Environmentalism

Ron Paul: Third In South Carolina, Confusing the Politicos, the Progressives' Only Hope, and the Right Policy on Iran

|

Since New Hampshire,  the Real Clear Politics running average has Ron Paul tied for third precisely in South Carolina with Rick Santorum, at 14.7. That isn't particularly competitive, now, with Gingrich at second at 22 percent, but we've got a week to go. Paul is raising money today for his South Carolina efforts with a dedicated moneybomb (at $448K as I write).

The idea that he is deliberately not ever clashing with Romney (which is not true–the campaign ran paid official radio ads attacking only Romney in Iowa) continues to float about, leading this Hill journalist to wonder: what does Ron Paul want?

"If he keeps placing in the top three, he's going to have between 100 and 200 delegates," said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist. "Therefore, he would have some type of recognition at the convention."

That analysis seems way off for two reasons: one, there seems little reason to believe there will be three candidates running through the entire campaign, and the Paul campaign's efforts to target caucus states where delegates earned need not match popular vote percentages.

Romney, meanwhile, has largely left Paul alone when attacking his Republican rivals – he's said multiple times that he likes Paul — giving the Texas congressman and his issues credibility and respect, even if nobody can quite gauge what he's going to do next.

"Paul's kind of like a dangerous animal that needs to be treated with respect," said a GOP consultant working for one of the 2012 candidates. "People underestimate him at their own peril."

I too can't imagine Romney leaving Paul alone if and when it comes down to the two of them. And while "dangerous animal" isn't a very flattering way to be perceived by the GOP establishment, I suppose it beats "irrelevant kook."

Libertarianism in general and Ron Paul specifically have a lot to offer the progressive left, and not just on war, or even just on war and civil liberties. Paul's stated Rothbardian beliefs about pollution, in theory, are a far more powerful weapon for protecting the environment than any imaginable real-world regulatory state, for example, and Paul always says that any aid program for individuals that they have become dependent on will be last to get cut, even in his fiscally tight world where such programs aren't even constitutional. Matt Welch blogged earlier this month on progressives' increasing tumult and confusion on the Mysterious Case of Ron Paul.

Conor Friedersdorf returns to the matter at the Atlantic:

If progressives are frustrated that relatively doctrinaire libertarians are attracting the attention and support of people who care deeply about civil liberties, why don't they work to offer some alternative? Guys like me will probably still prefer Johnson. But is it really the case that the Democratic Party can't produce a prominent civil-libertarian politician who Glenn Greenwald would prefer to Ron Paul? 

That is itself a devastating truth about the post-2009 left. 

As Election 2008 proved, however, it isn't impossible to change. Democrats can in fact unapologetically run against indefinite detention, excessive executive power, and needless wars, and get elected doing it. What's additionally required is a civil-libertarian constituency big and motivated enough to hold them to their promises. That is what progressivism apparently lacks. Until progressives have a plan to change that, they should think twice about marginalizing and dismissing a civil-libertarian voice that, however flawed, is better than any they've got to offer. 

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on Judge Napolitano's show, saying Ron Paul "has the most realistic policy on Iran," whether or not they actually have or might soon have a nuke (which Paul does not believe):

Reason's Paul archives. My forthcoming book, Ron Paul's Revolution.

NEXT: Reason Writers on the Air: Matt Welch Disses Mitt Romney's Government-Cutting Cred on Cavuto

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. That’s Fisted! Get with the program.

    2. ?Only Ron Paul is mentally ill enough to think Iran should have nuclear weapons.

      ?Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who insists that 9/11 was America’s fault.

      ?Only Ron Paul thinks anarchist (and Cindy Sheehan’s main squeeze) Screwy Lewy Crock Shill is a genius.

      ?Only Ron Paul supports (and has the support of) Glenn Greenwald, Cynthia McKinney, David Duke, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and every other out-and-out terrorist worshiper, paranoid wackjob, raving lunatic, and genocidal Nazi wannabe in the world.

      ?Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who teamed up with Bawney Fwank the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rapist to rape and mutilate the military as well under the direction of Reichsfuhrer $oros’s Progressivevik minions.

      ?Only Ron Paul thinks legalizing heroin and prostitution should be considered “conservative” values.

      ?Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who’s more vile than Mitt Commie and former Obama brown-noser Jon Huntsman.

      ?Only Ron Paul is willing to be seen with Urban Space Man Dennis Kucinich in public.

      ?Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who would not have gone to war with Nazi Germany to “save the Jews” because he hates Jews.

      ?Only Ron Paul thinks accepting money from Stormfront is a good idea.

      ?Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate whose moonbat newsletter claimed Mossad bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 and the federal government created the AIDS virus.

      ?Only Ron Paul has his dick too deep down Brian Doherty’s throat for him to say anything against him.

      1. 1) He doesn’t want them to, but isn’t about to invade them over it. Israel has 300 with the means to use them, and for whatever reason Iran getting one makes them a threat in a world where we have thousands on end with the means to deliver them.

        Wow, some threat.

        2) Between 91 and 2001 some 500,000 Iraqi children died while we bombed Iraq in some undeclared war, and we chalked it up as worth the price of our foreign policy. Apparently we think they’ll just thank us for killing their children and ask us to kill their other children and praise us for our freedom, liberty, and values.

        Learn the concept of blowback. Our actions come with unintended consequences.

        3) Anarchy means “without a leader.” Apparently you need someone to point your head and tell you what to do.

        4) Assuming that’s true, Ron Paul also has the support of our active duty Military (received more donations that Obama, and all the GOP candidates combined), Veterans, and CIA agents that actually worked on the bin Laden task force. Good story.

        5) He’s said it before, there’s a difference between defense spending and military spending. I suggest you learn it.

        6) Learn the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Only supporters of the drug war would call users victims on one hand and criminals on the other and think jailing addicts rather than curing addiction makes sense, especially in a world where we can’t keep the trash out of prison.

        7) Yeah, the audacity of a man who thinks we should only go to war if attacked and as long as it’s declared. FOR SHAME!

        8) All the other candidates accept money from banks and wall street… I don’t know how that’s not any worse.

        1. Nice job, thanks for being on the right side. ***Anything less than Paul is more of the same***

        2. Nice-o, nos, with but one cavil:

          Anarchy means “without a leader ruler or first* principle.”

          *regionally spelt fist.

      2. You would have made a fine Nazi!

      3. If this is Max, you’re really stepping up your game. Good show!

  1. It’s looking more and more like it will come down to just Romney and Paul. A Virginia judge just ruled Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, and Huntsmann ineligible for the ballot in that state and only Romney and Paul qualify in all 50 states.

    Furthermore, who else is there? Paul has effectively discredited Santorum as a conservative by truthfully attacking his voting record in the Senate. Perry is a joke and Gingrich is Gingrich.

    1. I think Gingrich is trying to capture the notRomneynotPaul vote and become the third leg in the race — if Santorum and Perry and Huntsman drop out, who their voters go to can decide whether it stays a two or three man race.

      1. Perhaps, but he’s dumping whatever money he has left in attack ads on Romney in South Carolina. Even if he outlasts Santorum he won’t have much left since his organization is in complete disarray.

      2. Sheldon Adelson – a casino tycoon and good friend of Netanyahu – will finance Gingrich until the end and will give him all the incentives necessary to make him stay in the race. This is not about a Gingrich win but about preventing a situation where the only anti-Romney vote is for Ron Paul.

        1. there’s lots of necc. campaign expenses Shel won’t be able to legally front. there’s more to running than ads.

          1. You know so much, you ought to write a book!

        2. Proof that you can be clever enough to make a lot of cash and stupid enough to blow it all at once.

      3. The third leg is always my favorite.

    2. ” Perry is a joke and Gingrich is Gingrich.”

      For Perry to be a joke he would have to be funny. The man is the governor of Texas. The fact that someone so obviously inept not only holds such a position but was duly elected to that post by a majority of that state’s citizens is terrifying. What’s even more frightening is even after he loses every upcoming primary by a country mile, he’ll use the experience to continue running for political office. And for anyone who thinks that no one in their right mind would ever elect that man president, remember, before Obama we had Bush. Obviously this country has a history of electing fools.

      1. Are you kidding? Perry is hilarious!

      2. Eh. The governor of Texas doesn’t have much power. Hell, Sam Houston was deposed in the secession.

      3. While I think that Perry is completely inept at being POTUS, I have to take offense to him being an inept Gov. He has spent 12 years doing nothing. NOTHING. And Texas is better for it. All 12 years the Legislature has passed, or passed up on laws that has made the state a better place for businesses to begin, or be maintained. I realize it is difficult to understand that the best run state is one with a Gov. who is toothless, but in Texas please keep the Gov.’s office occupied by a nobody. Pure Republic all the way.

        1. While I would agree that he could do MUCH worse, I think his behavior in the Cameron Todd Willingham affair was nothing short of criminal.

        2. Well, he HAS vetoed a record number of laws. That’s better than nothing. For instance, he just vetoed a statewide ban on texting while driving.

          1. But Reasonable libertarians prefer smart politicians that pass bullshit laws.

          2. He’s passed a lot of shit he shouldn’t have too. Best thing junior ever did was continually vetoing that damn open container law. Perry signed it almost as soon as he was sworn in.

            1. i was under the impression that an open container in texas is not a crime in itself, but only an enhancement on a dwi. is it still that way or is that what perry added?

          3. As a Texan, I hate Perry – he’s corrupt, his AG is a dick and the Willingham affair was worthy of impeachment imho. Sadly, he’s currently the 2nd best in the race after Paul now that Huntsman’s out.

        3. My ideal governor (or President) would be one who got up in the morning, vetoed everything the legislature (or Congress) passed and forced them to do a veto override if they wanted it badly enough, sent a letter informing the legislative body of any previous veto overrides that would be ignored because the laws or spending was unconstitutional, fired another 0.1% of the state’s or nation’s employees (on top of the 0.1% he or she fired every other day) then take the rest of the day off.

      4. The fact that someone so obviously inept not only holds such a position but was duly elected to that post by a majority of that state’s citizens is terrifying.

        He truly is the successor to GWB, isn’t he?

        -jcr

      5. Don’t Stop Believin!

  2. Ah, something new for a sunny Saturday.

  3. Brian, have you donated yet? 🙂

  4. RON PAUL 2012

    1. I think you’re preaching to the choir here dude.

    2. He can’t possibly win unless we fellate him on here at least two or three times every day from now on.

  5. The Newsletters are not to be considered because they are old newsletters…and he didn’t write them…or he did. And there were many times when he didn’t edit them.

    We can review Ron Paul’s Words to confirm this.
    Ron Paul’s words 1995: “I also do an investment letter” “I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter”

    Ron Paul’s words 2011 CNN “Walk Out” Interview: “I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them.”

    Ron Paul’s words WHO radio interview Dec. 2011 (just days after “I didn’t write them”) “And I wrote a certain portion of them?But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in.”

    More recently, December 28, 2011, Ron Paul’s campaign gleefully accepted the endorsement of a preacher man who wants to execute gay folks.
    “We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs. We’re thankful for the thoughtfulness with which he makes his endorsement and hope his endorsement and others like it make a strong top-three showing in the caucus more likely,” said Ron Paul 2012 Iowa Chairman Drew Ivers.
    Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals ? including the death penalty…
    http://www.outsidethebeltway.c…..ay-people/
    On a lighter note Paul does have the support of the worlds oldest profession…

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.c…..-ron-paul/

    1. Dont feed.

      1. [snooooore] hmm? what? oh… [snoooore]

      2. I don’t know. There might still be people out there who don’t know the facts and believe this troll.

        @ernieyeball:
        The Ron Paul quotes cited by you do not contradict each other. You may know that the meaning of the word “they” depends on the context in which it is used. When Ron Paul said “I didn’t write them. didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them.” he clearly refered to the racist comments. And when he said “I wrote a certain portion of them” he clearly meant the newsletters (hundreds of them with thousands of pages, and only a few sentences of racist comments in them, and those sentences not written by Ron Paul who was not the editor of the newsletter, only the publisher)

        As to the support of some people for Ron Paul: why don’t you go and ask other prostitutes, or gangsters etc which candidate they support? I bet there a lots of Obama or Romney supporters. Should we condemn Obama or Romney for it?

        1. T.T. sez: “You may know that the meaning of the word “they” depends on the context in which it is used.”

          Takin’ lessons from the master I see…

          “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement….Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

      3. but it’s trying sooooo hard

    2. Your expert use of [Crtl-C] followed by [Ctrl-V] is becoming legendary.

      1. My eMac calls it cut and paste. Whatever.
        I find it hard to believe that the RonLove Paulbots bother to read anything past my name after the first time.
        It’s not easy being Green…

        1. Not at all surprised to see it’s a Mac user.

          1. Go easy on the guy. Not everybody can be super-tech-computer-geek guy with your keyboard shortcuts and super complicated two button mouses.

            1. Two-button mouses? Are you from the future?

          2. Plenty of us Mac users support Dr. Paul. Don’t be a bigot.

            -jcr

    3. Until 1978, Mitt Romney was a voluntary and enthusiastic member of a segregated group that held that blacks weren’t full human beings.

      But we don’t talk about that either, ’cause “it’s old”.

      1. So if Thomas Jefferson were running today, you wouldn’t vote for him?

        1. No. who would vote for a zombie?

          1. Hey, watch it!

        2. No, but I’ve always been a Franklin fan. Ben Franklin: Abolitionist, Scientist, Ladies Man, My Hero.

          Vote Zombie Ben Franklin 2012!

        3. Not if he had still owned slaves in 1977.

          1. Bi-curious?Datebi.com is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

        4. No. Jefferson the politician (as opposed to Jefferson the political theorist) was as statist as they come. He vetoed a whole ZERO bills from Congress and started international adventurism as we know it (wars that protect American interests as opposed to wars that protect America – he had a hard-on for free trade, and was willing to kill others in order to force it on them).

  6. But Anal Spew said that Iran is the number one issue facing America. Theres absolutly nothing going on in this country more important to us than whats going on halfway around the world.

    1. the most dangerous adversary-nation we confront is north korea.

      1. Yeah, nothing more dangerous than 2 million severely malnourished troops armed with Soviet-era weapons. If the DMZ disappeared tomorrow and the Norks could see for themselves just how good the South has it, just about all of them would defect en masse.

        Besides, it’s not like the South is defenseless. It has almost one million troops and conscripited reserves armed with state of the art US-grade military weapons defending the most heavily fortified border in the world.

        1. The Norks could obliterate Seoul with artillery without sending a single troop across the DMZ. Not because they’re particularly powerful but because SK chose its capital in a most unfortunate place.

          1. “The Norks could obliterate Seoul with artillery ”

            Funny how you fucking retards trot that out every time, but never follow up with “at which time their load is spent and their country is obliterated.”

            Why is that asshole?

            1. It’s quite possible that NK’s leadership either don’t care or simply haven’t thought things through.

              1. Please, that fat fuck Kim-jong Un won’t do anything to jeopardize his cushy lifestyle, and highly doubt the generals in the military are going to risk their own skins in a war they can’t possibly win.

                In totalitarian states such as these the higher echelon people rarely believe their own propaganda.

              2. No, that is not possible. It is a dictatorship, but they are not insane.

                1. Yeah, watch The Vice Guide to North Korea and then we’ll talk about whether they are insane or not.

          2. A. Seoul was there 1000 yrs before the DMZ was.
            B. Rep of Korea makes their own F-15’s and F-16’s. They have 650,000 troops equipped just like U.S. troops.
            C. Though N. Korea has thousands of attack dogs..oh I forgot, they ate them.
            D. You must really be scared of powerhouse regimes like Lichstenstein or Andorra.
            E. You smoke Drano in your crackpipe.

          3. The Norks could obliterate Seoul with artillery

            Assuming nobody shot back, of course.

  7. As Election 2008 proved, however, it isn’t impossible to change. Democrats can in fact unapologetically run against indefinite detention, excessive executive power, and needless wars, and get elected doing it. What’s additionally required is a civil-libertarian constituency big and motivated enough to hold them to their promises. That is what progressivism apparently lacks.

    You mean progressives lack integrity and would rather vote for their team than their supposed principles? Who the fuck knew?

    1. Apparently this does come as surprise to a few of them. While I’m sure the majority simply see the need to incorporate the proper frame to feed a message they don’t actually believe in.

    2. The New Left has Stalinist undercurrents running through it (inherently anti-individualist) and can’t find within itself reason to disagree with the inherently anti-individualist neo-progressive Obama Fascist State. The days of the Left as actually liberal are long gone.

      1. Nope the only quasi-totalitarians around are libertarians and their friends in the Republican party. Liberals still believe social concern is harmonious with and enhances individual freedom.

        You guys want us all to be slaves to autocratic, unaccountable private entities.

        1. Those liberals are long gone, like I said. The New Ones are in charge now and they are nothing like what you say they are.

        2. “autocratic, unaccountable”

          Sounds like a perfect description of modern American government.

        3. hey Tony, how is the weather in Bizzaro World?

        4. You guys want us all to be slaves to autocratic, unaccountable private entities.

          We don’t want anyone to be a slave to anyone. You, on the other hand, want everyone enslaved to autocratic, unaccountable, public entities.

        5. social concern

          Definition, please.

