiably so. What an asshole.

    1. Yes, up until that moment, I thought Paul was going to regret going to the chickenhawk well. But that was great, especially with Gingrich mumbling nonsense into the microphone as they went on to the next topic.


    2. I’ve seen the exchange reported in the media and the last bit about “I was married and I had a kid” was left out. The media sucks.

      1. Did Paul point out that he was married with multiple kids when he served?

        1. Yeah, he said:

          “A just need a quick follow-up to that: When I was drafting, I was married with two kids, and I WENT.”

          Pretty badass.

        2. Yes, it was the last line. A coup de grace.

        3. Yes. Unfortunately he didn’t mention that Newt bailed on the marriage and kid that supposedly prevented him from going to Nam, a few years later when his wife got cancer.

          I guess he cares more about fucking young, healthy chicks than serving his country.

          1. Nah that would have wrecked it Tulpa. Too heavy-handed. The light touch made RP’s response perfect I’m going to YouTube just to watch.

            1. Yeah, everyone knows of Gingrich’s multiple infidelities. His reference to his wife alone had many people thinking “didn’t you leave that wife and kid just a few years later?”. Paul’s statement just hammered home the fact that Gingrich was just making excuses.

  28. Why is Huntsman even there? Didn’t he get like 1% in Iowa?

    1. No, not 1%. Just 1.

    2. Because he’s a Serious Candidate. Unlike the other Governor From a Rocky Mountain State, whom the establishment media and politicians decided was a whackjob.

  29. Wow. Romney basically saying “Give me unilateral power to do what I want.”

    That’s not progressive. Really.

    1. Sieg heil, mother-fuckers — it’s okay when Anti-Black Dreamboat White Dreamboat says it.

  30. If only fewer laws were ever passed.

    1. I wish.

  31. Polarized! Race war!

  32. Audit the fed not important. Okay Rick.

  33. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  34. Oh man, The problem with Paul is he’ll … get our nose out of other people’s shit. Oh noes.


  35. But removing federal military support from foreign countries is the end of civilization, eh Santorum?

  36. Fuck. Rick Santorum *IS* Tony.

  37. Holy shit Santorum is getting tons of camera time.

    1. He’s fumbling around with his answers like a 13 year old boy fumbling with his dick trying to get laid for the first time.

    2. Not sure that’s a bad thing. He’s pretty loathsome.

  38. Why is Obama using a garbage can as a desk?

    1. More importantly, why is he using the open side as the desktop?

      1. Improvised Furniture, how do they work?!

  39. Why doesn’t Huntsman get the “you aren’t a serious candidate” questions that Paul was asked all the time in 2008?

    1. Or the one last night about 3rd party and endorsements?

  40. wait. so there was a debate last night AND this morning?

    Why does the GOP hate people who go to church?

  41. Mittney wants to roam the country. If he were to gambol, he might be on to something…

  42. They love taking breaks to avoid Ron Paul’s intended time to respond to attacks on him.

  43. Paul is not getting a lot of airtime, only 2 or 3 questions asked.

    1. He’s being treated as if he were Huntsman.

      1. It is MSNBC. They know Paul would draw a disproportionate amount of independent voters compared to any other candidate up there.

  44. Yeah, Gov, they’ll get jobs like the Speaker and the Senator did.

  45. I think Perry actually has had the best performance so far. He made a clear and concise point which nobody’s managed to do yet.

  46. Huntsman again!?!?!

    1. Fucking hell, HUNTSMAN AGAIN!?

  47. Decent answer from Huntsman given the premises of the question

  48. Of fucking course. Ask Paul about subsidies then tie it in with an appeal to emotion.

  49. Ru Paul heading to NH:…..-ron-paul/

  50. Is Santorum the most arrogant pol you’ve ever seen? I think he is. Even more than Barry, and that’s saying something. Why anyone, especially in 2012 when everyone is supposed to hate politicians, would latch onto this genuine, real-McCoy asshole is a mystery to me. He is sooooo full of himself.

    1. I’m waiting for the inevitable Santorum/Gingrich or Gingrich/Santorum ticket.

      1. I *will* commit suicide.

        1. Gingrich/Santorum vs Obama = ultimate Shit Sandwich vs Giant Douchebag.

    2. This is the guy who brags about homeschooling his kids, when he only did that because the PA cyber charter school booted his kids when they realized he was living in VA year-round.

    3. I really think it was because he was the only social conservative left. The timing of his rise (i.e. Newt’s decline) was impeccable for Iowa. It could not have been timed better if he’d have had God Himself (if He existed) turning knobs and flipping the election’s switches for him. I predict as he gets more recognition, his numbers will start to plummet. As you say, he really is quite an asshole, and it comes through the more he talks.

  51. We are in an age of austerity?

    1. Yeah, didn’t you hear? They cut like 3 billion over the next 10 years of projected increases. Huge cuts.

  52. In Massachusetts, Hugo Chavez subsidizes out oil which is giving out to low income people by a Kennedy.

  53. Winter energy costs…whatever happened to global warming MSNBC.

  54. Nobody cares about teh gays. Quit making this election about gay rights.

    1. There do seem to be an overabundance of questions on it.

    2. It is incredible the attention it’s getting, considering the actual problems we’re facing.

  55. Did Romney just out someone he appointed to the bench? Cause I don’t recall him appointing any gays.

  56. Ha, good answer from Romney to a really dick question about the last time you spoke out for gay rights

  57. …treated with respect and dignity and charged with sodomy.

  58. Heard.. and then hung for their sexual deviance.

  59. Local affiliate moderators are even worse than network moderators.

    1. Or sleepovers with Marcus Bachmann.

  60. Wow, that was seriously a question? List the good that unions do?

  61. I wanted a national right to work law, but I was too much of a pussy to actually vote for it.

    1. Yeah, that shows what he actually cares about since he’s completely unbending on the Defense of Marriage Act regardless of public opposition.

  62. So does this end at 10am?

  63. The gay questions = Santorum’s finishing a close 2nd in Iowa. If he had finished 4th or below = no gay questions.

  64. Any bets on how many more questions Huntsman gets?

    Also, Tuna, I’m pretty sure it ends at 1030 or 11, didn’t start til 9.

    1. The Huntsman hour is next.

  65. MSNBC’s live feed really eats up my memory for some reason. Shitty ass network.

    1. It is Microsoft after all.

  66. Does anyone really have a discussion on Facebook?

    1. Yes, provided its with a girl you thought was hot in high school.

  67. You talking about attacking Iran, that’s what is pushing up oil prices Gingrich.

    1. Why do you hate America?

  68. Great vision? Jesus fucking H. Christ! How about a small vision? Leave me the fuck alone you mother fuckers!

  69. The only good thing about this debate has been that nobody’s really watching it.

  70. I wonder whether Gingrich is going to explode at some point. He looks really bloated.

    1. He kinda reminds me of those carrion worms from diablo 2.

  71. I can’t bring myself to watch any of these debates.

    If I’m not already on board with Ron Paul, then it’s not like I’m about to get on board with any of the rest of them. WWE is more interesting–plus, the WWE’s got hot chicks.

  72. Mitt Romney’s -full- of natural gas.

  73. I can’t say I understand why since this isn’t Fox, but NBC has officially entered the ignore Ron Paul portion of the debate.

    1. He’s had 3 questions so far I think? And they were all filled with false premises and logical fallacies.

      1. Surely this is offensive to the people in New Hampshire who have him at #2 in the polls.

  74. So is Paul done getting questions?

  75. WTH Perry, socialism wasn’t around at founding time.

  76. I couldn’t vote for a national right-to-work law, but I can vote for socialized medicine any day.

  77. Dammit. He blew this question.

  78. People in groups? He doesn’t like that? Quick- newsletters again.

  79. Good answer on Paul about “X rights.”

    1. I dunno. It was meandering. I thought the question was about health care entitled spending. Which Paul didn’t answer.

      1. Yeah, he should have said that if someone has a right to my time, then I am a little bit of a slave.

      2. I didn’t actually pay attention to the question, I just liked his answer, so maybe you’re right.


  81. Soft ball to Huntsman. WTF.

    1. Romney’s the Dreamboat-in-Chief, and Huntsman’s the Vice-Dreamboat of the United States, his second, so he MUST be given softballs and excuses to smile. What the hell are you, a libertard???