          1. Whatever the fuck we say it is, buddy.

        6. War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Got it.

      2. Really? “Stalinist undercurrents”, “neo-progressive”, this is where you lose people. The inability to call it as it is. there is nothing “progressive” about obama and the only thing stalin about him is his disdain for civil liberties. Not his economic policies.
        I mean seriously, you describe him as progressive and fascist, which is a fucking oxymoron. So sick of all this incoherent fear mongering over the left wing islamic boogeymen and saying communist and fascist and anarchist are all the same cuz their not. If you think so, read a fucking book that doesn’t have alex jones on the cover. the us government is the perfect merger of state and corporate power, which is regarded as fascism. Or as Mussolini wanted to call it, “corporatism”

        to know your enemy, you got to know your history.
        and if you want to know what side of the political spectrum I’m on, left or right, i say fuck em’ both
        NO ONE 2012!

        1. Janet Napolitano? It’s hard to deny that she takes a somewhat Stalinistic approach and attitude to Motherland Security (minus the gulags).

          Many of the New Left consider themselves as neo-progressives — rather than just liberals — and justify all manners of civil-rights violations and foreign adventurism in the name of chauvinistic “do-goodism”.

          All things considered, today’s American Federal Government has a strong Fascist tone, which started before Obama and is not compared to Naziism or Hitler. All is not freedom, liberty and flowers today. And by no means do Rethuglican candidates (other than the unnamed Republican) promise anything significantly different.

          Fuck most of them.

          1. …is out of the closet.

          2. i see what your saying and to tell you the truth, I hate the terms “progressive and liberal” they reek of “enlightened” arrogance and amount to “I support gays in the military cuz they ought to have the right to kill brown people just like every other american.” or “i support protesters as long as they don’t smash the windows at starbucks.” Really though, the fact that they still support obama says it all really. but no one pins down liberal hypocrisy like phil ochs in his song love me i’m a liberal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw
            god I’m in a ranting mood today. sorry

            1. you speak truth … an atheist

            2. So it’s good to support protestors when they smash someone else’s private property?

            3. Corporatism as you describe it is not really what Mussolini meant.

        2. how is a fascist progressive an oxymoron? both exhort some social collective consciousness that overrules the right of the individual to live his own life as he sees fit. and in practical terms, it is the success of the progressive movement in the US that has brought us fascism.

          the only substantive difference that i can see between the two terms is that for a liberal, progressive has a positive connotation and fascism has a negative connotation. other than that, what is the difference?

          1. If real_talk had read more than one book, he’d know that “progressive” as a political label is every bit as ambiguous as liberal or conservative.
            For example, the following folks have self-identified as progressive:

            Obama supporters and MSNBC commentators
            Theodore Roosevelt – Republican President, proponent of American imperialism, founder of the Progressive Party, and “clearly insane… and insanest upon war and its supreme glories”. (Mark Twain)
            Woodrow Wilson – Democratic President and jailer of socialists opposed to his warmongering. Though Wilson self-identified as small-p progressive, his assessment of Teddy was that, “He is the most dangerous man of the age.”
            Early 20th Century Jewish Marxists.
            Card-carrying CPUSA members, past and present.
            Suffragettes and prohibitionists.

            Self-identified progressives range from fascists to communists. About the only thing they hold in common is contempt for genuine individual liberty and a demonstrated tendency to engage unnecessarily in war (except perhaps for some of the suffragettes).

            1. Progressive means progressively more power to the government.
              Fascism is a merger of State and Corporations. In WWII Europe, governments seized the corporations, in America today corporations buy the government. With limited government, it doesn’t have the power to usurp corporations, and a corporation won’t buy an impotent government, that would be a waste of money. Overall, progressivism does lead to fascism. So, having said that, a vote for Obama is a vote for Fascism. Have you progs ever heard of ‘Google’? Ever read a freakin’ book? Do some research! Sheesh, what does it take?

              1. Sorry Cato, meant to reply to the main article.

      3. The New Left has Stalinist undercurrents running through it

        I was reading an article about the Volt, and it mentioned Obama driving one for 10 feet, and I thought “Holy shit, that’s exactly what some communist leader would to for a propaganda bit.”

  8. What’s a Ron Paul?

      1. rEVOLution.

  9. In case you haven’t, you might want to brush up on your 1964 Republican history.

  10. Yep. In progressive circles you see this already. “How could I possibly vote for a man who wants states to decide abortion?” is a popular sentiment.

    It’ll be all about how they can frame the issue so that civil liberties and international adventurism are relegated to “they don’t matter if . . .” scenarios where anything else they can muster would be somehow more important.

    1. Fucking squirrels. This was supposed to follow Juris’ 2.53 comment.

  11. I was completely wrong in my post NH primary analysis. Mr. Frothy Mixture is about to crash and burn (Oh please, oh please have your daughter on stage when when your campaign disintegrates on impact). Ron Paul is moving up step by step. I will donate to today’s money bomb.

    Paul finishing in the money in SC will make this race real interesting. I know the establishment wont allow him to be the nominee but it will be fun to see how brazenly corrupt they’ll be required to get to keep him out.

    This is the most exciting time to be a libertarian since the first Reagan administration.

    1. Nah. 1995 was better.

      1. If you disappeared tomorrow, no one would come looking for you.

        1. You’ve never dealt with West Penn Adjustment Bureau.

          1. To be rid of you, they’d let it go.

            That’s how much you’re disliked.

            1. Wrong. Tulpa is fun to agree with and even funner to disagree with.

              1. “I’m Wrong. Tulpa is fun to agree with and even funner to disagree with a steaming pile.

                FMP

                1. I suspect I am the 3rd person in a row here to use the moniker “Bee Tagger.” Unlike “Bee Tagger #2,” however, I DON’T seek to discredit the original by putting words in his mouth. You may not agree with this “Tulpa” character, but that is no excuse to coopt someone else’s identity to make ad hominem attacks. This also extends to the OTHER person who made rather crude remarks toward “Tulpa,” rather than just explaining why they disagree with him. – darius404

                  1. ^That was me

        2. AW SHIT! Tulpa done just got othered!

          1. It’s never okay to other anyone. Ever. Unless they’re a redneck. Then it’s perfectly okay. Because those people are all uneducated hillbillies.

  12. Numbers-wise, this is a race between Paul and not-Paul (i.e. Romney). In the former case, the GOP collects X votes, while in the latter, they collect some number fewer than X. They, and the rest of the political establishment as well, currently show strong signs of being in denial about this. Anger should theoretically come next, most likely followed by, things being what they are, stupidity.

  13. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on Judge Napolitano’s show, saying Ron Paul “has the most realistic policy on Iran,” whether or not they actually have or might soon have a nuke (which Paul does not believe)

    I agree, but he doesn’t just put the policy out there and shut up; he goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke and sounds batshit insane.

    1. He never said Iran has a right to nuclear weapons, and you know it. In fact, he likes to point out that Iran signed the Nonproliferation Treaty, so they affirmatively don’t have a right to nuclear arms; but by the same token, they do have the right to develop nuclear energy programs.

      He’s also said it is understandable from the Iranian point of view why they would feel it in their interests to weaponize their nuclear program, but that’s not the same as saying they have a right to do so. Indeed, understanding the incentives the Iranian leadership faces is the key to changing them, and therefore hopefully stopping them from pursuing nukes.

      1. Well you see, there is the crazy part – recognizing that other nations have their own interests and that they aren’t on board with Team America!

        1. ^^THIS^^

          To think that other nations can have an agenda of their own that isn’t approved of by Team US is heresy to the political establishment.

          1. The most ironical part is the proggies that are on board with Team America and think that movie is making fun of only neo-cons and hicks.

            1. Fuck yeah!

    2. “but he doesn’t just put the policy out there and shut up; he goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke and sounds batshit insane.”

      Citation conspicuously absent…

      1. HAS RP ever said Iran has a “right” to a nuke?

        that’s something i’d like to know.

        i know he thinks (correctly imo) that iran is not a threat.

        1. No, he hasn’t, but I’m a disingenuous scumbag, so I put a link below in a pathetic attempt to pretend he did.

          If you watch it, you’ll see I am totally full of shit.

        1. Keeping in mind of course, that nowhere in that response does he say anything like “Iran has a “right” to a nuke?”

          I admit I was totally making that shit up.

          1. By the way, this is where I either

            a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
            b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

            I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

            1. What was that?

          2. By the way, this is where I either

            a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
            b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

            I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

            1. Still didn’t get it.

              Once more, and enunciate.

          3. By the way, this is where I either

            a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
            b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

            I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

            1. Don’t fucking mumble and look at me when you’re talking to me.

          4. By the way, this is where I either

            a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
            b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

            I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

            1. Jeebus Christ, take the cock out of your mouth.

          5. By the way, this is where I either

            a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
            b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

            I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

            1. tell us again

              1. By the way, this is where I either

                a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
                b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

                I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

              2. By the way, this is where I either

                a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
                b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

                I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

                1. By the way, this is where I either

                  a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
                  b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

                  I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

                2. By the way, this is where I either

                  a) run and hide cause I got caught lying
                  b) try to change the subject move the goalposts cause I got caught lying

                  I said RP “goes on about how Iran has a right to a nuke” but I was lying about that so I have to play these stupid fucking games.

                3. You asked for it.

            2. Squirrels FTW!

        2. That’s right, Dr Paul. We should all be worried that we don’t have free trade with Iran! Clearly an important national security issue there!

      2. But in general I agree with RP on the pragmatics of how to handle the situation. If we pull out of Afghanistan and COMPLETELY out of Iraq (both of which are in our best interest regardless) and make it clear we’re not interested in saber-rattling with them, there’s a good chance they’ll stop pursuing nukes just because they’d rather spend their money elsewhere.

        1. I don’t believe Iran would stop pursuing a nuke if we leave the middle east. Iran is still facing Israel, and how are they going to destroy Israel without nukes?

          1. Who cares how Iran decides to destroy Israel. That is israel’s problem.

          2. That’s their rhetoric, but we should know by now that rhetoric and reality are a bit different. Iran’s leaders aren’t quite as goofy as NK’s.

            1. If I really was sure who was in power in either NK or Iran, I might consider them to be less goofy than they are. But when analysts keep saying things like “the only explanation for this move is that one faction is trying to undermine another faction”, I’m a lot less likely to buy the “rational regime” argument. Come to think of it, does the current GOP nomination race make any sense? Nuf said.

          3. Everyone always assumes that Israel is the country that Iran has in its sights. Let’s not forget that a large part of Iraq once belonged to Iran and that they might like to have it back. If Iran were to invade Iraq, they might be thinking that possessing nuclear weaponry might be required to hold onto and defend such a taking. All the bluster about Israel might well be a diversion.

  14. proof YET again, that a credential (in this case a law degree) does not mean you know what you are talking about. setting aside the FORCE issue (imo, taser should not have been used), Jones, the defense attorney is wrong(not surprising)

    under WA case law (due to our right to privacy in this state), during a TRAFFIC stop wherein only the driver is suspected of a traffic infraction (counterexample would be where the passenger didn’t wear a seatbelt), the cops can ONLY demand ID from the driver. the passenger not only doesn’t have to provide ID, but is free to walk away from the traffic stop (assuming they aren’t on a limited access freeway etc.)

    that is a GOOD thing, and is one of the things that makes my state “better” in that we have more privacy than under the federal standard

    however… in the instant case, this is NOT a traffic stop. the man sitting in the passenger seat is being detained pursuant to a terry stop , reasonable suspicion. it’s distinguishable from the traffic stop where it’s merely for a traffic INFRACTION of the driver. this is suspicion of both parties based on the (arguably) reasonable SUSPICION (not PC) that criminal activity was afoot

    under terry v. ohio cops can detain and investigate as long as the detention isn’t overly long or otherwise results in a constructive arrest

    WA case law is conflicted on whether people at a terry MUST produce ID, but generally under the terry standard, they must, and there is no doubt they MUST remain at scene and if officer tells them to stay and they ignore his order, that’s clearly arrestable obstruction. seen many such cases held up in court as valid . terry means nothing if there is no power to detain while you investigate.

    the video imo is disturbing based on the tasing. the fact that the officer issues a warning about what is required and warns of the tase is good, but based on what i see here, i see merely passive resistance which doesn’t justify tasing, but again, i can’t see what happens in the car, so the tase MIGHT be justified. unable to determine either way.

    on a terry, the officers DO have the right to order one or the other or both out of the car, and again it appears like the man in the passenger seat refuses same. that would also subject him to an arrest.

    but the interviewee is flat out wrong on the law vis a vis id’ing a person at a terry stop. i am not sure if he KNOWS this, and is just playing devil’s advocate, or if he is really that stupid. based on my experience with (some ) lawyers, it could be either

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l…..28443.html

    SEATTLE — In the blink of an eye, what began as a routine police check turned into a chaotic scene.

    The dash cam video, exclusively obtained by KOMO News, shows more questionable conduct by Seattle police.

    The footage shows two dock workers waiting for work get handcuffed. One is hit with a Taser, and both are arrested by police just because the passenger “lips off” to police.

    KOMO News uncovered what the American Civil Liberties Union calls a classic case of “contempt of cop.” This type of contact, which starts off as a minor stop and quickly escalates to use of force and arrests, is at the heart of what critics say is wrong with Seattle police.

    Officer Harris was suspicious when he saw two dock workers, a mother and her son, sitting in a parked car for more than ans hour. They were waiting for a work call-out.

    Harris and another officer approached the pair, and the situation quickly turned violent when the son appeared to to ignore the officer’s demands for ID.

    “You’re gonna get Tased,” an officer is heard saying.

    “I’m not doing nothing! I’m getting out! Stop! My ankle,” the man is heard yelling.

    One officer used his Taser in the touch-stun mode, and the two wrestled the passenger to the ground where he suffered cuts to his forehead. The man’s mother is seen getting out of the car, repeatedly asking for the officer’s boss to be called.

    “You guys are really out of line,” the woman says.

    “Sit down,” says an officer.

    “You’re out of line, you know,” says the mother.

    “You are under arrest for obstructing,” the officer says.

    “I’m not doing anything,” says the woman.

    The ACLU and two defense attorneys reviewed the footage, and they both agree the use of force was unnecessary.

    “Completely unnecessary,” said attorney LeGrand Jones.

    “Never had to happen,” said ACLU Deputy Director Jennifer Shaw. “It appears that it’s a training problem. Certainly, it’s a supervision problem.”

    The incident appeared to have started when the passenger failed to provide his identification. But Jones says he didn’t have to.

    “Clearly, there was no obligation on the son’s part to produce identification. He was a passenger. He really didn’t even have to speak to police,” he said. The only time one must produce an identification is when one is stopped by a police officer while driving.

    All three attorneys believe the real reason the situation escalated is clearly defined by the officer himself.

    “And from the very start, you were lipping off,” the officer is heard saying.

    In the wake of a review by the Department of Justice, Seattle Police Chief John Diaz said this type of confrontation was a missed opportunity and the focus of re-training for the entire department.

    “They could have handled it better, and they should have handled it better,” he said. “We were having burglaries in that area. These were people that could be the eyes and ears of the department. So that was an opportunity that we could have made more friends out in the community.”

    An internal investigation determined this incident involved a misuse of force, and the primary officer received a letter of reprimand.

    The police chief said more than 450 officers have already gone through additional crisis-intervention training, and the department plans to continue adding to that number

    1. You know, an excerpt would be sufficient. As much as I disenjoy textwalls I’d hate to see you wind up on the business end of an ICE copyright swat raid.

      1. links would suffice

        1. Fair enuf. Noted for the future….

          1. Not posting at all would suffice.

            1. 🙂

              i lol’d

              1. ***on a terry, the officers DO have the right to order one or the other or both out of the car, and again it appears like the man in the passenger seat refuses same. that would also subject him to an arrest.***

                They do not have a right. They have a privilege/ability granted to them by the citizens.

                We think in words. Thoughts control our perceptions. You perceive too much in your brethren.

                While I have you, do you post on a mobile device? It is harder to take you seriously when you do not capitalize anything that should be.

          2. If they’re going to invoke a Terry stop, implying “reasonable suspicion” that a crime was being committed, wouldn’t it be reasonable to demand of them at some point just what it was that they suspected? If not, then you can yank me out of my car at any time because “I’m behaving suspiciously” without having to justify yourself.

            So, what crime did they suspect? Casing the joint (have fun proving that suspicion)? Drug use? A 60 mnute handjob? Oh, wait…Entropy!! That’s right, they were suspected of entropy. heh heh heh…..

            1. Just admit the truth: Many police/citizen encounters are a fucking game of Calvinball.

              The cops do whatever they WANT to do to our poor asses, because they think they were granted some divine dispensation to do so along with the shiny brass, and then try to shoehorn the situation into a legal precedent that will cover them later.

              1. if you have an actual point, that would be nice.

                cops have the right to detain and ID based on terry

                period. full stop.

                1. Sounds like all the more reason to overturn Terry. Replace it with “Leave people alone”

                2. Sounds like all the more reason to overturn Terry. Replace it with “Leave people alone”

            2. is it REASONABLE to inquire of the officers what they are suspected of?

              sure.

              are the officers required under the law to give a dissertation before they gain compliance?

              no

        2. I disagree. I’d like a small excerpt. I hate getting sent to a link that’s just a video.

          (I also hate slideshow lists, but that’s another story.)

    2. Um, okay?

    3. Threadwinner?

    4. It’s not on the internet, don’t you know that makes it impossible to cite!

      I know it’s a fact because I KNOW!!!!!

        1. yeah, that’s about right.