  82. I know our country’s pretty much fucked, but I want to build trust with the american people…

    before I slip it in each and every one of your asses.

  83. Don’t Christians also venerate martyrs?

  84. DPRK and USSR? They believed in nothing!

    1. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.

  85. What is the Catholic take on the afterlife again, Rick Santorum?

  86. Santorum will have a strong hand with Waziristan.

    1. You gotta keep your Wazirishand strong.

  87. So only non-christian theocracies pose risks?

  88. wow, this debate is worthless.

    “Mr Gingrich, how does this campaign’s tone make you -feel-?”

    1. 4 pinochios thought? That was obscene!

      1. Oh shit! Dick measuring contest inc.

    2. Is even more worthless when you consider how many times Gregory wanted this to be a debate on substance.

      1. You really could not prove that based on what I just saw. This debate was all “Ok, your talking points in 30 second intervals. 50% of time goes to Huntsman. Go!”

        1. Anyone watching this debate could be forgiven for thinking Romney and Huntsman are running neck and neck.

  89. Ron Paul is on Mitt’s mind.

  90. Newt is butt hurt.

  91. Nicely done, NBC. This isn’t a total waste of time or anything.

  92. I like how they agree to limit these questions to 30 seconds, then proceed to waste 5 minutes on shit nobody cares about.

  93. Let’s just spend the rest of the debate on this worthless topic.

  94. So the ‘lame stream media’ is now ‘Establishment Newspapers’?

  95. This just in! Rick Santorum confuses cause and effect yet again.

  96. We need a President/Pope.

    1. A Popsident.

  97. Quickly Dr. Paul! Quickly! We have no time!!!!

  98. I suggest that CSPAN runs a debate. Make it as boring and substantive as possible.

  99. To all future potential viewers of this debate:

    Do not watch it. It is a complete waste of your time. Go play Skyrim instead.

    1. Quickly Dr. Paul! Quickly! We have no time!!!!

    2. I have yet to watch any debate this year.

      In fact, the last debate I watched may have been in 1992.

  100. Paul should ask them what the hell they’re doing:

    “Why is that the second-place holder in this state, in a debate IN THIS STATE, has been asked only three questions during the entire debate, all loathsomely worthless and irrelevant, while everybody else gets a speech each?”

    And see their heads explode

    1. As Bea Tagger said above, “Surely this is offensive to the people in New Hampshire who have him at #2 in the polls.”

      I hope so.

  101. Man, I would be better off shooting heroin than watching this MSNBC post-debate show.

    1. You’d be better off shooting your TV.

  102. the kochs are so evil they even tell Matt Yglesias what to write.


    1. Did you read Yglesia’s article?

      1. yeah. He distorts imo. But how are the Kochs to blame for his idiocy?

      2. Caplan(why i’m not an austrian) might well be wrong but I don’t see how that creates a conspiracy of KOCH.

  103. Why is Timothy Hutton moderating this debate?

  104. Just a general comment after watching Stephanopoulos this morning:

    All his guests talked about what was needed to beat Obama: a candidate with passion, a candidate that can pull independent and democrat votes, and a candidate that can bring new people into the political process to vote.

    No one mentioned the name Ron Paul.

    As far as the debate goes last night, Paul did really well on the issues, but whenever Santorum speaks about family values, etc. he needs to make sure everyone knows that Paul believes the same thing, but he doesn’t think government should be involved in doing it.

    1. a candidate that can pull independent and democrat votes

      And the amazing thing is he can do this while being the biggest champion of small government running.

    2. LOL

      Santorum made a point to say that there should be no “classes” in America and a bunch of other stuff about class warfare, but his website states he wants to strengthen the middle class.

    3. Chris Wallace just hammered Paul about his criticism of the Civil Rights Act.

      Paul’s answers to tricky questions always seem to side stepping the issue.

      Would it really be that hard to say “Yes, not serving black people would be morally wrong, but the government shouldn’t have the right to tell you what to think.”

      Would it be that hard to say “The fundamental power of government is the ability to threaten people and use violence against them. So, if you legislate Christianity, Islam, or any particular world view, you are using violence to impose your world view on others.”

      Would it be that hard to counter Santorum by saying “Rick Santorum wants the government involved in the bedroom and at your dinner table. You may agree with Rick Santorum about his family values, but will you agree with the next president, or the next, or the next?”

      1. But they love having and keeping those stakes on the table. People tune into political debates like this mostly because they groove to the contest nature of it. Having a lot riding on who’s president and who else is in gov’t just makes it even more interesting to them.

        1. But the media is bottlenecking the voters into thinking that Romney is the default nominee, and the only one that can beat Obama.

          If they want stakes on the table, they’d be promoting as many options as possible.

          1. By “they” I didn’t mean the media, I meant the viewers. They want gov’t in the bedroom so they can tussle over it.

        2. It was like argument I heard or read over the Canadian charter of rights. There were those who openly stated they didn’t want too many or broad rights guarantees, for that would reduce the scope for politics to operate in — and political concern & involvement is such a civic virtue!

      2. Re: JEP,

        hris Wallace just hammered Paul about his criticism of the Civil Rights Act.

        Paul’s answers to tricky questions always seem to side stepping the issue.

        You must’ve seen a different interview, because Paul nailed Chris’s ass to the wall with his answer. In fact, Wallace became very annoyed at the little effect his question had on startling the congressman.

        Paul pointed out the racial divisiveness created by the government and how segregation was imposed by law (Paul here has a slip of the tongue and says “integration”, corrected by Wallace – to his credit, meaning he is listening for a change.) When asked if he would simply let people discriminate racially, Paul says that times have changed and that such things are ill-advised, and still says people discriminate lawfully by setting up exclusive clubs – ahhh, didn’t you know about these, Chris?

        1. “hammered” might have been the wrong term.

          I’ve been reading Ron Paul’s books one by one, and the arguments he presents in the books are quite eloquent compared to how he answers things in person.

          I’m just not sure that the average person is going to understand the direction that Paul is coming from, and he might need to preface his answers a little bit more.

          If you’ve been watching Fox/CNN your whole life; never really been interested in how economy/government/natural rights work, then you might have trouble connecting the dots.

          1. Re: JEP,

            If you’ve been watching Fox/CNN your whole life; never really been interested in how economy/government/natural rights work, then you might have trouble connecting the dots.

            Maybe some difficulty, but the important issue is if his argument is cogent. Some people may believe that government is there to right wrongs even if that means violating people’s property. But there are also those that may have suspected this imposition of a moral value is not ethical in itself, and Paul may have given them the philosophical ground work on which to dwell. I believe that is what’s important of Paul’s consistent defense of individual rights in the form of a basic philosophical framework, because it gets people interested in what are rights and the role of government.

          2. Natural law doesn’t work, it’s just made up as its adherents go along. Utilitarianism has its flaws but at least its adherents are honest about where its assumptions come from.

            1. If natural law is bunk then force is the natural ruler

    4. Ron Paul is not going to pull in Democrat votes. They care more about govt goodies than war/torture/indefinite detention/SOPA/etc.

      1. I think I read that he was pulling 10%, and it’s amazing that any Repub. would be pulling Dems.

        1. That’s just Dems venting their frustration against BO when they know it won’t matter. Come election time they’ll return to their lanky master.

          1. ^THIS and THIS

        2. It’s irrelevant, as the Independents will vote for Paul over Obama, I think. Plus, I know a few Democrats that – once I told them – were absolutely outraged over the NDAA being signed by Obama. I don’t expect a huge Democratic turnout for Paul, but to assume that none of them are more concerned about civil liberties is a bit of a stretch as well, IMO.

      2. Agreed. Democrats are 80% about wealth redistribution, the rest of the issues are just so they can feel “culturally diverse”.

        To be fair, though, Republicans are 60% about militarism and preserving our ability to “project power”.

        So, on and on both sides spend…

  105. 9am Sunday debate is pretty much guaranteed to be watched by pundits, insomniacs and no one else. Paul could have slept in and won the debate.

    1. Re: Lost_In_Translation,

      Paul could have slept in and won the debate.

      He didn’t and he did.

  106. You have to admit, Newt would slay Obama in a debate. I would love to see Newt and Obama square off, he would fillet him and serve his socialist policies up nicely for us to eat.

    1. Newt did extremely well last night. I hate the fucking guy, but he is very smart and I agree that he would stomp Obama.

      1. Newt may be clever, but he’s far from smart.

        1. I suppose there is intended to be some sort of fourth-definition-down-the-list “cleverness” in that statement but it is otherwise bullshit.

          1. Ok, how about crafty?

            1. He’s “far from” crafty? I don’t know how crafty he is. I only know that he’s quite clever and quite smart.

              1. Ok, well I generally expect “smart” people to know things and be able think critically, not just make shit up that sounds good.

                1. I think only really smart people are capable of the latter.

      2. He would stomp Obama, up until Obama states “didn’t you use to be FOR the policies I’ve enacted?” Given Gingrich’s initial support of individual healthcare mandates, intervention in Libya, etc. his strong debating won’t really matter anymore.

        Plus, he’s not even that smart. He’s a dumb person’s idea of a smart person – an “ideas guy”. A truly smart individual doesn’t have a lot of ideas – but the ones he has are well thought through (not just flung out there whenever initially though up) and analyzed to be sure they are GOOD ideas.

  107. I’m a Ron Paul guy 10000%, but from what I saw of him yesterday (was flipping back and forth between the Saints game) he did poorly.

    I didn’t care for his insistence on attacking Gingrich with his “I served in the military you didn’t na-na-na-na-na.” On top of that, he seemed to trip up over his words and was visibly emotional. Did not look impressive.

    When asked about the newsletters, his answer not only dodged the question, but was longwinded and seemed “all over the place.” Asking “Have you ever seen a rich white guy get the electric chair” was simply a silly sentence and seemed like something Al Sharpton would say.

    His more toned down responses – like how he explained why the Patriot Act violates the 4th amendment, were much better.

    1. His answer at the end about economics, probably the area Paul has most expertise in, was good too.

    2. I didn’t care for his insistence on attacking Gingrich with his “I served in the military you didn’t na-na-na-na-na.”

      Uh, Stephanopoulos brought that up, not Paul.

      I agree on the overall performance….more than anything else he looked tired to me.

      1. YES – now that you say it, I’d say he was tired, too.

        1. I’d imagine the usual campaign routine is rough on 76-year-olds…

          1. Hell, it’s probably rough on a 46-year-old.

      2. Uh, Stephanopoulos brought that up, not Paul.

        No shit, but Ron Paul kept the answer going much longer than he had to. I honestly believe that he just wanted to kick Newt in the face with his answers.

        I hate NG as much as anyone, but I don’t think this is the way to debate him.

    3. Did not look impressive.

      Unfortunately, he never looks impressive.

      1. Re: IceNine,

        Unfortunately, he never looks impressive.

        That’s probably his best asset – he doesn’t look like a big phony.

        1. Yeah, I like the way he looks just fine. Historically however having a less than impressive countenance costs one votes.

          1. Apparently you’re not allowed to express the slightest negative about Ron Paul on this thread, Ice Nine.

            He’s perfect, don’t ya know?

            1. I’m a Paul fan myself but must say that your observation rings pretty true according to my observations here. That said, I read OM’s comment as essentially neutral.

            2. OM’s heart is in the right place, but he can be a bit crotchety at times. He’s the Colonel Potter of H&R.

              1. Crotchety is right. See below.

            3. double edge sword.. if everyone were as “neutral” and “impartial” and “passive” as you were to lay back and criticize your guy when we’re in midst of a battle where you have an actual and real opposition, paul wouldn’t be having his grassroots energy, and this whole talk is moot in the first place anyway.

              you are like some guy complaining medicine tastes too chemical-like. well that’s the whole point. and get this–you’re still taking it. we’re still relying on ‘paulbots’ to raise awareness against the two-party system, all the while criticizing their passion without which it becomes curious why they even do this, being obviously of no benefit to their immediate personal gain. slap the hand that feeds you. talk about hypocrisy.

              1. You sound like an Obamabot telling Democratic bloggers to shut up about indefinite detention.

                1. Tulpa, I disagree. I think there is some room for disagreement on Paul, but if you have decided that he is the best candidate in this race – and I doubt most Reasonites are preferring anyone like Santorum or Romney – then it becomes counterproductive to criticize him while trying to get him elected. Certainly, the supporters of the other candidates aren’t going to go out of their way to point out how they disagree with “their guy”.

    4. Re: Jacob,

      When asked about the newsletters, his answer not only dodged the question, but was longwinded and seemed “all over the place.”

      You’ve got to be kidding me. First, he didn’t “dodge” the question as he has given the answer many times over. Second, how is pointing out the racism behind the pursuit of the drug wars and the inherent bias against minorities in judicial outcomes be construed as being “all over the place”? Do you at least know the meaning of the phrase?

      Asking “Have you ever seen a rich white guy get the electric chair” was simply a silly sentence and seemed like something Al Sharpton would say.

      And yet Paul is the racist who wrote racist things that were racist, right?

      I thought he handled that question masterfully, even making Stephanopoulos wishing he hadn’t asked it. That answer put the final nail in the coffin for the newsletter smear-o-fest.

      1. I suspect you and I were not watching the same debate, or you were heavily intoxicated when you watched it.

        When the moderator asked Paul to explain why he’s not responsible for the newsletters, he said that he can’t be a racist because MLK is his hero, and that he has voted against the drug war, leading into his diatribe about minorities being dispoportionately affected by it and war. None of these points have anything to do with why he’s not responsible for the content of his newsletters.

        And yet Paul is the racist who wrote racist things that were racist, right?

        This is a non sequiter. Nowhere in my post did I claim RP is a racist. Or, are you saying that I think Ron Paul is a racist because I don’t like Al Sharpton? Just because I think he answered the question in a shitty manner does not mean I think he wrote the letters himself nor do I consider him a racist.

        I think you’re passion for supporting your Paul is blinding your (normally) rational thinking.

        1. Re: jacob,

          When the moderator asked Paul to explain why he’s not responsible for the newsletters,

          He did take moral responsibility for them many times, jacob. The question has been asked and answered many times before. Paul called the question, correctly, a distraction.

          None of these points have anything to do with why he’s not responsible for the content of his newsletters.

          He did answer the question, jacob – he said he did not write those comments. Go back to the video and tell me to my face that he did not say that. Besides, this is a debate format and the question had a clear intention of startling and smearing the congressman with an irrelevant question.

          This is a non sequiter. Nowhere in my post did I claim RP is a racist.

          You brought up the newsletter issue, jacob. Do I have to assume that the reason was an entirely innocent one, that you’re really that interest in a reply that satisfies your phony righteousness?

          1. I did not bring up the newsletter issue OM, I said that Paul did poorly last night, and the newsletter question was an example of it.

            He did take moral responsibility for them many times

            Yes, but I think that what he’s said in the past has no bearing on last night’s debate.

            the question had a clear intention of startling and smearing the congressman with an irrelevant question.

            OK – I’m with you, no argument from me.

            satisfies your phony righteousness?

            Quit being a whiner.

            Look, you and I are on the same page about Ron Paul. I fully intend to vote for him. As an ardent supporter, I don’t see anything wrong with a little critique. He’s not God. Reading your posts, I wonder if you don’t get that.

            1. Re: jacob,

              I did not bring up the newsletter issue OM, I said that Paul did poorly last night, and the newsletter question was an example of it.

              You brought them up as an example of how poorly he did on the debate. YOU did. I did not see this failing you keep pointing out except when asked about his vision for America which he answered with a diatribe on Austrian economics. I believe he could’ve been more inspiring right there, but he is what he is.

              Yes, but I think that what he’s said in the past has no bearing on last night’s debate.

              Now you’re simply being an ass, jacob. Again, it’s a debate, not a court.

              1. Wow.

                Just fucking wow. I’ve never seen you this off.

        2. I think you’re passion for supporting your Paul is blinding your (normally) rational thinking.

          That one made me laugh out loud.

    5. It’s true though…

      Drug laws and gun control were basically part of the Jim Crow laws, they were racistly inspired. And certainly are enforced that way.

      1. Fine. But please explain to me what that has to do with Ron Paul’s newsletters?

        1. “Fine. But please explain to me what that has to do with Ron Paul’s newsletters?”