          1. You’d think someone so sure of him/herself would have at least the minimum guts to use a consistent name.

            1. why when it clearly annoys you that I don’t?

              And isn’t this where you claim it doesn’t annoy you?

              1. Your patheticness annoys me, yes. You win on that count, I guess.

                1. “Your patheticness annoys me”

                  Apparently so does the fact that I don’t “use a consistent name”

                  Isn’t this where you claim it doesn’t annoy you, instead of making a sad attempt to insult me because it clearly does?

                  1. Ok, I settled on one, happy now faggot?

                    1. if i EVER get annoyed on the internets (which is swimmingly rare), i walk away.

                      what’s the point?

                      if you let people annoy you, they win.

                      this is something we deal with in law enforcement all the time. i explain to people who are being harassed, etc. in nuisance cases that if they LET themselves get annoyed, the harasser wins.

                      the best thing they can do is ignore the person.

                      in 99% of cases, that solves the problem without further action (anti-harassment orders, etc.)

                      i feel the same way about trolls or bigot anticop ignorati

                      if i am not having fun, i walk away

                      if you let them annoy you, they win

                    2. I usually ignore the person but the spoofing makes it hard because ignoring it allows my rep to be dragged through the mud.

                    3. “allows my rep to be dragged through the mud.”

                      Meaning it improves it.

                    4. By the way, I lied, Ron Paul never said Iran has a right to a nuke.

                    5. You’re better than I am, I can’t walk away until I’ve satisfied myself that I’ve demonstrated my superiority.

                    6. i’m not sure if this is a spoof or not, but you cannot survive in law enforcement without a very thick skin and the ability not to get pissed off (or at least not act on it) when people try to do so.

                      law enforcement officers are MUCH better than the general public at restrain in such situations… because they have to be.

                      somebody once defined excessive force as :”that force which a normal, untrained person would use” which isn’t too far from the truth

                      when somebody says something particularly egregious, i often just lol

                      you have to suppress your ego. you have to know that it’s often best to just walk away, and NEVER best to give in to your emotions. ever.

                    7. No, it’s not a spoof, I genuinely cannot leave the computer until I feel I’ve demonstrated to the readers that I am superior.

                    8. dunphy, would you walk away and ignore it when someone else was walking around in your uniform and your badge?

                    9. Pointing out that you’re a liar?

                    10. LLLJefiopwajpjfvniopajwepjwoprjdiojio[jeifopjaifeopwahvcmxd,a.jiofpewiojvdk/cmvkodjfodjaokspjiowejifdioqwpehionklnvm,jerfjroiujefdsjklajiopeqjieowajiofpwjorjiojopiewajifopwa, I came!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

                    11. I’m not sure about much, but if dunphy is the guy who keeps impersonating you, Tulpa, he’s a bit of a childish dick. People like THAT working in law enforcement is where stuff like unnecessary force comes from.

                    12. darius404, why the hell are you naming dunphy? I’ve never noticed him spoof anyone.

                    13. NO, you do that

                    14. Prove it Tulpa; I never not use my handl, and it is clear that it is a spoof, and a joke.

                      If you can prove otherwise, do so, or STFU

    5. “Your papers or jail, asshole.”

      1. except in that case, it was done JUST BECAUSE

        it has (pretty much) always been the case in this (or any other nation) that given some indicia of suspicion, cops have the authority to stop, ID , and investigate.

        society would be MUCH worse off if we did not have that authoritah.

        fwiw, just yesterday, i helped a cop from a neighboring agency, who pursuant to a terry, managed to recover about a dozen stolen guns from a guy and clear burglaries in three different jurisdictions, including my own

        1. The ID part has not even remotely always been the case.

          1. Dunphy lies, film at 11

            1. spoof, obviously

                1. Keeping in mind of course, that nowhere in that response does he say anything like “Iran has a “right” to a nuke?”

                  I admit I was totally making that shit up.

                  1. i’m confused.

                    is this the right subthread?

          2. I think by ID he means generally identifying the person, not specifically demanding an ID card. Of course the means by which you would ID someone in 1790 were somewhat different, but the idea is the same.

            1. yes. i was JUST typing out a post clarifying this, when you did so

              that’s EXACTLY what i mean

              on any terry stop, you have the right not to incriminate yourself

              that does not mean you have the right not to IDENTIFY yourself

              i could get into the nuances thereof.

            2. Keeping in mind of course, that nowhere in that response does he say anything like “Iran has a “right” to a nuke?”

              I admit I was totally making that shit up.

              1. spoof again

                1. Which doesn’t change the fact that nowhere in that response does he say anything like “Iran has a “right” to a nuke?”

                  I admit I was totally making that shit up.

                  1. If you think that the ability to spoof another commenter on a site notorious for not policing that shit makes you any less pathetic, you’re sadly mistaken.

                    Though there are a lot of sad things about you.

                    1. I however, think that openly lying goes over.

                      So I do it.

          3. there WAS no such thing as “ID” for much of our history, so that has to be understood.

            ID pretty much only became commonplace around the time driver’s licenses were required.

            note that people are not required to provide ID on their person.

            by ID i mean “identify” as a verb

            iow, the cops have a right pursuant to terry to know who they are speaking with, which means the person has the duty to identify themselves EITHER verbally or with physical ID.

            fwiw, i have made many arrests for people based on their providing FALSE names pursuant to terry

            USUALLY, it’s because they warrants under their real name

            sometimes, it takes the fingerprint analysis at the jail to determine who they are, because they refuse to give up their real name.

            USUALLY, once arrested, the fess up to their real name

            1. Other times, it takes a few beatings before they fess up. That’s life.

    6. You’re lucky I’m shacked up with Banjos all weekend, otherwise I’d engage you on this bullshit use of force and wrongful arrest for obstruction.

      This will be my last post on the matter, as I have more pressing business to attend to.

      1. Thanks for sharing.

      2. Congratulations on finally getting some.

        1. yea, sloopy is probably like eddie murphy in 48 hrs. lack of pussy make a man bold

      3. Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.

        1. You now or you ten to twenty years ago? Given some of the stories you’ve told, it’s important to specify.

      4. Okay, just checking here… did you and Banjos seriously hook up? Because… What the fuck, HnR? I mean…

        A)Will we all get invites to the wedding and get to be drunk and make super embarrassing speeches?
        B) Will there be HnR:TNG, and if so, will sloopy’s new kid be the Wesley Crusher?

        Just… it’s weird when people from a site not dedicated to dating date.

        My cynical heart smells bullshit.

        Also, you two should watch Dear John!

        1. Dear John? the old one or the new one? Neither really. They should watch Patti Rocks

          http://i.imgur.com/FlklU.jpg

          1. The Nicholas Sparks one.

            1. Avoid anything from the lifetime channel.

        2. it’s not that unusual.

          when i was single, i dated a few people i met through a weight training group on usenet. good times

          1. Usenet? What was it like back in the day when wild Jesuses rode dinosaurs across the frozen tundra, hunting the elusive Warren G. Harding?

            1. We chiseled our messages into stone tablets and then trebucheted them into the ether. You kids these days.

              1. 5 quatloos for use of “trebucheted” in a sentence!

            2. That is hilarious. I’m saving that, Last Son.

          2. when i was single, i dated a few people i met through a weight training group on usenet. good times

            Is that where you met Morgan Fairchild?

      5. the UOF is arguably bullshit

        the arrest is not

        it’s TEXTBOOK obstruction.

        i probably do AT LEAST a terry a day. consider that’s over 4,000 (conservatively) in my career.

        arrests due to obstruction? maybe 1/2 a dozen

        if you can use GOOD verbal judo, explain yourself, etc. the VAST majority of people understand that it is in their best interests to comply, their place to object to the stop is through the court system or internal affairs AFTER the stop, but NOT at the scene while the officer is issuing demands, etc.

        sorry, but if an officer has RS, and he says “get out of the car” or “show me your ID” etc. you must comply

        and you, as the subject of a terry CANNOT know if he has RS or not

        i was stopped pursuant to RS as an armed robbery suspect. at gunpoint

        they were professional, but NOT fucking around

        i KNEW i had done nothing wrong. but i could not know what THEIR basis of knowledge was.

        it turns out it was justified.

        rule of law is there for a reason. you can call me a slaver or other such rubbish, but the guy in this video is CLEARLY in the wrong, and he had every right to believe the stop was bullshit, to request the officer’s name etc. once the scene was secure, to contact the guy’s supervisor, etc.

        and it’s good it was on video, so we can see what happened

        1. This is why RS is complete bullshit. I used to get hasseled regulary by some cops who always used the “burglery in the area” excuse to pull me over. If this can be said and is just accepted without any verification, then resonable suspicion is just as meaningless in your state as it is in mine.

          1. rubbish. you have the right to protest, make complaints, seek court action etc.

            you do not have the right to refuse to comply DURING the terry

            it does not matter , under terry, whether or not you did ANYTHING wrong

            you may have, or not

            what matters is that the officer is acting under specific articulable circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent officer with his level of training and experience to suspect criminal activity is afoot

            that’s a relatively close paraphrase of the case law

            when i was terried, at gunpoint, i had done nothing wrong

            irrelevant

            they had RS, and i had a duty to comply

            1. shorter dunphy: OBEY! and complain later.

              shorter sloopy: fuck dunphy.

        2. The time to stand up for your rights is when they are being trampled, not after the fact. Fuck you, asshole, for telling us that when your brothers in blue shit on us that we should go talk to their boss after the fact, and hope that something will be done about it.

          Oh, and this is SPD we’re talking about. Why would anybody think for a second that they’d get fair treatment after the fact by IA or the courts? The USDOJ’s recent report is pretty sure they wouldn’t.

          1. you have NO basis of knowing if your rights are being trampled because you don’t know the facts and circumstances known to the officers that may or may not justify terry

            as usual, you fail to distinguish whether you are making a normative argument

            but you are

            because case law, which is REASONable says you are full o’ shit

            and of course you agree with the USDOJ’s report because it comes to the conclusion you like

            i am sure that when the DOJ comes to a conclusion you don’t like, that you conclude they are wrong

            1. 1st: If you are sitting in your car, you have no reason to be approached, so yes, your rights are being trampled if a cop arbitrarily demands to see your ID.

              The “facts and circumstances” known to the officers were that they saw these people sitting in a car for over an hour. That is not reasonable suspicion under any circumstances, asshole. Period. Full Stop.

              You are a morally repugnant piece of garbage if you think for even a second that a cop should be able to approach someone he has not been legitimately notified of or personally witnessed involved in criminal activity. The fact that you say “you don’t know what facts and circumstances known to the officers are,” and think that should allow cops to essentially stop and ID anybody they feel like makes you a scumbag.

              But just so we’re on the same page: the only fact the cops used to demand ID was that the people were sitting in their car for more than an hour. Their car. And that car was on private property that they were authorized to be on. Those pigs shouldn’t even be allowed to go on that private property without the owners consent unless they are in pursuit of a criminal they witnessed committing a crime.

              Go fuck yourself, you piece of shit scumbag. And after that, die in a fire.

        3. the VAST majority of people understand that it is in their best interests to comply,

          Not helping yourself, d.

          their place

          Ouch. So revealing.

          to object to the stop is through the court system or internal affairs AFTER the stop, but NOT at the scene while the officer is issuing demands, etc.

          If I’ve got this right, a citizen who knows what’s good for him will defer to the armed, uniformed authority figure at all times, and will save any objections for some indefinite future time when he may file expensive paperwork with the bureaucracy supporting said authority figure.

          Doesn’t sound much like a free citizenry that enjoys civil rights to me.

  15. Oh, and RON PAUL 2012

  16. I think Ron Paul laying low and simply spreading the message, like Tom Wood’s Operation Grandma strategy, convincing people of it and his electability, is more efficient, given limited funds.

    I don’t understand the media’s focus on these early voting states. With proportional allotments of delegates in some states and much larger states to go later on, the whole idea of trying to burn out, waste money to beat Romney now is ridiculous. I also never understood the South Carolina focus. I’d be more worried about California for example, where not only does he have a good chance, it has the largest amount of delegates and is winner-take-all

    1. I don’t understand the media’s focus on these early voting states. With proportional allotments of delegates in some states and much larger states to go later on, the whole idea of trying to burn out, waste money to beat Romney now is ridiculous. I also never understood the South Carolina focus.

      President Giuliani didn’t understand that focus on the early states either.

      Politics is based to a huge extent on perception. If you get your ass kicked in the early states, your fundraising and supporters dry up.

      1. Which is why, I think, that the other candidates are struggling, while Paul is not. The “Campaign for Liberty” group has been in place since the last election; Paul already has boots on the ground in every state, while the others are hoping a good showing in one state will give them momentum in the next. Paul has the money, people, and plan to pursue a fifty-state primary fight, from what I can see.

    1. Due you want to be in the National Guard until you are 35?

      Its a legit question. I so pros and cons.

      1. If the National Guard, like the Swiss militia, was never deployed beyond the national borders, I do think I could live with it.

  17. Libertarianism in general and Ron Paul specifically have a lot to offer the progressive left

    People to put in concentration camps?

    Progressivism is the antithesis of liberty.

    1. ^this

      progressives are VERY selective about their history. they always list their “accomplishments” (setting aside the issue of whether social security etc. are “accomplishments”) but are completely silent on the horrible, statist, racist, etc. results of their philosophy that were often enshrined in law, policy, etc.

      1. Such as?

        This should be laughable.

  18. “But is it really the case that the Democratic Party can’t produce a prominent civil-libertarian politician who Glenn Greenwald would prefer to Ron Paul? ”

    Conceivably the Democrats could find someone strong on civil liberties, but why would anyone trust them after foisting Obama on us. They talk a good game, but state power is be be all and end all with them.

    Of course the Republicans don’t even talk a good game.

    Ron Paul with a few hundred delegates at the convention will be heard.

    1. The problem is that a civil libertarian Democrat would play into the opposition’s narrative.

      A Democrat has to work to not look soft on crime/terrorism just like a Republican has to work not to look hostile to entitlements.

      1. However, the real problem is that I am such a loser I have to lie and claim Ron Paul said Iran has a right to nukes.

        Yes, I lie about shit like that.

    2. …yeah, just like Pat Buchanan was heard in 1992.

  19. Libertarianism in general and Ron Paul specifically have a lot to offer the progressive left

    I wish that was true, but the “progressive left” is mostly uninterested in solutions that don’t involve the government.

    1. Also, if the solution could charge the wealthy more in the name of “fairness” it’s all the better.

  20. I got the 49’ers and The Bradys today. Tomorrow – Green Bay and Baltimore. Green Bay and The Bradys in the Stupid Bowl.

    We’ll see…I don’t really give a shit, but it’s a fun diversion.

    What were you guys on about – politics? A less-fun diversion…

    1. How brave of you to pick all the home teams.

      1. What’s “brave” got to do with it, dumbass?

        Oh, right – nothing.

    2. TEBOW TIME

      1. Almanian hates God.

        1. Yeah, well I’m not so fond of Almanian either.

  21. The problem, of course, is that the Microaggression wing of the progressive movement will find ways to make his commitment to civil rights not matter. By not wanting to federalize matters such as gay marriage, abortion, and public accommodations, he’s going to let the EVIL MEAN BIGOTS (always said to be Southern, because the rust belt has NEVER passed a discriminatory law. Boston also never had riots over busing)deny blacks and women and gays THEIR GOD GIVEN CIVIL RIGHTS.

    These are also the kind of people who believe in positive rights. So when you point out the Paul record on civil rights, you hear shit like, “What about the right to housing? The right not to go hungry? The right to healthcare?”

    1. The right to own property and have men with guns defend it from aggressors isn’t a positive right?

      1. I was going to respond seriously, but decided I didn’t feel like dealing with you, Tony.

        So, instead, let me just say: SO YOU WERE WHITE INDIAN ALL ALONG!

        1. It’s a valid point.

          1. So is the point that I lied and claimed Ron Paul said Iran has a right to nukes.

            Yes, I am such a fucking loser that I lie about that shit.

            1. You really need to get a life. Arguing with Tulpa can be frustrating, but don’t you need to take a shit or something? Step away from the Internet, sir.

              1. If you’re the one who farts in the room and then leaves, then you should be first in line to use the crapper.

        2. Except the term “aggressors” is begging the question already. It’s more like, defend it from anyone who happens to cross an imaginary line.

          1. So is the point that I lied and claimed Ron Paul said Iran has a right to nukes.

            Yes, I am such a fucking loser that I lie about that shit.

        3. And I totally support private real property, but I don’t see how you get it from a natural law standpoint.

          1. So is the point that I lied and claimed Ron Paul said Iran has a right to nukes.

            Yes, I am such a fucking loser that I lie about that shit.

          2. Yeah, maybe not natural law. I see it as non-violent fair conflict resolution. Two people can’t have the “right” to the same thing. The “right” establishes who gets something so the two people aren’t permitted to fight eachother over it. We designate the police to enforce these rights so that the determination who gets to use what isn’t based purely on physical strength. Property rights ensure that voluntary exchange determines who have the right to use what – not majority vote or boxing matches or knife fights.