          Candidates are given miniscule amounts of time to support their agendas in a debate. The newsletter question has been asked and answered REPEATEDLY. So, should I as a candidate:

          A. Rehash it again?


          B. Take the time to express my philosophy?

          1. C. Answer the question that was asked.

            The question was something about why he’s not responsible for the newsletters. Saying “I already answered that, next” is a direct answer. Reciting your philosophy to “prove” you’re not a racist is not the way to go IMO because
            1) that doesn’t prove you didn’t write the letters
            2) It is not what was asked.

            I get what you’re saying, about getting the word out there about your philosophy and what not. I just think RP could have answered the question better. I’d even prefer if he outright said “I’ve answered this question a thousand times and I’m wondering why you guys keep bringing this up instead of asking me about the real issues and that makes me a good candidate.”

            1. that = what

            2. Re: jacob,

              1) that doesn’t prove you didn’t write the letters

              That was a debate, jacob, not a court. He doesn’t need to prove a negative. He pointed out correctly

              Again, you’re asking for something that goes beyond the scope of the format, and I have to question why.

            3. Why should any politician answer a question from an idiot?

              1. Why show up to the debate in the first place, then?

  108. yep I think I’ve come around to be a Newt supporter even though I’m libertarian leaning. What Newt says makes perfect sense, and he would destroy Obama in a debate. I can overlook his other problems if he will push forward a smaller govt message and get things done.

    1. So what if Newt could destroy Obama in a debate?

      His policies will help destroy the country by traveling down the same roads that created all the problems in the first place. He’ll start more wars, ignore the Fed manipulating our currency, and he’ll for sale to the highest bidder.

      1. Newt supports TARP, that’s all you need to know.

      2. I think you haven’t been listening to Newt in the debates then, because thats not what he said he will do. He was talking about re-assessing our foreign policy which is the best you can hope for in a Repub candidate. The rest of your comment is gibberish.

        1. You’re either a troll or mind-bendingly stupid. Your spelling is good so I’m leaning toward the former.

          1. not a troll, just a lurker on this board for many years. I know all you guys by name and I know where you are coming from. I’m a libertarian who believes that the pressing issue right now is the economy, not foreign policy or anything else. I’m unemployed looking for a job and I think Newt if you guys will listen to him, can get the job done (real cuts to govt, re-assessing foreign policy, making changes in the entitlement programs that make them sustenable long term and allow you to opt out if you are younger. That’s what Newt has been talking about.

            1. That’s what Newt has been talking about.


            2. If you don’t get that that our foreign policy is a big contributing factor to our woeful economy, there isn’y much that anyone can say that will help you.

              1. I do get that its a small part of our woeful economy, its not the major driver of our debt however.

                1. Are you retarded? We spend trillions on war and it has little effect on our economy? Really? Don’t think private citizens could spend that money any better?

                  1. wars are being wound down as we speak, and I agree that we need to spend much less on our defense budget (different from war spending). Not sure we’re that far apart here.

                2. It’s certainly a damn significant portion of our debt.

                  I don’t remember where I heard, but I think the last estimate was that the wars were costing us 2 billion dollars a day.

                  Add that to the 1.4 billion we spend per day just “paying” off the interest to the debt we already have.

        2. What worries me about every political candidate is whether or not they can be bought by special interest. Both Santorum and Gingrich seem like they can be bought. Just like Obama, they campaign on one platform, and then they don’t deliver once in office because they’re being paid off.

          Newt is willing to continue propping up the American Empire, he’s not concerned about the role of the Federal Reserve and regaining control of our currency, and he has a history of changing his views whenever he was paid enough. I’m not sure what’s so unclear about that.

          Also, your face is gibberish.

        3. you answered your own question about why Newt raises questions here: “if he will push a small govt message…” Little in Newt’s history speaks to a will to do that. Newt sees govt as a benevolent force that can do good and great things to help folks; Obama’s vision is malevolent.

        4. Concern troll is concerned, guys.

    2. Re: Chris,

      I can overlook his other problems if he will push forward a smaller govt message and get things done.

      Overlook those smaller problems like never meaning what he says about pushing forward smaller government and getting things done?

      1. Ole Mexican: look I’m willing to give him a chance, thats all. I’m not some kind of huge Newt supporter, he’s just what I have decided is the best of the crop. I don’t know what you are talking about precisely, I do know that he is responsible for welfare reform. They now make welfare recipients prove they are looking for work and kick them off it if they are not. That’s a small step forward in wrenching back the government largesse over the years that I think Newt should be proud of. You can’t build Rome in a day, its gonna take a lot of little reforms to wrestle the size and scope of government back down to a reasonable level.

  109. Holy shit, dudes: my strongly Bushite neighbor just ranted for 20 minutes about how sick of all that “riciluous, unbelievable shit” the government’s been doing, so he and most of his immediate family are now going to vote for Paul. SUCCESS.

    1. I’m trying to convince my parents. One of my sisters has already committed.

      My parents are strict evangelical Christians who rabidly watch Fox News. I have them convinced about economic issues, but I’m fighting against the media warmongering on foreign policy.

      1. Nothing says Christian love like bombing furren brown kids.

        1. It was a tense Christmas when I got my Dad to admit that the authority of government was rooted in it’s ability to use legalized violence, and then proceeded to equate using government power to enforce Christian values with the radical Islamic mandate to conquer the world and convert or kill the conquered.

        2. We have to protect our white children!

      2. I got my sister, who is a public school teacher, BTW, to be a Paul-ite too. She used to be a raging liberal (before she had a job and a house, that is), then she went over to Bush/McCain style conservative and now she’s for Paul.

        My Dad, on the other hand is a lost cause. He’s a price-control freak. Every time the subject of the economy comes up (whether good or bad), his “solution” is, “The government needs to force the price of to be lower. I don’t know why the hell people can’t see that.”

        He’s a nice guy and all, and he was a good dad, but sometimes I really envy you folks that have two sets of smart genes.

        1. Edit:

          “…force the price of [insert good or service] to be lower…”

  110. There’s a small chance I might vote for Romney, as he won’t be any better than Obama but probably won’t be any worse. The best thing is to delay collapse/WWIII/whatever for 4 years until Rand Paul/Paul Ryan/Gary Johnson get enough support to make a run. However, there is no chance of me voting for Gingrich. Gingrich (and Santorum, to an extent, but I doubt he can win) is main candidate I’m actually scared of. His answer on civil liberties (that presidential power hasn’t been expanded enough) and his obsession with controlling the economy seem to be worse than Barry. I hate to be that guy to use the F word, but Newt might be the closest thing to a fascist I’ve seen in my lifetime.

    1. Same here. I really hope Ron Paul gets the nomination. If Romney gets the GOP nod, then I’ll vote for him. Otherwise, I’ll be voting for Gary Johnson.

      1. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Romney. If it’s Gingrich, I’ll write-in Paul. If it’s Santorum, I’ll vote for Obama because if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him, they deserve four more years of this. Might just as well accelerate the collapse so we can hit the bottom and start over.

      2. I’ll hold my nose and vote for Romney. If it’s Gingrich, I’ll write-in Paul. If it’s Santorum, I’ll vote for Obama because if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him, they deserve four more years of this. Might just as well accelerate the collapse so we can hit the bottom and start over.

    2. as he won’t be any better than Obama
      please explain this as it does not stand up the intellectual smell test. It’s not about liking Romney but equating him to Obama is ludicrous.

      Romney came into office with a deficit and left surplus; not Obama. Romney put forth his own money in taking over struggling companies and made many of them prosperous; Obama put your money into failing enterprises that still show no sign of life. Romney is not attempting to dictate what you eat, drive, or use for household energy. If you don’t like him, at least have a more valid reason than you think he’s Obama in whiteface. Obama is hellbent on the destruction of the America you were born into; I doubt Romney is that guy.

      1. This is what I really don’t like about Romney:

        He’s a windmill, changing his stance on key issues. I wouldn’t know exactly what I’m voting for…he may change his position once in office.

        It scares me whenever he’s asked a question and he passes the buck. Such as, “Well, I’d have to ask my team of lawyers what we’re allowed to do.” Or when he was asked about contraception and he differed the answer to Ron Paul. Paul should have taken a jab at him and said something like “Well, you may be taking an oath to the defend the Constitution next year, so you might want to know what’s in it.”

        And just like with Newt and Santorum, I think Romney will just be a pawn once in office.

        1. You’re right, but on the other hand, he’s not going to see his job as “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He’ll be a steward, rather than some Dear Leader with a Vision for the Future. That’s definitely an improvement over Obama (or Gingrich or Santorum, IMO).

          1. He’ll be a steward, rather than some Dear Leader with a Vision for the Future.

            And that is the problem.
            This country is heading towards a cliff, and Mitt’s solution is to grip the steering wheel and hold steady. We might as well have O in office when we crash over the guard rail so that he will take the blame.

            1. Well, to further your analogy, Obama will have the accelerator on the floor, while Romney will keep the car at a reasonable speed. There still might be time to stop; but each year with Obama in the driver’s seat makes that more unlikely.

        2. He’s a windmill, changing his stance on key issues. I wouldn’t know exactly what I’m voting for…he may change his position once in office.

          But if you disagree with his positions, that should be a good thing.

    3. I doubt Newt would be effective enough to put his fascist tendencies into actual practice. He’s pretty easy to back down, too. Not that I’m a fan. He & Santorum are the worst case candidates, IMO.

      1. Santorum is much worse. He’s a true believer in fascism and that he’s the top man to implement it.

        Newt’s a gadfly that has an ability to piss everyone off and get little done.

        1. the top man

          What is it with Santorum and the gay allusions?

  111. David Axelrod is still an odious sleazy little shitbag.

    That is all.

    1. Not that you shouldn’t have known this already.

      But what did he do this to make you comment thus?

  112. What Newt says makes perfect sense



    1. I LOL’d.

  113. Huntsman is looking a lot like the thinking man’s legacy media’s choice (by acclamation) for Veep.

    I eagerly await the coverage of Saint Obama striding Presidentially through the still-smoking rubble of the Romney/Huntsman campaign next November.

    1. I don’t know. Huntsman is very appealing to moderate Democrats who are not happy with Obama. He could probably peel off some normally Democratic voters as VP. If he ran 3rd party, I think he would do serious damage to Obama. Not that I think he will.

      1. My incredibly mean-spirited and hateful grandmother likes Huntsman a lot because that seems like the right thing to do.

        That’s all I really need to know.

        And yes, she’s like 88 and still has it in her to be a mean and awful person.

    2. Romney’s VP going to be either Rubio or Christie, Romney is leading Obama in almost every battleground state in the country, and Romney is going to beat him.

      1. Seems to be the most likely outcome, at this point. Though ten months is a long time in politics, of course.

  114. I slept till noon.

    All football – no politics!

    Almanian – 2012

    1. I approve of your football watching policy.
      Sleeping til noon? I approve of your church skipping policy.
      Where do you stand on killing Flanders?

    2. I am intrigued by your point of view and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  115. I am really quite grateful to the powers what be at ABC who finally heaved that obnoxious mooing agony aunt C Amanpour overboard, but I cannot help wondering what possessed them to add a laugh track to the show.

  116. Sadly, that performance will not ruin the careers of ABC News’ Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos

    Nothing will hurt the career of Diane Sawywer as long as she keeps doing what has worked to keep her job: Give great “helmet.”

    I don’t know about George, though… I am pretty sure he saw My Own Private Idaho yet can’t say if he got the hint.

  117. Ron Paul is a racist homophobic anti-abortion loon. How can I vote for him?

    1. Ron Paul is a racist homophobic anti-abortion loon. How can I vote for him?

      By pressing on the button to the right of his name, come voting day.

      ->>>> o Ronald Ernest Paul

      1. Okay… who’s spoofing as Lefty McGee? Because you’re not adding enough hate to it. Step it up, yo.

        1. Needs more “Christ-fag”.


            1. If Obama doesn’t get re-elected, starving black children will be feasting on our grandmothers.

              1. I tend to agree, in the most pretentious way possible.

      2. How does a nation operate with the government NOT being allowed to tell merchants/corporations that they have to respect civil rights laws, and NOT discriminate?

        1. Seriously, dude, try harder. Develop a unique persona, and preferably a few catchphrases.

          When you aren’t on screen, the rest of us should be asking, “Where’s Lefty McGee?”

          1. He’s certainly no Slapdick!

          2. “I want you to notice when trolls aren’t around”

          3. I caught your Poochy reference

        2. Re: Lefty MgGee,

          How does a nation operate with the government NOT being allowed to tell merchants/corporations that they have to respect civil rights laws, and NOT discriminate?

          Nations do not operate, they’re not machines. Or people.

          And merchants discriminate all the time: If you don’t have money, they won’t sell you something.

        3. *yawn*

          Still woefully inadequate, “Lefty”.

          1. RON PAUL is a bunch of truly insane ideas that would devastate this country’s economy and lead to a ton of Americans living in abject, crushing poverty. The big picture doesn’t paint him as anyone who should be NEAR the Oval Office.

            1. Okay, Nostradamus. Whatever.

            2. Listen, asshole. I will not sit idly by and watch you besmirch the highly respect troll-name of McGee. Your inability to engage regulars on here to the point that they become enraged is pathetic.

              Please, either change your name or step up your game, because this unacceptable level of trolling is making me sick.

              1. It’s like they just tap into Kos or whatever source is handy, and don’t put any thought into it.

                Then again, one can find similar anti-Paul shit on, say, Freeperville…

            3. Re: Lefty McGee,

              RON PAUL is a bunch of truly insane ideas

              A person cannot be a bunch or even one idea. A person is a being.

              that would devastate this country’s economy and lead to a ton of Americans living in abject, crushing poverty.

              That would be a great improvement, as a ton of Americans is not really that many Americans, even if those chosen have the weight of Kate Moss.

            4. Ah, someone who trolls about how I fly fish. Thwack, thwack, thwack…. dammit!

    2. Ron Paul is a racist homophobic anti-abortion loon. How can I vote for him?

      Bring a prostitute in the voting booth with you and remember:

      Bitches and Blow, bitchez!

      But first, take your head out of your ass.

  118. For those who read Feminist (just me, guys? You people are dicks), it appears that they are super pissed that some of their progressive co-travellers are shilling for Ron Paul. In their week reader, they had promoted an article on how crazy progressives are for liking him, and also a doom and gloom about what would happen if the Republican field wins (dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria).

    Last week in their reader, they had another anti-Paul screed. I have some good articles for this week, let me tell ya, including one where Feministing tries to explain how Obama HAD to pass the indefinite detention guys, he only hits us because he loves us, our principles fell into a doorknob!

    1. The same feminists who overlooked Bill C’s penchant for having sex with chubby chicks from the steno pool?

      1. Honestly, I think that the Jezebel and Feministing types just wave their hands and make up some bullshit about how those were ignorant “second wave” feminists, whereas they are enlightened “third wave” (or we may be on the fourth wave, I lost track of this shit ages ago) feminists.

        1. “Fifth Column” feminists?

        2. They’re leftists because they’re expected to be. Hell, they look at France and Italy wistfully, ignoring the fact that they are both misogynistic hellholes for women. They look up to Bubba and Algor, even though they are both scumbags toward women. They still hold a torch for John Edwards.

          IOW, they are a bunch of sheep.

          1. Temporarily forgot about Edwards. He makes Newt look like a piker, in the “I’m gonna fuck around on my sick wife” department, because Newt’s wife at the time *didn’t* die of cancer.

  119. Holy Shit, the Washington Monthly has a doom and gloom about the Republians beating Obama, featuring our beloved Dave Wiegel.

    Apparently, the EPA will be no more, the Conservative takeover of the Courts will be complete, Obamacare is toast, and we are back to 2008 financial regs.

    Apparently, this all a bad thing somehow.

  120. Barack Obama is a bunch of truly insane ideas that would devastate this country’s economy and lead to a ton of Americans living in abject, crushing poverty. The big picture doesn’t paint him as anyone who should be NEAR the Oval Office.

    FIFY’d. No charge.

    1. But Obama’s not a homophobic misogynist.

      1. See, you need to say: But Obama’s not a homophobic misogynist like Ron Pual.

        Jesus, man. This is Trolling 101.

        1. Prove the homophobia and misogyny.

          While you’re at it, how do you overlook the proven, disgusting traits of your fellow leftists?