            1. Yes, it’s a very utilitarian thing.

              1. you’re right, real Tulpa, it is a utilitarian thing on the surface, but what if we say that George was right, and all of us own the Earth equally together, and place it on a moral standing?

                do we have to then enter into the complications of the apparent Georgian solution of rents gathered from landowners and paid out evenly to all of the world’s inhabitants?

                not if we come at it from the responsibility angle instead of the authority angle. if we look at land owners as custodians instead of exploiters (i know the bakunins here will be pulling their hair out) then is it not the other way around, do not the people of the Earth owe those who take on the responsibility of caretaking of their little manageable parts for their labors?

                the simple solution is to let those who take on the responsibility of caretaking for a little piece of the world keep, as compensation, what rents he can extract from it, which will actually encourage him to do even a better job of caretaking for his little chunk.

                while there is no theoretical work that i have seen claiming to show that what is moral and what is utilitarian will always mesh in the long run, i have yet to see an instance where they do not.

            2. We designate the police to enforce these rights so that the determination who gets to use what isn’t based purely on physical strength.

              There’s no “we” here. The government designates the police to enforce its laws, not the people robbed to pay for the police and the rest of the government. And the police use physical force to determine who gets to use what, not necessarily to enforce non-coercive property rights, such as in eminent domain cases where the government robs people of their property without their consent. Without the police, someone else would still use physical force to either maintain property rights or steal property.

              1. I’m speaking about how it ought to work in an ideal libertarian (not anarchist) state.

                The police would be effectively appointed proxies so that the use of force is restricted to agents who have been authorized by society to use it. It just happens that a system of rights based on self-ownership and voluntary exchange is the only one we’ve figured out that is internally consistent and uniformly enforceable.

                Positive rights don’t work because you can’t have a “right” to something that doesn’t exist, and they provide no mechanism for distributing scarce resources.

                In theory, a bioethicist mgiht be able to come up with a scheme fir the fair distribution of healthcare resources – you’d have some sort of complex formulation of a right to some amoung of health care. But that’s where economics comes in, because only in a system where price is determined by supply and demand in a free market are the incentives to innovate preserved.

                So you have a moral argument that says you have to use voluntary exchange as your determinant of ownership, otherwise there’s going to be conflict over scarce resources, and a ultilitarian argument as well, that says you have to permit profit-seeking, because that’s how you get innovation.

        4. Tony posed a serious question. If you are in favor of the government robbing people to pay for your police protection, then you have no moral case to make for opposing the government robbing you to pay for whatever shit other people want you to pay for.

          Tony believes that all the theft is OK, of course, but he’s inadvertently making clear that taxation is always theft, and so all that is left is to decide whether you are pro- or anti-theft.

          1. The assumption there is that taxation is always theft.

            Voluntary land value taxation in exchange for government protection of the property on that land and for use of government services like roads is a perfectly viable option. If you don’t pay the land taxes, you don’t get the services provided. Government can’t seize your land and property, but they won’t protect you from others seizing it. Car registration can be tied to filing and payment of land value taxes – don’t file, you get a ticket for driving on public, tax-funded roads without registration.

            However, unlike the current system you aren’t thrown in jail and your property isn’t seized if you don’t pay taxes. Therefore it’s more of a user fee, but better administered than a flat rate or poll tax or some other regressive tax system would be.

            1. In essence, the government must never violate your negative rights (by leaving you alone). However, voluntary taxation entitles you to some positive rights if there are willing providers of those services, which 99% of people will want. But you should never be forced to pay taxes de lege.

      2. You don’t have the right to have men with guns defend it. You have the right to file criminal charges and seek punishment for someone taking your property after the fact.

        1. Or you could think of it as a right to not have men with guns come and punish you after you defend your property.

          1. You don’t have the right to have men with guns defend it.

            You have the right to defend your property yourself with whatever guns you possess. If it is cheaper or more effective to hire others to do that job for you, you have the right to do that, too, bearing in mind that whoever you hire might decide to just rob you. You, or your hired protective service, have the right to defend you against anyone else who would like to come punish you after you defend your property.

      3. Re: Tony,

        The right to own property and have men with guns defend it from aggressors isn’t a positive right?

        Who needs men with guns? Try entering my home – go ahead, I dare you.

        Besides, the police are hardly protectors of private property. Most of the time, they’re only forensic historians. Some of the time, they perpetrate acts that violate private property rights. And one is supposed to believe that having them around is the sine qua non of private property? You are an imbecile.

      4. The right to own property and have men with guns defend it from aggressors isn’t a positive right?

        PAUSE.

        Unless you’re talking about Xe, and not Officer Friendly, you, once again, don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

        Warren v. District of Columbia

  22. So, sloopy, in honor of football, why don’t you and Banjos pop in The Notebook and give us a review?

  23. Paul appeals to the right on economics and the left on foreign policy and the bill of rights. That makes him half right. What bugs me about attempts to make RP appeal to the left, such as Glenn Greenwald’s, is that the very reason they reject Obama is because of his various heresies. Why does RP get (many) exemptions? The guy who actually has to execute the power is held to a higher purity standard than the guy running around yapping? I don’t know why the left would sacrifice not just political influence, but political office, to support someone they disagree with even more than they do Obama.

    1. I dunno know Tony, maybe some people actually have a problem with violating the War Powers act. Crazy, nutso people who value things like the rule of law over universal healthcare, but thems the breaks.

    2. It could be because Paul could pull troops out of the middle east overnight, close down military bases around the world, and end the federal drug war with a quick dash of his pen. This would save countless lives and save the maiming of tens of thousands of the innocent, as well as end one of the most racially charged and damaging policies we have (the drug war). In contrast, Paul would have far less power to change the social issues that progressives care about. If Bush couldn’t even privatize 2 percent of SS what chance would Paul have of privatizing all of it? Besides, he has said he would still protect Seniors already on it and reform would come last. On abortion, the most Paul could do would be to try to appoint judges that agree with him – but the Senate might reject some of those. Worse case scenario is that abortion would be left to the 50 states at some point, which would mean that some women would have to travel to another state to end pregnancies. Is the hardship of traveling to another state for an abortion, or having to carry one’s baby to term, really worse than the continual murder and maiming that will continue under Obama or Romney? Is it worse than the wholesale gangifying, imprisonment, murder, of a minority group?

    3. Simple:

      Because Obama lied to them.

      If Obama wants civil libertarians to cut him a break, he should stop fucking lying.

      If he said to progressives, “Guess what? I’m a sick torturing, assassinating, child-murdering fuck. But I’ll appoint pro-choice judges. Make up your mind if you like that deal or not and then shut the fuck up,” then they could decide if they liked that deal or not.

      It’s the whole “I am going to bullshit you and then fuck you over” part that you have to account for.

    4. that it’s all just about a power grab? Little disagreements like war and trillion-dollar corporate bailouts are just trivialities when compared to holding on to power???

      1. Yes. Some people are more nuanced than the “principles” crowd here.

    5. Paul appeals to the right on economics and the left on foreign policy and the bill of rights.

      PAUSE.

      Petitio principii is in play. Since when have the progressives ever been disinterested in killing foreigners who won’t dance to Foggy Bottom’s tune? Since when have social cons and the neo-cons not been interested in shovelling the debt hole deeper so long as they get the bills and programs they like?

      1. and the left likes the Bill of Rights?

  24. The Kochtopus juggernaut is picking on the poo wittle president again:

    This will be the second major commercial attack for AFP tied to Solyndra, and Phillips said more are coming as the election calendar unfolds. “The president is going to continue this class warfare politics of envy message. Frankly, we wanted to remind citizens across the country that his record is very different,” he said. “It’s abusing taxpayer dollars to take care of his big donors, the guys who gave to his campaign.”

    Obama officials counter that there are no documents backing up allegations of political favoritism or improper interference in the Energy Department’s decision to award Solyndra with a $535 million loan guarantee. “It should come as no surprise that oil executives who would be quite comfortable ceding the clean energy market to China would spend millions of dollars to attack a president who has made clear that oil companies making record profits don’t need taxpayer subsidies,” said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

  25. It’s kind of confusing how the little scoreboard widget on Fox says “NO CHALLENGE” when the Saints challenge.

    1. A minor mistake is confusing to you, you’re that stupid?

      1. It’s not a mistake, they’re using “NO” to stand for New Orleans. It’s not like I was confused for long, I just thought it was interesting.

        And the above is a spoof, of course.

        1. No, I really am arguing that a minor mistake isn’t mistake, meaning screen placement, because I’m a a fuckwit.

          And I was lying about Ron Paul, he never said Iran had a right to a nuke.

          1. Dude, stop being a dick.

            Tulpa’s a Romney guy. We all know that. It’s OK, really.

            1. I’m actually a Paul guy with Romney as a second option, but either way.

              1. Yes, that would make infinitely more sense than the reverse, assuming that Paul didn’t do anything stupid to torpedo his chances. But that’s a moot point.

      2. Oooo, I’ve made it at HnR. Someone spoofed me.

  26. WHO DAT?
    The 49ers. DAT WHO

  27. “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

    Winston Churchill

    That quote applies to at least 50% of the comments I read here.

    For those who are serious and critical thinkers, I ask this;

    What are the foremost issues that have caused Ron Paul’s support to increase so dramatically?

    A. Anti Federal Reserve position.

    B. Non interventionist, close multiple foreign Military bases.

    C. Ending Federal Government war on drugs.

    D. Aggressive debt reduction and closure of Federal Government Departments.

    E. Ending Obama’s Health Care program.

    1. Why do you think anyone gives a fuck what a head flapper thinks?

        1. NO it’s the real me. From now on asshole.

  28. Uh, say what?

    @DonaldJTrumpJr
    I get that the guy & horse from War Horse were best friends but do you think they were also friends with benefits???https://twitter.com/#!/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/158331298543443968

  29. Reuters Ipsos poll for SC GOP (1/10-1/13):

    Romney 37%
    Paul 16%
    Santorum 16%
    Gingrich 12%
    Perry 6%
    Huntsman 3%

    1. Poll was online and included democrats. I smell bullshit.

      1. The Democrats were only asked about Obama vs. Romney and Obama vs. Gingrich. The figures I gave include only the Republicans.

        And it wasn’t an online poll. Where did you get that idea from?

        1. Oh yeah, just saw that. Just slipped that in, didn’t they? But it wasn’t self-selected like ordinary online polls.

          I can’t find the datasheet for the poll anywhere. It will be interesting to see deeper into the methodology.

          1. You can’t find the methodology or history of previous polls because it’s bullshit, designed to big up Romney. It’s not Paul’s 16 or second that’s crap, but Romney’s 37.

            1. Yeah, I’m highly skeptical of this poll. If they won’t include methodology and a link to the full results I’m not convinced it’s real.

              1. Reuters is a big name though…I don’t think they’d want to be associated with a bogus poll.

                1. And yet, you’ve just admitted that it meets the criteria of a bogus poll. If it is online, right there it is bogus, because that eliminates everyone who is not online.

                  You’re basically arguing from authority, when it is clear the poll isn’t based on reality.

                  1. Protofeed, I don’t think Tulpa takes the poll all too seriously, as was revealed when he noticed how they “slipped” in the online part. I think he’s in a bewildered state because of Reuters conducting the poll in this suspicious fashion.

                    1. Thank you anon. That is a good explanation.

                      It’s possible they somehow corrected for this bias, but I’d have to see the datasheet to be sure. And of course, this almost certainly isn’t like an online poll that a website puts up that tallies the votes of whoever visits the site; they must have chosen the respondents to get almost equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

                      And in any case, there’s nothing wrong with arguing that something is more probable because of what a trusted authority says. You guys have such a hardon for UL but by your standard it’s argument from authority to claim a UL-certified hair dryer is less likely to electrocute you.

                    2. You guys have such a hardon for UL but by your standard it’s argument from authority to claim a UL-certified hair dryer is less likely to electrocute you.

                      Well, it is.

                    3. You think UL would lose their reputation if they approve a hair dryer that electrocutes 100 people? It’s not like they have any competition.

                      They’re like Harvard and Yale, coasting on reputation that hasn’t necessarily been valid for decades.

                2. Sometimes you get what you want…

      2. Practically all polls are bullshit.

        1. Practically you’re an idiot.

  30. Ron Paul wants to make Rand Paul the VP nominee.

    1. …which would be extremely stupid for Paul because it would make him a powerless object of ridicule most of the time (same as Biden, Quayle) and an apologist for Romney the rest of the time. If you want to single-handedly take libertarianism back to political fringe status, that’s how you do it.

    2. Oops, my bad. Rand has a promising career ahead of him. Relegating him to the status of “the boss’s son” would be a good way to end it… unless his dad were to assume room temp while in office. But we’re getting pretty far into the realm of absurdist science fiction at this point.

  31. Tulpa spoof… dude, calm the fuck down.

  32. Ron Paul mania will subside a bit as the primaries move onto “real” America, where white people and farmers aren’t the majority (cough). He’s already dropped to third place or lower in SC and Florida. Meanwhile Romney has remained steadfast while his challengers sunk as quickly as they rose (Cain, Newt, Santorum).

    Team Obama is aware of the fact that Ron Paul has a lot of offer to their own base. That’s why in the general election they’ll hammer him on his racist newsletter, then move slightly to the center on the drug legalization and foreign policy matters to appear more moderate. Did I mention that Ron Paul was in favor of abolishing the civil rights amendment in the past?

    You can’t end wars and close down “departments” of everything without support from the senate and the house. What exactly is his record on building a coalition in order to accomplish even populist libertarian agenda? Enough democrats are populist enough that they’ll side with Republicans to oppose drug legalization and total military withdrawal.

    Despite sound advice from Reason writers, Paul has not offered clear explanations on his kooky remarks, questionable associations, and his role at the namesake newspaper he CLEARLY promoted. Obama had the sympathetic media on his side, Paul doesn’t.

    1. TOUCHDOWN!!!!!!!

    2. He’s already dropped to third place or lower in SC and Florida.

      Latest Reuters poll has him in second in SC. Waaaaay behind Romney, but still second.

      And whites are the majority of the GOP in SC and FL.

      Did I mention that Ron Paul was in favor of abolishing the civil rights amendment in the past?

      Never heard of this “civil rights amendment” but I’m not an expert like you.

      1. And whites are the majority of the GOP in SC and FL.

        Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean that they lean to the left on foreign policy.

    3. Have fun running the federal government on whatever budget you can pass over a veto.

      1. And on whatever veto-overridden budget the executive agrees is constitutional and cuts checks to pay for, which can be an even smaller budget.

    4. Did I mention that Ron Paul was in favor of abolishing the civil rights amendment in the past?

      I’ve never heard of this civil rights amendment.

    5. Re: XM,

      hat’s why in the general election they’ll hammer him on his racist newsletter

      It’s just a shame that the newsletter thing was killed by Stephanopoulos – the arrogant bastard!

      then move slightly to the center on the drug legalization and foreign policy matters to appear more moderate.

      And, obviously, you think that that will work.

      Obama had the sympathetic media on his side, Paul doesn’t.

      And for some unfathomable reason, you believe people care what the media says now.

    6. Re: XM,

      Paul has not offered clear explanations on his kooky remarks[…]

      Like the kooky remark that the government should go back to obeying the Constitution? Yeah, the man needs to be placed on a padded room!

    7. Team Obama is aware of the fact that Ron Paul has a lot of offer to their own base. That’s why in the general election they’ll hammer him on his racist newsletter, then move slightly to the center on the drug legalization and foreign policy matters to appear more moderate. Did I mention that Ron Paul was in favor of abolishing the civil rights amendment in the past?

      Whether it’s Mittens or the CORRECT choice (Ron Paul), someone needs to keep hammering Obama with Obamacare, NDAA, the increasing debt, Solyndra, Beacon Power, medical marijuana raids, Anwar Al-Awlaki (and the principle of killing American citizens without trial), naming Jeffrey Immelt as the head of the President’s Jobs Council (should campaign contributors be so richly rewarded), selling Chrysler to Fiat for a song (no Chrysler did not pay back the bailout, FIAT DID), and speaking of fiat, and Obama’s undeclared airwar over Libya.

      Having your name at the top of some Xeroxed newsletter pales in comparison to historical incidents of financial mismanagement and death that can be laid the Chosen One’s feet.

    8. You can’t end wars and close down “departments” of everything without support from the senate and the house.

      Actually, a POTUS can do that. He or she tells their deputies to not cut the checks or make payroll on unconstitutional departments or undeclared wars.

      Congress authorizes spending. The executive branch executes spending. If Congress doesn’t agree with the executive, their resort isn’t to issue the checks themselves, their resort is to initiate impeachment hearings — which gets messy when Congress is the one acting unconstitutionally.

      1. Actually, the courts can order you to reopen departments that are required by law etc. Nixon tried to shut the EEOC and got slapped with a court order, for instance.

    9. What you say actually makes some sense.

  33. What’s additionally required is a civil-libertarian constituency big and motivated enough to hold them to their promises. That is what progressivism apparently lacks. Until progressives have a plan to change that, they should think twice about marginalizing and dismissing a civil-libertarian voice that, however flawed, is better than any they’ve got to offer.

    Thereby making the mistake of thinking progressive care more about civil liberties than they care about socialized health care.

    They don’t. Obama is giving them what they want. That’s why they aren’t running anyone against them. Civil liberties is just a “nice to have”.

    1. Civil liberties is just a “nice to have”.

      But only after all proggy grand schemes have been implemented. You would never want some dumb individual right thing to get in the way of progressive things for making people better.

      1. Precisely. That would be elevating the rights of the individual above all other values. Only a crazy libertarian would do that.