          1. I think you misunderstood my post, FIFY. I’m just trying to enhance our Sundays by giving sagelike advice to our trolls.

            1. I was posting to Lefty. But I am a bit fuzzy this afternoon…

              1. I notice no one has cursed threaded comments yet. Just sayin’

      2. But Obama’s not a homophobic misogynist.

        No, but I bet your Mom is.

  121. the EPA will be no more, the Conservative takeover of the Courts will be complete, Obamacare is toast, and we are back to 2008 financial regs.

    Truly, the End Times are upon us.

    So, anyway….. There I was, innocently checking the Indycar news at Speedvision, just to see how they’re coming along on that whole slow motion suicide business, and there’s an article about Randy Bernard’s latest new brainstorm to further Disneyfy the sport of open wheel racing. I’ll spare you the nuts and bolts (suffice it to say, my reaction may be summarized as “WTF SRSL????”), but in the comments, I shit you not, some guy is lecturing the troglodytes about how we NEED regulation (and plenty of it), and Teddy Roooooosevelt was the greatest president ever.

    They’re everywhere.

  122. RP when asked about Romney, about his opinion on “who’s the true conservative”:

    You know, I think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial and I think the question in the way that you asked is superficial, and that you’re talking about character–which is very important–but I think we should deal with the issues as well.

    [… mentions list of issues to challenge Obama…]
    but if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk about. Character is important and motivation is important and our history (i.e. candidate’s personal history) is important, but I really consider that in the debate format to be less significant than what we really believe in.

  123. It’s a mystery.

    Since the Jan. 8, 2011, shooting spree at one of her Congress on Your Corner constituent events, Giffords has been largely absent from Capitol Hill, although she did return with great fanfare to cast a surprise Aug. 1 vote for a compromise to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. She received a warm bipartisan welcome from her colleagues on the House floor.

    Overall, her Arizona constituents have given her wide leeway in her recovery and there has been no serious push for her to step down.

    But one political expert said a Giffords decision to seek another two-year term would invite more scrutiny of her condition and ability to serve. While Giffords’ congressional staff has been praised for the job it has done in her office since the shooting, her constituents largely have been without a vote in Congress.

    “When is she going to be able to show up on a day-to-day basis and serve in Congress, and does she owe that information to her constituents before she decides to seek re-election?” asked Paul Sracic, chairman of the political-science department at Youngstown State University in Ohio. “This is where things, I know, get a little bit touchy, but is she willing, for example, to have her doctor talk about her condition so that her constituents know exactly what the prognosis is before they make the decision about whether to send her back to Congress?”

    1. Well her job is to represent the people of her district, and as such she has an obligation to speak to her constituents in person and provide proof that she is fit to do her job.

      She should probably take the next two years off to recover. I’m sure there are plenty of ways she can remain active in politics.

    2. This country needs more Congresspersons who don’t show up for work, not less.

      1. I didn’t read the link. Was there a rehash of “Loughner shot Giffords because he was influenced by Rush Limbaugh”?

        1. “Loughner shot Giffords because the Constitution is for neo-Confederates and white people suck.”

          1. Sounds familiar…

            1. That’s pretty much our entire evening lineup script.

  124. I’m going to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. That said… I am getting fed up with the conspiracy mindset of many Ron Paul supporters. I’m not talking about the Troofers. I’m not talking about the Chemtrailertrash. I’m not talking about those crypto-anti-semites who rant on about Jewish Bankers.

    Instead I’m talking about those paranoids who think everything is being run by insiders who’ve brainwashed the public. They talk about breaking the matrix, as if we’re all drugged and unable to recognize the reality around us. They talk about the media blackout when Ron Paul has been getting huge amounts media attention. They talk about how the GOP establishment won’t let Ron Paul win (and they say this to the faces of Gary Johnson supporters).

    Ten years ago we would never have imagined this. Ron Paul placed a close third in the Iowa caucuses, and he might very well get the nomination. Yet there are all these supporters that instead of dancing are ranting that the ubiquitous they are keeping their candidate down.

    1. To be fair, a lot of people do fit into the brainwashed category, Brandy… they’re called Republicans and Democrats.

          1. …oh, no, we di’nt!

    2. I don’t think it’s a conspiracy, but just a certain mindset that needs to be broken. Ron Paul’s campaign isn’t traditional in the since that he’s not trying to get people to like him, or to get votes by promising kickbacks like other politicians.

      Because RP is the alternative to the establishment, he has to win people over with fundamental ideas – meaning that people have to realize that something about the establishment is wrong.

      So, I don’t believe there’s a conspiracy, but I do believe that RP is going against the establishment of both Repubs. and Dems. The establishment doesn’t like it, and RP has an uphill battle because to win voters, he has to open their eyes to a knew way of thinking.

      1. No it’s not a conspiracy. But when a sizable chunk of Ron Paul supporters cry foul everytime Ron Paul faces a hurdle that every other presidential candidate in history has had to face, it’s time they woke up and smelled the coffee.

    3. It does seem that Ron Paul has picked up some ex-Lyndon LaRouche supporters. As long as they know where their polling place is, and where to send the money, who cares?

  125. Oh yeah, well so what if Obama has the power to indefinitely detain US citizens and has a penchant for killing Muslim people with predator drones, at least he believes women can have an abortion and that the Federal government should actively prosecute thoughtcrime via hate crime and anti-discrimination laws.

    And who knows, maybe his position on gay rights and drug laws will “evolve” to supporting them.

    1. And who knows, maybe his position on gay rights and drug laws will “evolve” to supporting them.

      You are an excellent example of why abortion should be legal. Keep up the good work!

  126. summary:
    herp derp

  127. well, I believe herp and then more derp.

  128. Tedious spooftroll is tedious.

  129. Mike Smith is a fucking moron.

    The Falcons would be ahead now if he didn’t insist on going for it on 4th down all the time.

    1. Not to mention his shitty clock management at the end of the first half.

  130. And the Falcons defense responds by laying an egg. wtf

    Is it me or does Smith always look like he’s holding back tears?

  131. Has there ever been a playoff game where the losing team scored 2 points?

  132. Although I would have preferred to play the Falcons only because the Packers would slaugther them, I will find it more satisfying to see Green Bay beat Eli Manning and the Giants.

    1. It’s not as satisfying as seeing Eli losing at home. I grew up in Connecticut. The only team worth rooting for from New York is the Mets, and that’s only because I find being a Mets fan than a professional dominatrix.

      1. Plus Manning face




    1. Who the fuck am I kidding, guys? Bitch looks like a solar system. I gotta get the fuck out of this marriage, and right now. There’s babes to knock up, pot to smoke, and wiggers to put down in spontaneous rap competitions. Fuck this politics shit, I’M DONE!

  134. OT:…..140729.jpg




    1. But cops are all about fairness and due process. Right? RIGHT?

  136. Buckle up, it’s TEBOW TIME

  137. Let’s go Stil-lers! (da-da-da-da—-da-duh)
    Let’s go Stil-lers! (da-da-da-da—-da-duh)

    1. Steelers 3-0 Tebows

      That might just be enough to win.

      1. Fuck that. GO BRONCOS

        (Genuflects, places forehead on fist)

        1. Pittsburgh’s D is just too good against the run.

    2. Jesus Christ. Tebow missed his receiver by 5 yards on a simple hitch.

      1. Yeah, that was a horrible throw.

        1. Aw, come on!!!!!! No defensive holding there? Incidental tripping? If you trip a receiver, you trip him. Period.

          Steelers 6-0 Tebows. This game is a blowout.

          1. I should have known it – you’re fokin’ Yinzer.

            Yinzer [more execrable than] Tebow

            1. You know me better than that. Hell, I grew up with Ben-gals season tickets. I just hate them. Been a Steelers fan my whole life.

    3. I hate the Stillers. Including Ben.

      1. Come on, his dad invented Festivus. That’s awesome.

      2. Pittsburgh could win this game with Ben Stiller at QB.

        1. HFS – I strayed away from the game only to find that the Steelers appear to have Jerry Stiller at QB.

  138. FUCK FOOTBALL? Our nation is at a crossroads, OBAMA’S RELECtION is inDOUBT and you are talkin bout hand-egg?

    /Stop Sprawl

    1. “Obama’s reelection is in doubt”

      You say that as if it’s a bad thing.