    2. Like the antiwar movement, for most progs civil liberty violations were just a convenient stick to beat Team Red with. They ain’t gonna beat their guy with it.

      1. Bingo. Proggies are just fine with a surveillance state just as long as it’s a cradle-to-grave Marxist surveillance state.

        1. Report for your preventive health care checkup in the nurses office tomorrow morning, comrade.

  34. I was reading above about something of “RP said Iran has the right to a nuke!!!111one” or some such.

    Tell me, has the US ever stopped any country from developing a nuclear weapon?

    Cause the last time I checked, the US has absolutely zero control over who gets nuclear technology and who doesn’t. Nothing can prevent the dissemination of knowledge.

    1. Tell me, has the US ever stopped any country from developing a nuclear weapon?

      You know who else was developing a nuclear weapon?

      1. In Soviet Russia, nuclear weapon develop YOU!

      2. Hitler?

        1. Actually, Heisenberg. but close enough.

      3. Actually, by invading every freaking country that does NOT have nukes, we are encouraging countries to develop them. Unintended Consequences, how do they work?

    2. Iraq, 2003? Wasn’t Saddams supposed nuclear arsenal the reason we invaded?

    3. Except a whole bunch of treaties, armed forces, and intelligence agencies. Yes, if any 6 year old could build a bomb, we’d be dead by now, treaty or no treaty. And you’d have to be between the ages of 6 and 25 to take that argument seriously.

      1. Really?

        I specifically remembering sanctions on Pakistan while welcoming India with open arms.

        Go figure.

        Saying “It’s too complicated, they won’t be able to figure out how to do it” does not, in fact, prevent anyone from figuring anything out.

        1. I specifically remembering sanctions on Pakistan while welcoming India with open arms.

          Has India been sharing its expertise with Iran or Syria? Ever wonder what the difference is between the regime in Pakistan and the one in India?

          1. Moving goalposts; Did we prevent Pakistan from obtaining Nukes? No.

            What is there to suggest that the US can prevent any nation from obtaining nuclear weapons if it wants such information?

            Do you sincerely believe that such information can be repressed forever?

            Note: If you answer yes to the second question, you’re a complete fool and need not bother with answering.

        2. That’s right! The number one problem in the world today is that the US is HYPOCRITCAL! If we weren’t such awful hypocrites, the world would be peaceful, everybuddy would love each other and smoke weed together. Sure thing!

  35. Saying that Iran has bombs BUT the regime is “painfully rational” is pretty weak. This is also a serious proliferation issue, especially if they already have warheads for crissake. How rational was Hussein when he invaded Kuwait? Oh, that’s right. Our intelligence agencies botched that one. How rational was that non-state actor Al Qaeda when they started a war with us on 9/11/01 (with the help of Iran and a number of other silent partners, there is reason to think)? Nothing to see here, move along. Everything is hunky dory (until it isn’t).

    1. What makes you think we can -prevent- Iran from obtaining nukes?

      I mean, we did SO GREAT preventing Pakistan.

      1. You know who else we failed to keep from getting nukes?

        1. Were we even paying attention to Pakistan?

          1. None of the Sovietologists who rule the CIA can speak Hindi/Urdu.

          2. Stupid squirrels. Accidently posted above, but I’ll re-post here just so you get it.

            Really?

            I specifically remembering sanctions on Pakistan while welcoming India with open arms.

            Go figure.

            Saying “It’s too complicated, they won’t be able to figure out how to do it” does not, in fact, prevent anyone from figuring anything out.

    2. Re: Sanjuro Tsubaki,

      Saying that Iran has bombs BUT the regime is “painfully rational” is pretty weak.

      Especially when they have shown to be otherwise… uh, right?

      How rational was that non-state actor Al Qaeda when they started a war with us on 9/11/01

      Just as rational as conflating two entirely different concepts and think they’re the same. One is a country, the other is just a group of crazies. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and just because the population is Muslim does not mean the 80 million individuals flew the planes.

      1. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 and just because the population is Muslim does not mean the 80 million individuals flew the planes.

        It would be 9-11 … times a thousand!

      2. One is a country, the other is just a group of crazies.

        A highly organized network of crazies who got lots of help from foreign governments, just as Iran is getting help with their nuke program from our “ally” Pakistani and NK nationals.

    3. How rational was Hussein when he invaded Kuwait?

      Wrong /= irrational.

      He concluded that we would not intervene based on his knowledge of American culture and intervention was a close call. There was widespread opposition at the time from the left and right. Dessert shied and storm never would have happened if Dukkakis had won the 88 election instead of Bush.

      How rational was that non-state actor Al Qaeda when they started a war with us on 9/11/01 (with the help of Iran and a number of other silent partners, there is reason to think)?

      Iran, the Shiite state is a much larger, long term enemy to Wahhabi nut bags than the US.

  36. NO ONE HERE IS WHO THEY APPEAR TO BE. Trust no one, even if they are known to you, not even me (the most trustworthy person here).

    1. Tebow’s losing. Bad.

      1. It’s not that bad.

        1. Never mind.

    2. Well said.

      1. Who goes there?

        1. Are you The Real Thing or The “Real” Thing?

          1. Yes. Duh.

            1. Cease and desist.

              1. No, YOU cease and desist.

    3. Are you Bob?

    4. Your enemy is your enemy. Quite simple. Just be careful who you label friends.

    5. They’ve given up on Wall of Text. This is their next attempt destroy free speech.

      The Progressives can not survive in a world with free expression.

  37. Romney, meanwhile, has largely left Paul alone when attacking his Republican rivals

    Maybe because he has seen how such attacks lead nowhere and people in the end hate you for it.

    1. “People in the end,” eh?

      I hate you.

  38. Ron Paul, a patriot, who has honorably served his country, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity. Dr. Paul has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to be president.

    Dr. Paul believes spending and deficits are destroying this country. Dr. Paul’s budget plan would save $1 trillion in the first year. Besides the spending cuts, there are other issues of importance to voters. For conservatives, Dr. Paul scores an A+ on all of them: Second Amendment protection, pro-life record, right-to-work, pro-business, anti-tax, states’ rights, you name it.

    Dr. Paul also believes America should have the strongest national defense on earth ? which he believes begins with not trying to constantly police the earth. Right now, our government puts our best and bravest in harm’s way on a regular basis for questionable reasons and with no discernible notion of victory. This is not supporting the troops. It’s abusing them. Dr. Paul wants an end to this absurd, costly policy.

    The voters have declared Dr. Paul the alternative to the liberal, flip flopping Mitt Romney. The other candidates are simply irrelevant. In the New Hampshire Primary, Dr. Paul received more votes than all the supposed Anti-Romney (Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry) candidates combined.

    The question for Republican voters is not whether they can afford to vote for Dr. Paul – it’s whether they can afford not to.

    America Needs Ron Paul.

    1. Why did Ron Paul opt out of the Huckabee festivities?

      1. I don’t know about Paul, but I sure as hell would keep my distance from that fat fuck.

        1. Both have foot-in-mouth disease.

        2. Is Huckabee fat now? I don’t think I’ve watched news on TV since … man, since Huckabee was running.

      2. Uh, because there’s more than a vacuum between his ears?
        Did I win?

        1. Nature whores a vacuum.

    2. Ron Paul, a patriot, who has honorably served his country, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity.

      So did Jimmy Carter. He’s still got his head up his ass in regards to foreign policy. If he was to be in favor of caution in dealing with Iran instead of making up excuses for their behavior to fit with his ideology, I might trust his judgement more. But if “Dr” Paul wants to step in it and inform everybody that the regime in Iran is harmless, he deserves to lose.

      1. *yawn*

        Wake me when Iran has a blue-water navy and ICBMs.

        1. Don’t worry, an ICBM can wake you up.

          1. Wasn’t North Korea supposed to destroy the world when they developed (bought) nuclear weapons?

            Whatever happened with that?

            1. Ask the regimes they’re trying to sell their technology to.

              1. Such as…?

                1. I heard a rumor about Derqaderqistan and some yellowcake.

                  1. Obviously time to sound the war drums.

            2. You fuckers won’t be laughing when NorKo sells a nuke to Inner Mongolia!

  39. according to the article
    “….Libertarianism in general and Ron Paul specifically have a lot to offer the progressive left…”

    WHAT? You mean Gingrich was right?
    Ron Paul is a LEFTIST!

    1. If “blame America first” is a quintessentially left-wing point of view, yes.

      1. Lost my decoder ring; want to try that in English?
        I’m hoping you’re not claiming that RP is ‘blaming America first’, just ’cause I’m a nice guy.

        1. Oops.
          Just saw your 9:44 post.
          You need to check your in-box for a “fuck off” notice.

          1. Oh boy. Maybe president Paul will make you his defense secretary and put you in charge of writing nasty notes to people who post stuff you don’t like. Not very effective, especially if your foes merely have to wait for you to get so riled up that your head explodes.

            1. Oh! Oh! Vote for X or you’re gonna die! How original!
              Did you find the “fuck-off” notice? It’s there, since your fear-mongering is worn-out tired.

              1. Sevo, you’re quite good at handing out “Fuck off” notices. If only you could be head of NLRB.

                1. I say this without sarcasm.

              2. Nope, still no f-u notice yet. Maybe you should use your mental death-ray against me or stick some pins in a Sanjuro doll or something.

                1. Sanjuro Tsubaki|1.14.12 @ 10:57PM|#
                  “Nope, still no f-u notice yet.”

                  Shucks.
                  It’s not in your in-box it’s right here:
                  Fuck off.

                  1. Goeth and fukketh yourselfeth, little man.

                    1. “little man.”
                      When you *really* have not argument at all, what do you post?
                      See above.
                      Oh, and fuck off.

                    2. You really like that word, don’t you?

            2. Go back to plucking your daisy petal, LBJ Flower Girl. America has HAD your shit at beaucoup capacity for decades now, and it doesn’t fucking work.

              1. When the only remark you make doesn’t seem to be directed at any idea, it makes you look stupid.

                1. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for suicide.

                  1. you aren’t very effective here by any standard.. don’t know which country you came form, but america’s difference used to be that you lived in tyrrany for thousands of years hence perhaps needed to be on edge all the time. we do not live in fear. if we indulged in your style of politics, we would just be as poor as you are. you are welcome to return yourself to mother country, if you find our style of non-fear based, threat-in-perspective style of politics not appealing.

  40. The Demon Belichik goes up by 14 and that’s when Dr Dobson’s outfit decides to run their John 3:16 commercial.

    1. Not on my local channel.

      1. I saw it too.

        1. That’s not an effective disguise.

          1. It’s my day off. Also it’s a response to a post above, probably not to be held much longer.

      2. Actually it was probably a good time to run it, since the Broncos are going to be behind by 40 soon enough.

    2. So, if you are a wee lad of five and you take John 3:16 to heart and you die the next day, you go to heaven. If, instead, you live to see the next day, and on and on afterwards to the point you develop critical intelligence to doubt the veracity of John 3:16 to the point you are not sure, you go to Hell.

      Christian parents kind of owe it to their kids to kill them right then and there, don’t they?

      1. I’m sure it’s probably happened.

        1. Wasn’t that what happened with Andrea Yates?

          1. Not sure if it went down exactly like that but it was something along those lines.

  41. Nice blocking Tebow!

    1. Well, god helped him.

  42. [standing over Tim Tebow, and in his face]

    Damnnnn motherfucker, you jus’ got yo ass wooped!

    1. I just tuned in at halftime. Wow,that is an ass kicking. Not all that surprising though.

    2. So much for the option offense taking the NFL by storm…

      14 negative yardage plays for the Tebows tonight, and we’re still in the 3rd quarter.

      1. This is certainly the defense I hoped would play tonight. (That’s the sort of insightful football analysis you get from me.)

  43. Ron Paul, a patriot, who has honorably served his country, defends both the constitution and civil liberties, and is for peace and prosperity. Dr. Paul has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to be president.

    Dr. Paul believes spending and deficits are destroying this country. Dr. Paul’s budget plan would save $1 trillion in the first year. Besides the spending cuts, there are other issues of importance to voters. For conservatives, Dr. Paul scores an A+ on all of them: Second Amendment protection, pro-life record, right-to-work, pro-business, anti-tax, states’ rights, you name it.

    Dr. Paul also believes America should have the strongest national defense on earth ? which he believes begins with not trying to constantly police the earth. Right now, our government puts our best and bravest in harm’s way on a regular basis for questionable reasons and with no discernible notion of victory. This is not supporting the troops. It’s abusing them. Dr. Paul wants an end to this absurd, costly policy.

    The voters have declared Dr. Paul the alternative to the liberal, flip flopping Mitt Romney. The other candidates are simply irrelevant. In the New Hampshire Primary, Dr. Paul received more votes than all the supposed Anti-Romney (Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry) candidates combined.

    The question for Republican voters is not whether they can afford to vote for Dr. Paul – it’s whether they can afford not to.

    America Needs Ron Paul.

    1. Not really much need to spam this forum on this subject.

    2. America needs Ron Paul …to stop helping Romney get the nomination. America needs a libertarian leader…but one that is a little less loopy than Ron Paul.

      1. You fight with the army you have.

        1. Ron Paul isn’t an army.

          1. Yeah, the millions of supporters he already has aren’t an army, right? They’re just hippie pacifists. They hate freedom and want the mullahs to win.

            Or, you know, not.

    3. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Suicide.

    1. Impossible! Mossad doesn’t consider Iran to be a threat!

    2. Israel != American friends of Netanyahu

    3. That was interesting. I would not expect them to go all in for the GOP like that. Pretty short sided if you ask me. Obama has certainly shown a willingness to play hard with Iran.

    4. Impossible! Israel is proud to pay for its own social programs! It doesn’t want military aid from the US just to allow it the economic wiggle room to pay for social programs instead! It can’t be that they want to influence US politics in hopes of getting a return on investment at the cost of Americans! pish posh!

    5. Oh RT yeah that’s a credible source. Not.

  44. Oh Tebow… you broke my heart

  45. Unlike heartless godless drug-addicted libertarians who would want to see her suffer more before she dies in the street, Mitt Romney helps a woman live for a few hours more: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..-ropeline/

    1. Don’t ever change, guy.

      1. Well, there’s simply no arguing with logic like that. At least no arguing while maintaining your sanity.

    2. Wow, Jake. You must be the first human with true telepathic abilities.

    3. Romney favors reparations!

  46. So, Tebow threw 316 yards last week. He better hope to score 666 tonight if he has any chance against the Pats.

    Goddamnit, why couldn’t I think of something that clever before the game!

    1. Say what you will about Von Miller’s decision-making there, but he did have some balls starting a fight by himself with 4 Pats linemen right along the Pats sideline.

      1. I was only half paying attention and I heard “Brady’s punt.”

        1. They had Brady punt out of the shotgun on 3rd down. The Broncos defense didn’t take kindly to it after the ball came to rest.

    2. If the Pats were going to punt on 3rd down to protect Brady, they really should have sent their punter out. No reason to have Brady punt other than to taunt the Broncos.

      1. Good a reason as any

      2. I think they did it out of boredom. Not being challenged by an opponent brings out the a-hole in people.

      3. Being punted to on the 3rd down is about the same as being slapped in the face with a cock.

        1. In itself it’s no worse than a kneeldown, but doing it with the QB from a shotgun formation is out of line imho.

          1. Von Miller did act like a bitch with that blindside on Connolly.

            1. Fuck you pussies, if you can’t handle the heat, get outta the fuckin kitchin!

              If the bronc-hos come out looking pathetic like that, why the hell shouldn’t we make it as embarassing on them as possible? They could have prevented teh entire thing…by beating us. It was their choice.

              GO PATS!!!

              1. Never implied that being an asshole is a bad thing. The warm salty tears of Patriot anti-fans are just as tasty as that of Pats fans when they lost to the Giants. Lol! The Giants! Slightly less humiliating than coming a hair length to losing to the Panthers.

      4. Yep. Belichick is a great coach, but he is the sole reason why so many people can’t stand the Patriots. He’s a total fucking douche who loves rubbing his genius in everyone else’s face.

        1. Guess Belichik’s major. That’s right. If he didn’t pursue coaching, he would likely be an economist today.

          1. We should get a sportswriter to ask him what he thinks about Austrian economics.

    3. I took the money
      I spiked your drink
      You miss too much these days if you stop to think
      You lead me on with those innocent eyes
      You know I love the element of surprise
      In the garden I was playing the tart
      I kissed your lips and broke your heart
      You…you were acting like it was
      The end of the world

      1. Somebody moved the goal posts on Tim TeBone last night.
        I was at the local Wild Wings…Timmy’s fans were crying like the North Koreans after Kim Jong-il died.

  47. very nice and interesting article!
    everyone like it…
    thanks for the information…

  48. Vicious regressive racist Ron Paul’s Stormfront style campaign annihilated by the brilliant Tim Wise:
    http://www.timwise.org/2012/01…..-liberals/

    1. Vicious regressive racist

      derp

      Stormfront style campaign

      derp

      annihilated

      derp

      the brilliant Tim Wise

      derp

    2. Vicious regressive racist Ron Paul

      derp

      Stormfront style campaign

      derp

      annihilated

      derp

      the brilliant Tim Wise

      derp

    3. You mean a fucktard statist can’t comprehend how society can function without the benevolent hand of government controlling everything? I’m shocked, just shocked by this!

    4. And he used the word “Randian” to describe Ron Paul. So he really is full of shit. Progressives view libertarians the same way neocons view Muslims: monoltithic and unfathomably evil without any regard to the various subdivisions and differences of beliefs that permeate the label.

      1. I don’t give a shit. You guys are the worst authoritarians. No one but Paultards apparently have any right to have any say in what the Constitution means or what the limits of federal power should be because those limits are “so obvious and clear”. Why don’t you people start wearing uniforms and giving the Roman salute to each other?

        1. That was a horrendous lapse. The Constitution is easy to read, has a specific meaning, and is law. Period. No debate is permissible.

          1. Umm, no. There are several vague clauses and oversights in the constitution.

            1. There’s a penis growing out of Barack Obama’s armpit. No proof or citations necessary.

              That’s me implying you should be more specific.

              1. “unreasonable search and seizure”

                no addressing of taking private property for private use

                the Vice President presides over his own impeachment trial

                the first part of the 2nd amendment

                the “general welfare” clause

                etc.

                1. Tim Wise: Some progressives praise Ron Paul; women, minorities hardest hit

    5. Yet to the so-called progressives who sing the praises of Ron Paul, all because of his views on domestic spying, bailouts for banksters, and military intervention abroad…

      Citations needed. Citations needed for ALL of this shit.

  49. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if on the day before the South Carolina primary, Paul was only behind Romney by, like, 2 percent, and all the rank-and-file Republicans starting shitting their pants on national TV?

    1. It would be worth it, just for the schadenfreude

      1. Now picture in your mind what would happen if Paul got a surprise win in South Carolina, even if it’s by a very narrow margin. You’ll never, ever need cable TV again — you’ll have an entertainment overflow just from watching the establishment’s reaction.

        1. MSNBC can at least read the writing on the wall (sort of). Now, instead of not mentioning Ron Paul (which hasn’t worked), or mentioning TEH NUSLEDDERS!11!!! (which also hasn’t worked), they continually ask if Ron Paul should make a third-party run.

          Which is why MSNBC is nothing but a televised Democratic strategy session.

    2. This is why the GOP needs to keep as many people in the running, for as long as possible. A certain percentage of Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum votes are anti-Romney votes, and a certain percentage of those would have gone to Paul, were the race currently between Paul and Romney. That is not how it will play out, though: once they reach the convention, all non-Romney votes will be assumed to have been anti-Paul, rather than the anti-Romney votes that some of them were.

      1. *as many people as possible in the running*

      2. Alternative: Romney sex scandal.

  50. The Reuters Poll that is quoted on Real Clear Politics is here:

    http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11293

    It was done for Reuters by IPSOS.

    I says it was a telephone poll using landlines and cell phones.

    Clearly, they do democrats, indepenents, and republicans.

    Interestingly, Paul is tied for second with Gingrich with all Republicans and idependents at 17%

    He is third with Republicans only at 16%.

    Off topic, a bit, the South Carolina primary is completely open. We don’t register by party at all. Also, there is no Democrat Presidential primary this year.

    I don’t know where the claim that the SC primary is closed comes from. It could be that in fact mostly self-described independents hardly vote in our primaries. Oddly enough, the official definition of Republican or Democrat in this state is that you voted in the last official primary of that party. Those are held in June. These Presidential primaries aren’t even official primaries, and people are free to vote in whatever primary they want come June.

    1. The results I saw from that poll had him tied for second with Santorum.

    2. Oh, I see. This is the Jan 9-12 poll. The one I quoted above was Jan 10-13.

    3. It’s probably because the presidential primary is conducted privately by the party. The people who think the primary is closed must infer that they just have their members vote. Actually my understanding is that anyone who asks can vote. I think they check their voter registration just to prevent ballot stuffing; if they wanted to, under state law AIUI they could allow people of any age or residency or species to vote.

  51. Democrats can in fact unapologetically run against indefinite detention, excessive executive power, and needless wars, and get elected doing it.

    Sure, Democrats can run against those things, but they will enthusiastically implement and/or continue such policies when actually in office. See Obama, Barack H.

    He abandoned the left (and the entire country) on a host of civil liberties and war issues, yet it seems many of them think that’s okay. TEAMs and all that, I guess.

    1. It’s a bit puzzling how all those people with PEACE NOW bumper stickers beside their Obama 08 ones can still plan to vote for him. If you take the time you talk to them you find it rests on things like:

      1. They see him as pulling out of the previous occupations and they differentiate Libya on the grounds that it was relatively “minor” in comparison to Iraq/Afghanistan
      2. They like his “tone” better than Bush (in other words he talks multinationalism and offering olive branches and acts like he reluctantly must keep raping our civil liberties while Bush et al., seemed more gung-ho cowboy about all that)
      3. They compare him to the GOP nominee candidates and their jingoistic rhetoric and find him the lesser of evils.

      Whatever one can say about these points, I’ll just note that these people can’t complain if they continue to get someone who provides little more than symbolic alignment with their views while substantively offering no real change. These people should emulate the Tea Party and organize to get their candidates to live up to the rhetoric they have sold them.

      1. The run-of-the-mill progressives and conservatives, if necessary, have to be duped somehow into voting for Paul. I hope he can pull off pandering to them all somehow. Because for all his good positions, there are enormous factions on both sides that hate his guts and couldn’t possibly reconcile their worldviews with his noninterventionism, let alone his anti-central banking inclinations and any of his other positions.

      2. You vote on what is important to you. And those things are not that important to them. It is that simple.

        1. To be fair, you’re much more likely to be affected by having your government goodies taken away than you are to be assassinated or indefinitely detained.

          1. And thus the former is more important to you.

        2. It’s that simple to simple people like yourself. Other people might, I dunno, respond to what I said.

      3. This is an anecdote, so take it FWIW.

        I have some neighbors who are pretty nice people. They have a picture of Obama over their hearth. The dad wears a hammer-and-sickle t shirt while doing handyman work. They dress their kid up in Obama buttons on or around election day. They also wear buttons that say things like “taxes fight fires”.

        They were horrified when they invited me to participate in a petition drive to raise property taxes to build a new school, and I told them matter-of-factly that I would not be supporting it, particularly during a depression where people were having fire sales of their homes (some of wich had been in their families for two or three generations) because they couldn’t afford the taxes. I framed the whole issue as an assault on the poor.

        They also complained about mysterious forces opposing the petition drive while resting their hands on the glossy professionally designed pro-override yard signs that had sprung up around town overnight within days of the movement being publicly announced by a town meeting member. They fretted the opposition (disorganized, no signage) must be an astroturf campaign by right wingers.

        Back in the run up to Gulf War II, they were participating in anti-war marches. They worried that Bush was going to start jailing people without trial.

        Now, they think Obama, is doing the things he does because the Congress, dominated by evil Republicans, is thwarting him at every turn.

        They are, in short, Obamatards. Nice people, but I think it would be horrifically awkward if I were to ask them what Obama could do that would make them turn against him.

        1. They sound like liberal mirror images of many people here…

          1. Many people here keep pictures of politicians over their hearth?

            Really, MNG?

            Whom do you have in mind?

            1. Yeah, my Ron Paul shrine is in the bedroom, not the hearth. Why would I go to another room to make my just-before-bedtime prostrations before his statue?

      4. They see him as pulling out of the previous occupations and they differentiate Libya on the grounds that it was relatively “minor” in comparison to Iraq/Afghanistan

        Pretty much like you, if memory serves.

        the first part of the 2nd amendment

        the “general welfare” clause

        1. Pls. excuse random left over copy pasta.

  52. From WaPo, “10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free”

    They are all foriegn policy/WOT areas, but note as described by the author, that on every one Obama is as terrible as or little improvement from Bush and AFAIK Ron Paul would be better…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..print.html

    1. The United States are still the land of the mostly free, and losing the amount of liberty we already have has been gut-wrenchingly disgusting and unbelievable. Imagine what it’ll be like if we stay the shitty course for another 50 years. We’ll look like Syria, but with more SWAT raids.

      I have no tolerance for authoritarianism. None whatsoever. I believe it’s high time Romney, Obama, Santorum, Gigrich, and Huntsman got hit by buses (preferably publicly operated ones).

    2. Wow. Could this be a possible sign that maybe the mainstream media is FINALLY ready to start covering this guy the way that they normally cover the president? One can only hope.

      1. Turley isn’t a daily contributor there. He has a bunch of good civil-libertarian articles, including a good one about videoing police, but they only appear about once a month in major newspapers.

  53. Sorry guys, last night, we accidentally redirected all of our web traffic to this page.

    1. It’s particularly infuriating that your dumb progressive asses opted for a name like ‘Free Republic’, because the thing you represent least is free republicanism. /Rant.

      1. Fun note: the freepers are, by and large, in love with Santorum.

        Make of that what you will.

        1. In Santorum’s case, “progressive” still applies. The guy’s a douche.

  54. Wow OK man that dude makes a lot of sense. WOw.

    http://www.anon-vpn.tk

  55. OT: http://news.yahoo.com/video/us…..81044.html

    McDonald’s forces us to buy and eat their food through mind-control devices their operatives implant into our craniums! MUST PROHIBIT BY LAW!!!!!!!!!!! UUUUUUUNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

    /Pants-shitting, pro-authoritarian asswipe.

  56. OT: There’s an article on Yahoo about the social conservative anti-Romney vote, and they’ve got pictures of all the others except Paul. Lol. DOES NOT EXIST

    1. You can only be in denial until you can’t be. It’ll be interesting to watch what comes next.

  57. I actually watched David Gregory interview (if you really want to call it that) Newt this morning. Aside from “ARRRRRGH! Romney BAAAAAAD” I have no more understanding of what Gangrinich thinks about anything today than I did yesterday; just that he obviously sees himself as America’s Lee Kuan Yew.

    I have a friend who is mostly sensible, but says he likes likes Gangrinich because he is a “shit-stirrer”. Which is actually a most excellent reason to despise him.

    “Shit-stirrers” are just dumbfuck attention whores; it’s like going to somebody’s house, and their retarded kid hits you incessantly and screeches “LOOK AT ME!~ LOOK AT MEEEEEEEE!”

    And anybody who thinks Newt Kuan Yew is gonna “demolish” the Ascended One in a debate is kidding himself. I predict Newt will be chased from the stage by men with butterfly nets, should the occasion arise.

    1. He might win a debate against Biden.

      1. ** flashes debate-winning grin **

      2. I have a Chesapeake Bay Retriever who could win a debate against Biden.

        1. That doesn’t speak well for Palin.

          1. she cleaned Biden’s clock in that debate. She destroyed him. Go back and read the post debate analysis.

            1. “She destroyed him. Go back and read the post debate analysis on FreeRepublic.”

              FTFY

          2. And that was with Gwen “I just wrote a book on God Obama” as the moderator.

            1. Don’t slack when it comes to the Holy One, you Tea-Bagging scumbag. It’s The God of all Gods, not just God. Jesus Christ, man, get a clue!111!!

              /Rachel Maddow.

              1. The donkeys would have won yesterday if TBow had been praying to Obama instead of Jesus.

                1. It is hard to beat a franchise that runs on pure evil.

                  1. That’s rather Biercian.

                  2. If Satan ran the Patriots, they wouldn’t have the worst defense in the history of football.

  58. Just thought I’d let the Reason editors know this:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic…..unday.html

    Things are moving our way north of your border.

  59. Again I say:

    Nobody from Goldman Sachs is at the airport strip searching travelers. Jamie Dimon wasn’t selling weapons to the narcoterroristas on the side. Brian Moynihan isn’t sending goon squads out to smash down doors and terrorize families at gunpoint.

    But it’s a convenient distraction for the self described 99%ers. “Ooh, look over there! Rich banksterz! We hatez them!”

  60. http://pjmedia.com/blog/sopa-a…..must-kill/

    Interesting line by line analysis of SOPA. The people who wrote this thing are evil.

    1. Matt Yglesias claims that the BO administration opposes it, without any evidence beyond a tepid tome about “balancing IP protection with Internet freedom” from some underling policy group in the bowels of the White House labyrinth.

      1. BO has to choose between Hollywood money or silicon valley money. He would hate to lose either. But I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t take the Hollywood money and the power and tell Silicon Valley to pound sand.

        1. Maybe he can try stalling for a year like with the Keystone XL.

          Or more likely, he’ll sign it and add a signing statement promising not to abuse it.

  61. Who do you think would win a presidential debate between Han Solo and Commander Riker?

    1. Han Solo. He’s decidedly anti-authoritarian, and Riker’s a typical quasi-pinko, even though he was one of the least political characters on TNG. He’s also more awesome in every other way, too.

      1. I though Riker demonstrated more backbone than any other person on that ship. He was willing to sacrifice Picard in order to stop the Borg, and he was honest enough to jeopardize his own career by confessing his involvment with illegal activity in the Pegasus episode.

        But yeah, Han is more fun because he’s all rougish.

        1. At his weight, Riker’s health would be an issue.

          1. Actually, Riker was the only major character in STTNG born in the United States. Bev was of American ancestry but was born on a colony world.

            1. Can we see her birth certificate?

        2. I liked Mott the barber, personally.

      1. Lord Hoth, mother-fuckers.

    2. Given that choice, I’d vote third party for the Firefly captain.

      1. Is there really any difference between Mal Reynolds and Han Solo? I can imagine if the Rebellion had been crushed by the Empire Han would be as dark and gloomy as Mal.

        1. Is there really any difference between Mal Reynolds and Han Solo?

          Mal doesn’t throw a punch like an old lady on barbiturates.

        2. Mal never shot first.

          1. Except in the movie where he shoots a wounded Alliance soldier in cold blood.

            1. That wasn’t cold blood.

    3. We talking with or without the beard?

  62. I am normally really hard on Jon Stewart. So I have to give credit here. This is brilliant.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..ourse.html

    1. Any links to a transcript, or at least a pr?cis?

      1. Very briefly, the head of the “Editorial Writers Civility Project” wrote an editorial calling Tea-Partiers economic terrorists. And, she stood by every word.

        1. There’s nothing uncivil about telling the truth.

          1. There’s nothing uncivil about telling the truth.

            So, when I state that you are a waste of space who hasn’t contributed meaningfully to any of the discussions here in years, I’m being civil?

            Wow, Dan T., you’ve just given me some insight as to exactly how mushily your mind works.

    2. My favorite bit was her expression when he said “Some people just don’t recognize irony when it’s right there in front of them”

      1. Or her suggestion to chain people to a chair if they won’t listen to her lecture of how they are being uncivil.

      2. Could be she was actually an attention seeking doll like Newt Gingrich.

  63. The heart of the matter, via Holman Jenkins.

    Mitt Romney and his GOP rivals are engaged in a fruitless argument in South Carolina over whether private equity creates more jobs than it destroys. The debate is fruitless because voters and politicians don’t believe jobs should ever be destroyed.

    1. But don’t you understand Brooks. Nothing bad should ever happen to anyone. And if it does it is the government’s job to fix it at everyone else’s expense.

      1. The government should hire everybody to play golf and pay each ’employee’ $100,000 for life. UNEMPLOYMENT SOLVED!!!!!

        1. Don’t be ridiculous.

    2. It should be noted that the author is on Romney’s side on this issue.

      What does this have to do with the presidency? Perhaps not much, but one thing he didn’t learn at Bain Capital was to twiddle his thumbs because taking action might make somebody mad at him. That’s not the worst qualification to bring to the Oval Office right now.

    3. The debate is fruitless because voters and politicians don’t believe jobs should ever be destroyed.

      What about our jobs?

  64. Ancient Mythic Origins of the Easter Story
    ———————————————————————————-

    Easter is coming. Some people are saying that the crucifixion and resurrection narratives simply retell the cycle of seasons, the death and return of the Sun. Others say that these stories are literal histories.

    But you say the reality is more complicated than either of these. You argue that the Easter stories – the death and resurrection of Jesus have very specific mythic origins.

    I view the story of Christ in the Gospels of the New Testament as a powerful and spiritually wise sacred story. While the story is told as if it happened, it is a theologically and mythically constructed history. The conclusion of the story, the account of Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection and ascension to heaven, has many layers. But at its core I would say it is an historicized version of a very ancient myth from Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Civilization, the land we today call Iraq.

    What does that mean?

    Some stories speak to people in a deep spiritual way. These sacred stories are what are called “myths” in the field of religious studies. Despite our common usage, a myth traditionally is not just a false tale. Rather, it is a story that, at least at one point in time, had a very powerful spiritual resonance. The story of death and resurrection I refer to is one such story. In the Sumerian tradition, in which much of the Bible is rooted, the story is called, “From the Great Above to the Great Below” or “The Descent of Inanna.” There is also a Babylonian version of the myth, which is called “The Descent of Ishtar.”

    Let’s hear the story!

    The Sumerian goddess Inanna is the personification of the planet Venus the “Queen of Heaven” and a major deity in the Sumerian pantheon. A long, long time ago, before humans are even created, Inanna, takes a journey to the Underworld, a realm under the control of her sister Ereshkigal. Before heading out Inanna gives instructions to her assistant about rescuing her if she runs into trouble, which she does. In the underworld, she enters through seven gates, and her worldly attire is removed. “Naked and bowed low” she is judged, killed, and then hung on display.

    I can’t help but notice that the number seven is a sacred, just like it will be later in the Bible.

    Yes, the numbers three, seven, twelve are sacred throughout ancient Mesopotamian writings including the Hebrew Bible (seven days of creation, twelve tribes of Israel) and subsequently Christianity (three days in the tomb, twelve apostles, twelve days of Christmas). They have their roots in universal human perceptions of the movements of the heavens (e.g. twelve signs of the zodiac).