    2. Take note: ^^This^^ is the way to troll. Random ALL CAPS, poor grammar, Obama, misuse of shift key, misspellings and insulting football.

      Jesus, this is a work of art.

      1. thank you.

        1. That was you, Pants?


          1. The question mark after “fuck football” should’ve been a giveaway…

            1. I thought there were some other subtle clues?
              Oh well.

              1. I am not on my game today. And I’m out of Jagermeister.

                1. FIFY – I have an almost-full bottle and two shot glasses. C’mon over – games on, man.

                  1. Thanks for the invite, but I’d imagine quite the road trip would be ahead of me…

                    1. Hello – TRANSPORTER ROOM!

                      Mr. Scott!

                      /Trek dork

                    2. We’d probably have transporters by now if not for liberals, social conservatives, and Paulie Krugnuts.

                    3. Question: if you could be transported right this minute, where would you go?

                    4. New Zealand.

      2. Nah. That shit makes people scroll past you. You have to lure people into taking you seriously to be an elite troll.

        1. On a weekday, I would agree. But on the weekend? During playoff football? I think it’s more about persistently posting low-hanging fruit.

      3. Parker L can’t lose.

    3. Fuck football? Well, Pantsfan, I can see you don’t want cheering up. C’mon H&R, let’s get us a lane.


    Oh, wait – that was last-night’s tweet. They lost.

    As you were.

    1. We all found out a law of physics from that game: what happens when an immovable object meets an irresistable force very little resistance.

      1. That which is foreseeable is….probably going to happen.

        Or something.

        /modified RC Dean Iron Law

        1. /modified RC Dean Iron Law

          If it is modifiable it is more like a Bronze Law than an Iron one.

          1. Juros – RC Dean’s laws are Iron. The fact that I modified it – yeah, that took some brass….OH! I’ll be here all week! Try the chicken fingers!

            1. And now, the comedic stylings of… Paul Krugman! Give it up for Paul!

              1. *crickets*

          2. Aluminum Law?

            1. Aluminum Law?

              [golf clap]

            2. AL Law > LA Law

              1. Law & Order Law.

              2. Law & Order: LA > LA Law

        2. You got that right. The Saints are just unbelievable right now. I feel bad for the Lions. That’s a tough way to end one hell of a season.

          1. Always been a Saints fan, even when they sucked.

            But being a lifelong Chiefs fan, I have a soft spot for teams that suck.

          2. I thought Payton and Brees were being pricks throwing the ball up 17 with about 3 minutes left.

            Of course, they kept throwing up big in week 16 to get the yardage record then, and kept throwing in week 17 to get the 46th TD and pass Aaron Rodgers, who threw his 45 TDs in only 15 games.

  140. Those of you in the Bowl Pick-em (why aren’t you in there, Pants Fan?) take note: The lovely Banjos is about to win the whole damn thing.

    Three people still have the chance to overtake her and three more can tie her.

    1. I am in there. I’m The Art History Majors.
      At least I’m not last.

      1. I should have notice your manager’s name.

      2. “three more can tie her”

        That triggered my dirty ol’ man reflex…

        1. I should have said “I can tie her.” The other two don’t matter.

    2. Lovely Banjos, “Beloved Commenter…whomever”, Everyone Loves Lucy (Steigerwald)….the chicks get all the love at H&R.

      Rightfully so.

      1. Wait, Banjos is female?

        That makes the “Tulpy Poo” business a bit less creepy at least.

  141. TD Tebows!

    1. *Tebows*

    2. Aw, fuck. That was a nice pass. The one before it was just garbage.

  142. Even Santa Tebows.!/joelkimball/status/148187496939921408/photo/1

  143. Aw, what the fuck? No way can they overturn that call. Pittsburgh is getting fucked.

    1. ^^this^^

      God, why do you hate The Yinzers?



    /paraphrase of whatever that movie was

    1. /paraphrase of whatever that movie was


  145. That chick in the Sprint commercial? I want to think she’s cute, but right at the end?

    Joker-from-Batman smile. Ruins is every time…

  146. RuPaul not Ron Paul

    How do you feel about the printing of fiat money?

    “Fiat? I do love that new J-LO car! I do love that.”

    Where do you stand on the merits of lowering the marginal tax rate to boost growth?

    “I usually stand on six-inch platforms. It’s actually not as tall as it looks.”

    Who is more fabulous? The economist John Maynard Keynes or Frederich Hayek?

    “You better work!”

    What does that mean?

    “That’s drag for no comment,” a camera guy said.

    Any predictions for the New Hampshire primaries or the general election?

    “I’m not really a psychic…I’m more of a psycho, really.”

    We talked about the possibility of him endorsing a candidate.

    “Well I do have a line of shoes coming out if that’s what you mean,” he says. “They’re called Iron Fist shoes and the platform is amazing.”

    I also listed the names of candidates and asked RuPaul to say what first popped into his head.

    Ron Paul


    Rick Perry


    Newt Gingrich

    “Uh-huh! That’s right!”…..41848.html

  147. 7-6, what!? And the Broncos are driving.

    Nice challenge there Pittsburgh coach. Changed a 20 yard pass to a 50 yard pass.

    1. 58-yrd pass, Tebow’s longest ever…..

  148. Jesus, is Ike Taylor high or something? That’s twice he got burned for a huge play.

    I’m officially getting nervous.

  149. BOOM!

    Tebow just lost his virginity

    1. Tebow just lost his virginity


  150. Pittsburgh better score here. The Tebows get the ball to start the 3rd.

  151. Oh, no. No, nononononono.

    1. Uh oh indeed.

      1. That’s roughing the passer? That?

        Come the fuck on!

        1. Yah, after whatshisname cranked on Ben’s ankle after he was down?

  152. Uh yeah, Simms, if life ran at slow-mo speed then Harrison would have had time to pull up before hitting TT. What a terrible call.

    1. The pussification of the NFL continues apace.

      1. PUT A SKIRT ON ‘EM!

        1. Or in Tebow’s case, crocs.

    2. On Roethlisberger’s INT, the guy launched himself at him after the pass and 3 Tebows hit him after release. I didn’t bitch when they didn’t throw a flag on that. That’s football. But the one on Harrison was just total fucking bullshit.

  153. Nice play by Gay to save a TD there.

    1. Gay jumps Tebow again!

      1. I knew Tebow was a homophobe!

        1. Was Santorum on the field after?

  154. They need to put Charlie Batch in. I know Big Ben has his tough guy image to uphold, but he’s hurting the team now.

    1. I like that Batch got a second life in Picksssboog after being forced to endure bad teams in Detroit. Good man – glad to see him have success.

      I’m w/Tulpa – put ‘im in…

    2. ^^This.^^ He’s a statue back there. His mechanics are all fucked up. No way they can win with him like this.

      1. Put the backups in!

      2. Damn this is where I shoulda dumped the Jerry Stiller comment.

  155. “Roethlisberger’s taking a pounding…”



    1. The only thing worse than finding myself rooting for the Steelers is HAVING THEM FUCKING GETTING THEIR ASSES KICKED.

  156. Another pick!

    1. Called back

  157. Why are they letting Rob Schneider back on TV?

    1. Roooooooooooooooooob.

      The Robinator?
      Robalong Cassidy.


  158. Why do I keep thinking Big Ben went to Findlay U?

    Miami, Miami, Miami, Miami….

  159. Jesus Christ! Roughing the passer by Harrison, but a helmet-to-helmet hit where the d-back leaves his feet is ok? Then no block in the back on that return?

    I don’t want to start bitching, but I’m not gonna be able to hold out much longer.

    1. You’ve been bitching for most of the quarter now, guy.

      1. Don’t call him Guy, Pal!

        1. Don’t call him Pal, Chum!

          New meme in the making? /ponder

      2. I don’t hear anybody disagreeing with the points I’m making.

    2. Stop bitching. All I can say is that at least if Denver gets through this game, the Patriots will eat them alive next weekend.

      1. Tebow would pick apart the Pats defense like a plastic rosary.

        1. See the game a few weeks ago.

          1. Elway has since taught him how to pull the trigger on Gay.

  160. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

    Seriously? SERIOUSLY?


  161. Quit picking on Gay, Tebow!



  162. McGahee for a first down.

    When did the Broncos become the Green Bay Packers?