    To return to the story, the result of Inanna’s death is that the earth becomes sterile. Plants start drying up, and animals cease having sexual relations. Unless something is done all life on earth will end. After Inanna has been missing for three days her assistant goes to other gods for help. Finally one of them Enki, creates two creatures who carry the plant of life and water of life down to the Underworld, sprinkling them on Inanna and resurrecting her. She then prepares to return to the upper realm.

    So Inanna is the prototype for Jesus in the Easter story?

    Not quite. She is part of the prototype. After Inanna gets out of the underworld we are introduced to her husband Dumuzi. When mythic stories get passed from one culture to the next, sometimes one character can split into two or two characters come together. In this case, the Jesus of the resurrection story blends parts of Inanna and Dimuzi.

    Ok, let’s hear about Dumuzi.

    The Underworld has a number of names, including “the Great Earth” and “the Great City”, and it is also called the “Land of No Return.” If, by chance, as a result of an extraordinary resurrection from the dead, someone does escape from there the rule is that a substitute must be provided. So when Inanna comes up she searches for a substitute. She doesn’t want to send anyone who has been missing her and mourning her down there, but when she finds her husband Dumuzi on his throne and totally unconcerned about her being gone, she decides that he will be her substitute. He protests vigorously and is helped to escape by his brother-in-law Utu, the Sun-god. But then a compromise is agreed upon, whereby Dumuzi will be required to spend 6 months of every year in the Underworld, and for the other 6 months his devoted sister will substitute for him. Life and fertility thus return to the earth. And that’s how the story ends.

    Six months up and six down. Now I am reminded of Persephone.

    Yes, and many other dying and rising gods that represent the cycle of the seasons and the stars. In Christianity one way the story changes is that it is detached from this agricultural cycle. The dying happens just once.

    But this story of Inanna/Ishtar is the oldest, the prototype?

    It is one of the earliest epic myths recorded. We know this story because it has been found inscribed on cuneiform clay tablets dug up from the sands of Iraq by archaeologists, and because linguists have deciphered the Sumerian language and provided translations in English. This was a popular myth, and so we have multiple copies of it, or of portions of it. The earliest tablets inscribed with this story date to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, and it is thought to have been originally formulated about 2100 BC, i.e., 4200 years ago.

    Lay it out for us. How do you see this being a prototype for the story of Christ’s death and resurrection?

    Let’s start with the first part of the myth. Inanna and Jesus both travel to a big city, where they are arrested by soldiers, put on trial, convicted, sentenced to death, stripped of their clothes, tortured, hung up on a stake, and die. And then, after 3 days, they are resurrected from the dead. Now there are, to be sure, a number of significant differences between the stories. For one thing, one story is about a goddess and the other is about a divine man. But this is a specific pattern, a mythic template. When you are dealing with the question of whether these things actually happened, you have to deal with the fact that there is a mythic template here. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there wasn’t a real person, Jesus, who was crucified, but rather that, if there was, the story about it is structured and embellished in accordance with a pattern that was very ancient and widespread.

    So what about the 2nd part of the myth?

    The 2nd part of the Inanna myth really focuses on her husband Dumuzi. Dumuzi is the prototype of the non-aggressive, non-heroic male; he cries easily; he is the opposite of the warrior-god in the ancient pantheon. The summer month which corresponds to our month of July is named after him in both the Babylonian and Hebrew calendars, and during this month each year his followers, mostly women, mourn his death. From this myth we are talking about, and from a few other references, we also know that he is resurrected. But unlike Jesus, who dies and is resurrected once, he is imagined to die and be resurrected over and over, each year. There are other major differences. However, there really are a lot of similarities between the personalities and the stories of Jesus and Dumuzi. They both are tortured and die violent deaths after being betrayed by a close friend, who accepts a bribe from his enemies. They both have a father who is a god and a mother who is human. Dumuzi’s father, the god Enki, also has many similarities to Yahweh, the father of Jesus.

    Other than this gospel story, are there any other signs of Inanna’s influence on Christianity or on Easter?

    There are a few points I would mention. Inanna becomes known outside of Mesopotamia by her Babylonian name, “Ishtar”. She is a personification of Venus as an evening star, and there is also a male aspect of the deity who is usually the morning star. At the end of the Book of Revelation when Christ speaks to John he says, “I am the bright morning star.” In ancient Canaan Ishtar is known as Astarte, and her counterparts in the Greek and Roman pantheons are known as Aphrodite and Venus. In the 4th Century, when Christians got around to identifying the exact site in Jerusalem where the empty tomb of Jesus had been located, they selected the spot where a temple of Aphrodite (Astarte/Ishtar/Inanna) stood. So they tore it down and built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the holiest church in the Christian world.

    Also, our holiday of Easter was traditionally called ‘Pascha’, and still is in many languages, named after the Jewish festival of ‘Pesach’ or Passover. In the Germanic and Anglo-Saxon world we have, however, come to name the holiday ‘Easter’. This name is almost surely a reflex of the goddess Ishtar. In the pagan spiritual traditions of Germany and England in the medieval period Ishtar, who came to be called the goddess Easter, and who as a deity of resurrection and rebirth became strongly associated with the season of springtime and ultimately gave her name to Christianity’s main holy day.

    No rudeness intended, but how can you call yourself a Christian? Mark Driscoll, rising Evangelical star, told his Seattle congregation: “If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, there is no reason for us to be here.”

    Well, many Christian theologians see the crucifixion and resurrection as a spiritual story rather than a literal one?a story about hope beyond despair, redemption and new life. But they are not the ones who get the media attention. I consider myself to be a Christian in a spiritual sense, not in a doctrinal sense. This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century, when orthodoxy was established, Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy — many different forms of belief.

    If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it’s ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ’s torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist.

    1. And here we have the Occupy movement in a nutchell.

      A bunch of guys repeating, badly, intellectual writings that have (a) nothing to do with what they are upset about, (b) often have no meaningful insight to provide, and (c) seek to annoy rather than persuade.

      16 years of schooling down the drain.

        1. He certainly refuted the numerous fundamentalist Christians of Hit and Run. Time well-spent!

    2. Cool story, bro.

    3. JOey Toemer|1.15.12 @ 10:29AM|#

      Wow OK man that dude makes a lot of sense. WOw.

      http://www.anon-vpn.tk

    4. “Mark Driscoll, rising Evangelical star, told his Seattle congregation: “If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, there is no reason for us to be here.”
      Well, he’s got more problems than that. There isn’t a single shred of evidence for an historical Jesus, let alone a resurrection.

      1. You mean besides the Christian writings of the time?

        I suppose you similarly militantly doubt the existence of Socrates?

        1. Tulpa|1.15.12 @ 3:09PM|#
          “You mean besides the Christian writings of the time?”

          There are and were no “christian writings of the time” that mentioned anything about a jesus.
          The earliest were 50-100 years after his supposed birth.
          Prove Socrates on your own.

          1. So nobody existed back then. OK.

            1. I’ll bet your mom told you that you were clever.
              She lied.

          2. I think that it’s nearly as silly to assert that there was no historical Jesus as it is to assert that there was no historical Mohammed (a claim I’m starting to see out there, annoyingly and regrettably).

            The problem with the “Jesus was a literary character that got out of hand” theory is that 20BC to 40AD is not deep historical time. Before, say, 800 BC or so, you could have a confusion of mythic and historical sources, because literacy was so rare and the entire concept of “history” did not really yet exist. That just couldn’t happen in the same way in a society at the level of sophistication we’re talking about here.

            To claim that the most literate minorities (the Jews and the Greeks) of an extremely literate and historically conscious society (Rome during the CaesaroClaudian dynasty) would confuse historical events and mythic or literary sources in a mere 20-30 years time is more than a little absurd. There just isn’t enough time between 33 AD and 70 AD for that to happen. Not in this cultural context.

            1. Fluffy|1.15.12 @ 4:03PM|#
              “I think that it’s nearly as silly to assert that there was no historical Jesus”
              If you’re making the claim “X” existed, let’s see the evidence.

              1. In the cultural context we’re talking about, a number of written sources talking about the life of X dating

                1. Argh, squirrels just ate a wall of text. That I am not rewriting. Sorry, punt.

                2. Fluffy|1.15.12 @ 5:11PM|#
                  “In the cultural context we’re talking about, a number of written sources talking about the life of X dating…”
                  …From times at least a generation later than the supposed occurrences…
                  You don’t need to post it again; there it is.

              2. If you’re making the claim “X” existed, let’s see the evidence.

                Let’s see the evidence that Sevo exists.

                1. Tulpa|1.15.12 @ 5:59PM|#
                  “If you’re making the claim “X” existed, let’s see the evidence.

                  Let’s see the evidence that Sevo exists.”
                  I hope what you do for a living doesn’t require logic.

              3. Roman historian Josephus mentions ‘Christos’ in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’. In addition to the gospels, there are archeological carvings from the time that attest to Jesus. He was real.

                See: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

                Better: Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan
                PS: I’m an atheist.

                1. “Roman historian Josephus mentions ‘Christos’ in his ‘Jewish Antiquities’…”

                  Answer:
                  “If Jesus were truly important to history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries.”
                  http://www.exminister.org/Bark…..Jesus.html
                  Yes, a figure is mentioned by Josephus; so?
                  ——————-
                  “Better: Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography by John Dominic Crossan”

                  Answer:
                  From one of the Amazon reviews:
                  “Crossan’s research is controversial, more focused on the real life of a first-century sage (Jesus) than in the messianic God-man Christianity turned him into.”
                  I don’t doubt there were many living in the first century named Jesus, and I don’t doubt one (or the other) of them made some statement that might have been seen as ‘profound’ by someone or other.
                  That *isn’t* an historical Jesus. Gimme a virgin birth, some miracle, the crucifixion, not to mention what started the sub-thread; the resurrection.
                  Repeat:
                  There is not one shred of evidence for an historical Jesus. And, no, some later inferences aren’t “evidence”.
                  This supposed man did *miracles*; water into wine! And not one person living at the time decided it was worth recording. Strange, wouldn’t you say?

                  1. No miracles, no virgin birth, no resurrection. (BTW these were commonly reported for Caesars and such at the time, and hence ‘controversy’ re Crossan’s book). Real Jesus. An illiterate, itinerant, Jewish peasant preacher/teacher. Educate yourself.

                    1. “No miracles, no virgin birth, no resurrection. (BTW these were commonly reported for Caesars and such at the time, and hence ‘controversy’ re Crossan’s book).”

                      ‘Hence’? Got any evidence for that? And absent that, what have you got?
                      ——————-
                      “An illiterate, itinerant, Jewish peasant preacher/teacher.

                      No, bozo, not the ‘historical’ Jesus.
                      Did you read this?:
                      “I don’t doubt there were many living in the first century named Jesus, and I don’t doubt one (or the other) of them made some statement that might have been seen as ‘profound’ by someone or other.”
                      Evidence for an historical ‘junior’, or shut up.
                      ——————
                      “Educate yourself.”

                      About some peasant who lived then? Who (as not mentioned until far after his supposed death) made comments that some people found important? Did this include, oh, ‘don’t eat dirty food’?
                      Care to stretch the definition of an historical ‘son of god’ enough to cover that alternative?
                      I’m beginning to think an education is beyond you; stupid is looking pretty good.

                    2. Sevo, start by reading Crossan’s many historical books, then maybe try John Shelby Spong. There are many others. Short of that you are merely annoyingly ignorant and arrogant. Jesus was an historical figure, just not a supernatural being.

                      Q: Who was born of a virgin 2000 yrs ago, with the heavens announcing his birth, had a great following, and proclaimed a god shortly after his death?

                      A: Augustus.

              4. What’s the evidence that Julius Caesar existed?

                1. cavalier973|1.15.12 @ 11:04PM|#
                  “What’s the evidence that Julius Caesar existed?”

                  I hope you’re kidding.

    5. Long ago and far away in a different age
      When I was a dumb young guy
      Fossilized photos of my life then
      Illustrate what an easy prey I must have been

      Standing in the sun, idiot savant
      Something like a monument
      I’m a dinosaur, somebody is digging my bones

      Ignorance has always been something I excel in
      Followed by naivete and pride
      Doesn’t take a scientist to see how
      Any clever predator could have a piece of me

      Standing in the sun, idiot savant
      Something like a monument
      I’m a dinosaur, somebody is digging my bones

      When I look back on the past
      It’s a wonder I’m not yet extinct
      All the mistakes and bad judgments I made
      Nearly pushed me to the brink

      It doesn’t pay to be too nice
      It’s the one thing I have learned
      Still, I made my fossil bed
      Now I toss and turn

      I’m a dinosaur, somebody is digging my bones

  65. If you want to see Barack Obama denial syndrome at work you should watch (a bit) of the latest Real Time with Bill Maher when he discussed Ron Paul and confronted his own audience.

  66. BO administration & SC Dems call voter ID law racist, then blast GOP for injecting race into politics.

    Candidates from a party looking to increase its share of minority voters and who are vying to take on Obama, the United States’ first African-American president, should tread more carefully on racial issues, analysts and others say.

    U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and the highest-ranking African American in Congress, says some candidates have been using coded phrases to play up racial tension.

    “What we hear more and more today is people picking up what I call 21st-century words and phrases to transmit the same thoughts that went into the political procedure years ago,” Clyburn told Reuters.

    “That’s the stuff of which dangerous activity is built.”

    1. “What we hear more and more today is people picking up what I call 21st-century words and phrases to transmit the same thoughts that went into the political procedure years ago,” Clyburn told Reuters.

      Oh, I’m pretty sure “asshole” pre-dates the 21st Century, Rep. Clyburn.

  67. “Vote for Romney or the world will end!”

    I got this from Instapundit. I’m having a lot of trouble getting a read on him this cycle. He links things from here sympathetically and then he runs comments in line with the above article. He seems at times almost supportive of Romney.

    1. That’s probably because, as it would appear, you – like many others here – find those that are not 100% doctrinaire, libertarian ideologues to be incomprehensible. The idea of a political hybrid who believes in various components of various political viewpoints simply cannot make its way into your consciousness. You can make all the esoteric logical arguments as to why that shouldn’t be, and that’s fine, but lots of such people definitely exist and it always looked to me like Glenn is one of them.

      1. You’re talking to the wrong guy. I’m much more flexible than most regulars, but Romney is a bridge too far. The idea that the inventor of Obamacare deserves our support because of the R after his name is nothing more than garden-variety partisanship.

  68. Lawyers continue to occupy high public offices (senate, congress & WHITE HOUSE)

    Call the doctor
    — RON PAUL 2012 —

  69. Pat Wavle, a longtime conservative activist in Greenville, said… Gingrich and Santorum should consider teaming up.

    “That would be a great ticket,” Wavle said. “There is no question they would beat Romney at that point. Even the Ron Paul people might come on board.”

    __Speechless__

    1. Horrifying.

      1. How many supporters would Paul be able to bring along with him?

        Three. One of them would be Rand (out of filial loyalty). The second one would be Jack. The third would be…well, you get the idea.

  70. police in the US (and most other countries have similar case law) have a right to detain and ID based on reasonable suspicion.

    that is a relatively low standard, much lower than PC

    don’t like it? tough. but it is the law

    i have had fruits of a terry stop suppressed in some cases, and upheld on others. that is the job of judicial review.

    it would be RIDICULOUS to recognize the “right” of people to resist terry based on THEIR perception it was unjustified, because they CANNOT know whether or not the cops have RS (since they don’t have their basis of knowledge – CAD reports, citizen/witness complaints, past knowledge of criminal acts in the area, MO of recent crimes in the area, etc. etc.)

    the time and place to protest a terry is AFTER the stop is over. you can whine, but you cannot resist or the officers should and do have the authoritah to arrest

    if they DIDN’T, then terry would be meaningless, and it would create a perverse incentive for people to resist law enforcement.

    i am sorry if sloopy et al is butthurt over this.

    go whine to yer mama

    i was stopped at gunpoint pursuant to terry after doing nothing wrong. however, the cops DEFINITELY had RS and i had no way of knowing that

    you are free to imagine a world where cops did not have the authoritah to detain pursuant to RS. this of course would significantly increase the chances of criminals to get away with crimes, but if you want that world, advocate for it. legislature could outlaw terry stops tomorrow in your state

    or it could be done by initiative

    the law works very well vis a vis terry.

    in my personal experience, assuming 1 terry a day, 200 times a year for 20 yrs, i would have done over 4000 terry stops

    i don’t think i’ve had to make more than a few dozen obstruction arrests pursuant to same.

    the VAST majority were for giving a false name, some were for physically resisting, assault, etc.

    my best friend was shot in the head and killed during a terry. they can be dangerous

    society, cops, and the public at large is better off if people submit to terry and if they believe the stop was unjustified (it may or may not be), they have the right to redress. they do NOT have the right to resist.

    it would be anarchy if individuals could decide “hey, this stop seems bad. i am going to resist”

    fortunately, we don’t live in such a ridiculous world, one that is not libertarian, but is anarchist

    1. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      I know you’re going to come back and say that reasonable suspicion makes the search that goes along with a Terry stop reasonable, but most of the people here don’t hold to the idea that a search triggered on a LEO’s say-so is necessarily reasonable.

      1. there is no SEARCH that goes along with a terry

        terry does not justify a search EVER

        if there are specific articulable facts during a terry to justify a FRISK, one may be done.

        but merely having RS for a terry does not justify a search, and only in some cases justifies a frisk (which is much more limited in scope.

        so, you protestation is completely non-responsive to the issues

        terry justifies a STOP (the person is not free to leave). in some cases, that stop may justify even handcuffing (if the terry is for a violent crime, like in my case where i was terried for armed robbery).

        hth

        1. detention isn’t seizure?

          1. of course it is.

            the issue was, he implied that terry justifies a search

            i explained to him that it did not

            all terry stops are seizures.

            the erroneous claim was that terry = search

            it doesn’t.

            it MAY justify a frisk, in some cases.

            in order to search, one needs PC. in some cases, one can search based on PC w/o a warrant, in other cases, a warrant is required.

            in my state, for example, if i have PC to search a car, i need a warrant

            i also cannot search it incident to an occupants arrest

            in most states, a warrant is not needed for a car (in most cases), and they can search incident to arrest

            either way, the issue was terry. a terry is a 4th amendment triggering SEIZURE

        2. You’re putting your hands on me in an effort to detect something that, if present, is in a place where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You are a government agent. If you find anything it will almost certainly be used against me as evidence. You can say that the frisk is a search that is limited in scope, but it is a search even if we don’t call it by that name or (incorrectly, IMO) treat it as such in legal proceedings.

          1. look, i am telling you that a search is different in scope, and purpose from a frisk

            period. full stop.

            i could get into all the details, but that is simply a fact

            MOST terrys do not justify even a frisk

            i would estimate i have frisk factors in maybe 1/5 terrys.

            the frisk cannot look in many areas that a search can, for example

            if i was SEARCHING you, i can look inside a closed film canister.

            in a terry, i cannot

            in a terry frisk, i cannot look inside any closed container (generally speaking), nor any container that is not capable of holding an immediately accessible weapon, etc.

            in a search i can empty somebody’s pockets

            i cannot do so under a terry frisk

            etc.

            1. just to clarify, a frisk is for WEAPONS, and is thus SUBSTANTIALLY more limited in scope, etc. than a search

            2. If you find a pistol on me during the frisk, will you then ask for my CPL? If I fail to produce it, will you then arrest me for illegally carrying the pistol? If so, your frisk is also a quest for evidence, conducted by a government agent, in a place where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These three elements are the textbook combination that creates a search.

              1. false

                you are using a results based analysis

                it is true that IF contraband becomes apparent during a frisk it is admissible

                here’s a hint. ANYTIME an officer sees/detects contraband, it can be seized and uses against a person

                if i am walking down the street, and i see a robbery in progress, i can arrest the perp

                it doesn’t follow that my purpose in walking down the street was to catch a robber

                the frisk is not a quest for evidence

                that evidence obtained pursuant to a frisk may be used is true, but that doesn’t prove the premise

                ANYTIME an officer lawfully discovers something, it can be used. if i go the restroom at a restaurant, and i see two guys in possession of cocaine in the bathroom, i can seize it and arrest them

                it doesn’t follow that the PURPOSE of my going to the bathroom was to look for evidence

                you are engaging a logical fallacy.

                if i find a gun during a frisk, yes i can ask the person for a CPL (assuming it’s concealed AND they are not on their property or fixed place of business. in those cases, no conceal permit is needed).

                however, there are lots of weapons i can recover that are entirely legal, and i can’t do anything with, apart from hold on to them during the encounter, then give them back

                the PURPOSE of a frisk is for protection

                1. Doesn’t a licensed concealed carrier have to inform the LEO of their firearm at the beginning of the stop anyway?

                  1. not in WA. many do.

                    i probably stop somebody with a concealed firearm more often than i know, since if they dont tell me about it, and i don’t notice it – how would i know

                    i would say at least once every week i am talking to, if not stopping a person who is carrying either openly, concealed (but i can see the print) or tells me he is carrying concealed. i live in a shall issue state

                    1. So what happens if they’re open-carrying and you do a Terry stop? Do they have to let you take the firearm away?

                    2. YES. a person must submit to that request, or its obstruction

                      i’ve never terried somebody open carrying, but i terryed them concealed carrying. in most cases, somebody is conceal carrying, and i terry, they keep the gun on them at all times. i just tell them “don’t reach for it and keep your hands away from it” . works fine.

                      but this is my point vis a vis authority and no right to resist. you may think you don’t have to give up your gun during terry, but GIVE IT UP if demanded, and you can request redress later IF you thought it was unwarranted. being deprived of your gun for 10 minutes while a cop talks to you is not that big a deal, but it’s the cops decision.

                  2. Yeah, in PA we’re supposed to hand the LTCF to a stopping officer along with license and registration if we’re carrying. And give him or her the opportunity to temporarily take away and hold on to the firearm for the duration of the stop.

                2. Protection during a situation that you put yourself in based on nothing more than your own judgement. You, based on nothing more than your opinion, chose to stop me. If that makes you feel like you’re in danger that’s not my fault.

                  In other words: You choose to detain me without a warrant based on nothing more than your opinion about the situation. This detention makes you feel like you’re in danger (even though you might have me in handcuffs or have another officer present with a gun on me), so you further insert yourself into my person, laying hands on me in a search for weapons (the presence of any weapons, incidentally, will be used to later prove the existence of the danger you claimed to be in). You will then leverage any weapons (or something that feels like a weapon) you find as evidence against me if you can. But it’s all for your protection. Here’s an alternative idea: if you’re so concerned for your safety don’t stop people in the first place without a warrant supported by evidence that they’ve actually committed the crime you believe they did.

                  1. AT THE SCENE, it is based on my judgement.

                    and then LATER, during judicial review, THAT is when an independent third party gets to make the call .

                    i’ve had terrys suppressed before. most get held up. a few get suppressed

                    your idea is frankly, stupid.

                    terry is a tool that allows cops to BRIEFLY detain when they have RS. if they develop PC, they arret, otherwise they release.

                    often , that may happen later based on further intel

                    regardless, at a minimum, id’ing the person can be very helpful.

                    all your bla bla concerns are just that. terrys happen scores of thousands of times a year. the vast majority w/o a hitch

                    the problem usually comes when some moron thinks they have the right to resist, or just does it because they are an asshole

                    tough.

                    there is no such right.

                    again, you can speak normatively about your ideal world where cops have no seizure power pursuant to RS.

                    in ours, they do, and its a very good thing, its constitutional and it strikes an excellent balance between privacy and authority.

                    just like the PC standard to arrest does.

                  2. a situation that you put yourself in based on nothing more than your own judgement.

                    Cops have a duty to uphold the law, no? If there’s a report of a crime for instance, and they see someone fitting the description of the perp nearby, isn’t it their job to stop and investigate that person?

                3. here’s a hint. ANYTIME an officer sees/detects contraband, it can be seized and uses against a person

                  Assuming a legal search. Which is kind of what we’re arguing about here.

              2. But it’s not intentionally looking for evidence. I mean, if you’re in a car crash and the paramedics pulling your unconscious body out of the car see a bag of weed on the center console, that doesn’t make their action into a search.

                1. replying to Mr X.

                  1. yes, that is exactly it. he is fallaciously inferring intent based on result

                    fallacious reasoning, to say the least

                2. and ditto if the cops pull you out. if i rip open your shirt to apply defibrillator pads, and i see you have heroin stuff in yer bra,that’s also admissible. i didn’t expose your chest to search for drugs, though

                  1. See above. If your entry into the situation is truly innocent, that’s one thing. But Terry allows you to stop people just because you suspect them. “Reasonable” is a mile wide. This is not a benign situation where you happen to find evidence; it’s a deliberately created one.

                    1. it is NOT a mile wide.

                      do some research on case law. terrys GET SUPPRESSED all the time. it happens.

                      but it is not your call at the scene. it’s a JUDGE’s call. period. full stop

                      those of us who believe in seperation of powers, rule of law, privacy, etc. understand that.

                      if your argument is that the RS standard is too low, then work to change that

                      based on your posts, i suggest you don’t even know what the RS standard MEANS vis a vis case law, and i suggest you research it.

                      start here…

                      https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80

                    2. dunphy: ” if i go the restroom at a restaurant, and i see two guys in possession of cocaine in the bathroom, i can seize it and arrest them”

                      I’ve learned a lot from you, but this is clearly police misconduct. How do you KNOW it’s cocaine? Short of GC/MS analysis you are merely projecting. No reason to interfere.

      2. What was that about the Constitution being perfectly clear and indisputable in interpretation?

        1. Ask someone who believes that it is. IMO the Constitution’s biggest weakness is its verbal parsimony, which leads to exploitable vagueness in places.

          1. that’s true in both directions. look at miranda, for instance. the constitution in no way shape or form places a burden on law enforcement to TELL somebody about their rights.

            but a court decision said it does – implicitly

            etc.

            nor does the constitution even mention the idea of suppression of illegally obtained evidence (most countries do not have an exclusionary rule. we do ), but again an interpretation of it ruled thusly.

            1. Did they actually claim the 4th implies the exclusionary rule? I thought they basically fabricated it out of whole cloth as an ad-hoc means of discouraging unreasonable s&s.

              1. from wikipedia (reasonable analysis. note that Mapp is the primary guiding law now)…

                In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a strong version of the exclusionary rule, in the case of Weeks v. United States, under the Fourth Amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.[13] This decision, however, created the rule only on the federal level. The “Weeks Rule”, which made an exception for cases at the state level, was adopted by numerous states at a time during prohibition. In adopting the rule, actions by states often reflected attitudes towards prohibition, which was enacted by adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment and was enforced through the Volstead Act. Concerns about privacy violations also extended to other instances where criminal sanctions were permitted for “victimless” crime, such as illegal gambling or narcotics violations.[14]

                In 1920, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine in the case of Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States.[15] The Court stated that allowing evidence gathered as an indirect result of an unconstitutional search and seizure “reduces the Fourth Amendment to a form of words”.

                Wolf v. Colorado (1949) ruled that states were not required to adopt the exclusionary rule. Despite the ruling, some states adopted the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court of California ruled in People v. Cahan (1955) that the exclusionary rule applied for cases in the state of California. By 1960, 22 states had adopted the rule without substantial qualifications: California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Michigan also had an exclusionary rule, but with limitations for some narcotics and firearms evidence. In Alabama, Maryland, and South Dakota, the exclusionary rule applied in some situations.[14]

                It was not until Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) that the exclusionary rule was also held to be binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process. Up until Mapp, the exclusionary rule had been rejected by most states.[16]

            2. I agree with you re Miranda. I think citizens have a duty to understand their rights and exercise them to the fullest extent they can. On the other hand, I also think that agents of any government under the Constitution have a duty to unambiguously respect those rights. Since we live in a world where LEOs are allowed to lie to suspects about a lot of relevant things (and it’s a crime for the suspect to lie to federal LEOs about practically anything) I think the result of Miranda is an acceptable counterweight.

              1. that may or may not be true. but it wasn’t my point. my point is it works both ways (imo more often limiting govt. power, at least at my state level as any cursory look at case law in my state will show)…

                the point is valid. all kinds of shit that is not in the constitution makes it way into const. LAW via judicial review.

                exclusionary rule, automatic standing, miranda rights, etc. are just a few examples

                1. iow i wasn;t saying miranda was good or bad. i am saying it is an example of what i was talking about.

                  the 4th IS vague. fwiw, MY state’s version is CLEARLY much more protective of rights, and that’s a good thing

          2. Part of the problem is that the BoR was written with the federal govt in mind, so applying it to the states is somewhat problematic. Indeed, if we’re literal about it, the first amendment can’t possibly apply to the states since no state has a legislative body called “Congress”.

    2. submit to the all-powerful state.

      only gov’t and cops stand between civilization and anarchy.

      w/o the thin blue line everyone would be dying in the streets shitting themselves and running around in circles screaming b/c no one knows how to exist w/o being told.

      you may not like it but teh LAW IS TEH LAW AND TEH LAW MUST ALWAYS BE OBEYED. if you don’t think jews should be put in camps, protest to the legislature after they are all dead.

      hth

      1. troll o meter: -.01

        (due to godwin/nazi references, which result in negative numbers under statute 403(x)b

  71. This was a good thread.
    Then someone dunphy’d all over it.

    1. what i find fascinating is how little people understand the very concepts and powers they think they oppose.

      it’s pretty clear most people here don’t know barely anything about what the terry powers are, when they are triggered, what the limitations are, what a person’s redresses are for a bad one, etc.

      but they are agaisnt it. even though they have little to no understanding of it

      pretty typical of ideologues

      1. Your speech yesterday about not responding to trolls was good.

        1. that’s a fair cop. thanks. i try

          1. I’ve noticed that anyone who calls on a spoof to STFU is called one themselves; I think it is why most here are anon.

            Few people have the balls to prove their insult; a joke with a name clearly identified as as one is not the same as a remarks that are intended to cause disruption of the threads

      2. I know, right? Why don’t these people get it? Someone said there’d been burglaries in the area, so a cop has RS to stop whomever he wants. It’s not like there’re no limits. It’s not like every cop since the fucking dawn of the terry stop hasn’t been using that old chestnut.

  72. If the Pats were going to punt on 3rd down to protect Brady, they really should have sent their punter out. No reason to have Brady punt other than to taunt the Broncos.

    Actually, I imagine they did it because Brady wanted to.

    When Belichick had Doug Flutie as a backup QB, he let him go out in a meaningless game and do a free kick for a field goal. Why? Because Doug said he always wanted to try to do that.

    I bet Brady had talked about doing a QB free kick punt at some point, so Belichick said, “Hey, we’re up 35 points, go out there and take your free kick.”

    They weren’t deliberately insulting the Broncos. There might be an implicit insult there (“We’re not taking the game seriously any more”) but I don’t think it was a deliberate taunt.

    1. Either way I hope it makes it into the next Madden.

    2. I don’t know about Flutie taking a free kick for Bellichek, but he did for the Chargers in his last game.

    3. You don’t mean “free”.

      1. You’re right, drop kick would be the proper term.

  73. a perverse incentive for people to resist law enforcement.

    Thank Cthulu there are no perverse incentives which lead the police to believe they can shit all over civilians with impunity.

    1. You try any of your preversions in there I’ll blow your head off.

      1. Alright, if that’s what your name really is.

  74. “I too can’t imagine Romney leaving Paul alone if and when it comes down to the two of them. ”

    There’s not a lot of mileage in attacking a guy with a dedicated following who doesn’t pose a real threat to beat you. Be nice and respectful, take a few licks, and wait for the general election. Paul is the best thing that ever happened to Romney – he keeps a lot of ideologues from coalescing around another candidate.

    1. A double-edged sword, that, when it comes to getting enough votes to beat Obama.

  75. Hello,my friends!Here’s the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose!`

    1. Hello, Sara. I’m a Metrosexual.

    2. Sara, I’ve got 10 mins. You game?

  76. Is Brian Doherty a real person, or is this libertarian self-satire?

    1. Is Brian Doherty a real person, or is this libertarian self-satire?

      Sometimes I really do wonder.

  77. Paul will do well in South Carolina – open primary so Democrats can vote for him and there is no serious Obama challenge.
    Once we get to the closed primary states where only Republicans can vote for him his numbers will plummet.

    The sad thing is, the Paulinistas actually think these Dems will vote for him in the general election and think this is why he is such a strong candidate. They don’t realize the Left is just pumping his numbers to cause dissent and have no intention of actually voting for him. They just want Obama to win and think pumping up Paul is the best way to do help make that happen.

    1. Yeah, “Mitty” is so similar to Obama I wonder if they are the same person. Look at their records…jeez. Oh, I forgot Mitt is now Pro-life of course! I remember him declaring he would defend a womans right to choose no matter what….Until, his career was served better to be Pro-life. What a coward, what a liar. Zero integrity…just like Obama. Well, No thanks. Six of one half a dozen of the other. Pathetic.

  78. Romney supports the National Defense Detention Act….no habeus corpus…no judge….no jury….just locked up forever…. Mitt Romney is a traiter to the USA….. the crowd booed him off the stage when he showed his obvious support for arrests without trial of fellow Americans…… he needs to be arrested…for treason.

  79. Ron Paul is the only one to oppose the NDAA bill.

    Ron Paul is the only one who has NEVER flip flopped a position. In 25+ years!

    Ron Paul’s support from the military is more than all other candidates combined!!

    Ron Paul turned down his pension from Congress.

    Ron Paul’s “radical” plan is to follow the Constitution of the United States and secure our Bill of Rights.

    Ron Paul opposed the Iraq war.

    Ron Paul opposes going to war without a Declaration of War from Congress. Anything else is a violation of the Constitution.

    Ron Paul reminds us to remember this: We were all told Iraq had many “weapons of mass distruction.” We never found any…Not one! Sound familiar??

    Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve.

    If Ron Paul is not elected, we will go to war with Iran. Our husbands and children, brothers and sisters will be sent to slaughter along with countless innocent woman and children of Iran. Is this what we want America.

    Ron Paul wants us to remember we have over 600 bases around the world and trillions of dollars in debt.

    Ron Paul wants to concentrate on protecting our borders and building up our bases here. We are spread too thin and only causing more and more anger towards America when we occupy the soil of foreign countries that do not want us there.

    If Ron Paul is elected we will bring our loved one’s home immediately and start to rebuild this country.

    RON PAUL 2012

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.