  164. In Calvin Johnson’s nightmares from hell, Tebow is his QB


    /almanian’s dad when he dropped a pass in his yute

    1. If you can touch it, you can catch it.

      1. My dad subscribed to that philosophy.

        I use it on my son now – always good for a sheepish grin 🙂

  166. Which 2 days do you pick?…..y-MPs.html

    1. So “dry” gin two days of the week, my usual Tanqueray the rest of the time.

      Got it!

    2. Drinkers should have two ‘dry’ days a week, say MPs

      What is this I don’t even

      1. Gin tastes like Lectric-Shave, minus the menthol. Pass.

  167. Seeing how the Tebows “backed into” the playoffs, maybe that’s where their beef with Teh Gay comes from?

    Just a thought…

  168. Steelers need a TD here.

    1. That’s a shame.

    1. You’re really enjoying this, aren’t you?

      I would be too.

      1. I hate to pile on, but I certainly am.

      2. Well, full disclosure

        I’m from Ohio, and I’m a Bengals fan, so the Steelers are a sworn enemy. But, I do like Tebow too.

        Nothing personal

        1. Where are you from, jacob?

          1. Born in Cincy, grew up in Dayton

            1. Where, dude, where?

              1. Where in Cincy? Don’t know, was 3 when we left

                I grew up in Butler township, near Vandalia.

                You know the area?

            2. Springboro and Carlisle representin’!

              1. Oh hell no! I know exactly where Springboro is.

                The first house I ever bought was in Oakwood. I’ve since moved to St Louis

  169. I lol’d at the Chevy Volt with the Ron Paul stickers.

  170. So The Twitterz is saying that the officials names in the Tebow/Yinzers game are: [wait for it]





    Srsly? SRSLY!??!

    1. Here’s the list of officials. They’re lying.

  171. Sweet baby Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, God Almighty, Yahweh, Lord of Heaven and Earth. I just watched ‘The Ides of March’ and I want to kill myself with a dull razor. Such a cacophony of horseshit. I should go back to football.

    1. So, it’s not worth seeing? Looked kind of cool, or so I thought….

      1. When I’m in my sociopolitically enraged mode, advocacy of retarded shit in movies puts me off, and I can’t enjoy myself, like in Oliver Stone’s movies, or ‘The Ides of March’. So much political dumbfuckery in one movie HAS to be a feat in cinema history.

        1. Bet Team Blue will love it, then…

  172. If you told me this morning that the most enjoyable TV I’d watch today would be the GOP debate, I would have dumped santorum on your face.

    1. God knows you’ve got enough stored up to spray the whole blog.
      [scurries back into hole]

    2. Dud, I puked.

      1. And by “dud”, I meant “dude”, but you get the picture.

    3. Where did you get santorum?

      I admit, if pressed to find it, I’m not sure where I’d look.

  173. CBS just made the claim “most watched television network in the world.”

    That can’t be right, can it? Is there not a state-run network in China? Or the BBC, which is all over the world?

    I call bullshit.

    1. It might well be. It’s not like quality genuinely determines viewership when it comes to news and reportage. The BBC blows pretty badly, and it’s very widespread.

    2. Their programs go out all around the world, and are somehow Top 10 shows in any country they air.
      So if you define viewing their network as watching shows their network produces, then it’s likely to be true.

      1. If the play was whistled dead, the play can’t be challenged.

        1. Is Simms retarded? The whistle blew well before the guy recovered the ball.

          If this gets overturned, I’m gonna have to call “fix.”

          1. Dumervil was sitting on the ball when the whistle blew… it’s not like the Steelers would have recovered if not for the whistle.

            1. When the whistle blows for incomplete, the ball is dead. Period. Why Simms and Nantz keep running their pieholes is beyond me.

              1. Not if it’s immediately recovered by the defense.

              2. They’ve reversed incomplete pass calls to catch + fumble before, even when the whistle blew.

          2. Philip Rivers, thou art avenged.

  174. Nantz needs to go sit in Butler Cabin until April.

    And Simms needs to eat a bullet.

    1. Isn’t the Australian Open coming up first?
      He butchers that too, right?

      1. Jesus, does he? well, it’s only on network on tape delay. I’ll have watched it on the internet by then.

        1. Sorry, It’s Dick Enberg for Tennis.

          1. I think Enberg has actually retired from doing tennis.

            Unfortunately, ESPN gives us Pat McEnroe, who is incredibly biased. For years when he was the captain of the Davis Cup team he had to suck up to the American players, and would never say anything bad about Roddick no matter how much of a prick Roddick was being on court. (Roddick has been almost as bad as Serena Williams at times.)

            That, and they seem to have a bias against Federer for some reason. (I’d guess it’s because the all expected Roddick to be the Next Big Thing after Sampras, and from 2004 on, Federer crushed Roddick over and over.)

    2. Nah, too good for Simms. He needs to be locked in Big Ben’s VIP room on the South Side.

  175. OK Steelers backers – no fuckining whining about the officiating. Denver totally got screwed by the incorrect call on that lateral pass.

    1. It’s payback for the Hochuli incident.

        1. Hochuli v. – to blow a call in spectacular, game-costing fashion. ex. Ed hochuli’ed the Chargers.

  176. If I had a mini-Ditka yelling at me 24/7 my life would be a lot better.

    1. Who would win in a fight Ditka, or a hurricane?

      1. Chuck Norris would.

        1. WRONG! Trick question!

          The Hurricane’s name is Ditka!

      2. What if the hurricane hit Denver in the 4th quarter though?

  177. Oh. My. God. How many times is he gonna get burned today?

  178. Tebow thought if he squatted at the line of scrimmage long enough, no one would notice he had the ball.

  179. What are these people booing? are they retarded?

  180. Ike Taylor needs to just retire already. When you get picked apart like this by Tim Fucking Tebow, maybe it’s time to hang em up.

    1. That’s a key turnover

  181. Fumble! Staalers ball! Steelers ball!

    1. I’m shocked if that gets overturned

  182. Huuuuge 2nd down yardage.


      1. Yesssssssssss!

      2. They’re only setting up another miraculous Tebow comeback.

        1. I don’t think so.

          1. Fucking. Overtime. Steelers blew it.

            1. The likelihood of the Broncos returning a missed FG for a touchdown is much less than the likelihood of their recovering Ben’s fumble for a TD on that last play.

              They shoulda kicked the FG.

  183. Overtime!

  184. I don’t like the Broncos, but that was good defense at the end.

  185. The Broncos do everything else like it’s a college game, and then they elect to receive? Someone’s screwed up in the head.

    1. Looks like it worked out for them.

      1. Yeah, well, they’re all going to die someday anyway.

        1. Holy shit, libertarians are vanpires?

  186. Oh, no.

  187. Well that didn’t take long.

    1. Folks are cheering in Foxboro (sp) right about now

      1. They shouldn’t taunt the Almighty like that. Didn’t that 80-yard pass give Tebow 3:16 for the game?

  188. Worst. Overtime. Ever.


    1. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


  191. Fuck. Ike Taylor burned again. He cost the Steelers that game.

    1. GO DONCS!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!1ONE

  192. Where’s your Darwin now Pittsburgh?

  193. Wow. How long has it been since every Wild Card team lost in the first round?

    1. I sure didn’t figure Denver had a win in ’em, Giants either.

  194. That’s how God feels when he throws a winning TD in OT.

  195. TEBOW/PAUL 2012

      1. +1 TEBOW OT TD for you.

  196. Watching the Steelers lose to the Broncos in the Cleveland airport is, shall we say, a suboptimal experience.

  197. What the hell are you doing at the Cleveland airport? Doesn’t everybody want to get the hell out of Cleveland?

    1. On y way to green bay of all places. And delated by amosy 3 hours now. Need more beer but all the bars are closed.

      1. Ah, so you’re going to God’s country. 🙂

        1. God loves cheese…

  198. You sure this is only the 15th debate? I heard that Gary Johnson was excluded from 12 of the 14 debates, and that was about 4 debates ago.

  199. The tone of coverage for Ron Paul is changing: Romney Is the Main Target in a Caustic G.O.P. Debate

    …the possibility that an anti-Romney candidate could emerge supreme to split the delegate field with Ron Paul, who is viewed as having a distinct but sizable following.

    It’s sizable now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.