Ron Paul

3 Takeaways from the South Carolina Primary

|

In the wake of Newt Gingrich's commanding win over Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul, Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics lays out Three Takeaways:

According to the exit polls, Romney lost among every major category of voter. The demographic groups he managed to win include those with postgraduate degrees (18 percent of the electorate), people earning $200,000 or more (5 percent), moderates (23 percent), non-evangelicals (35 percent), and pro-choicers (34 percent). None of the leads over Gingrich in these groups were particularly large….

This vote was an utter repudiation of Romney, and it absolutely will be repeated in state after state if something doesn't change the basic dynamic of the race. It is true that Gingrich doesn't have funds or organization, but he gets a ton of free media from the debates, and he has an electorate that simply wants someone other than Romney.

What do you think, kind readers?

Whole thing here.

NEXT: ABC, Others Project Gingrich Win in SC as Polls Close

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. This vote was an utter repudiation of Romney, and it absolutely will be repeated in state after state if something doesn’t change the basic dynamic of the race.

    Yeah, that’s just the sort of sweeping statement begging to be proven wrong — as as soon as Florida.

    1. Well put, Franklin!

      1. If a hypothesis doesn’t have terms under which it can be proven wrong, what good is it? Can it ever point a way?

        1. Yes, the null hypothesis–like when the Keynesian hypothesis was proven wrong with the stimulas package and Paul Krugman admitting he was wrong.

          1. explain how the stimulus payroll tax cuts are “proven wrong”.

      2. I know a dude named Ivan Soto..

      3. Newt Gingrich? Really, South Carolina? The Congressman from Freddie Mac and his mistress? What has happened to this damn country?

    2. this vote was an utter validation of “when in doubt, blame the media”. The Newt camp should be sending flowers to John King, whose initial question in Thursday’s debate pretty much rendered everything else that happened that night inconsequential.

      1. In this case, Newt Gingrich was absolutely right: John King is a scumbag.

        Much of America is still mired in a little depression and suffering greatly, half of Europe is swirling down the toilet at full speed, our federal government is accumulating four billion dollars of debt every single day, and these media assholes want to ask the most stupid and pointless questions about birth control and Gingrich’s ex-wives.

        And people wonder why the media is so despised by so many of us? It’s a joke.

        1. But we understand issues like adultery, Middle East geo-politics and Federal Reserve policy, not so much.

        2. the question was legitimate and would have been asked of any other candidate. It happened with Clinton when Gennifer Flowers claimed a long-standing affair, again when Paula Jones came forth. Newt’s a big boy, but also a big phony.

          Govt does many stupid things but the price of portraying yourself as a paragon of virtue – as does Newt (you know he’s a Catholic now, right?) – paints a target on your ass. Birth control was also stupid but asked because Rick Santorum actually thinks it’s a good idea.

          Newt won the primary on Thursday night by attacking the questioner instead of the question. An ex-wife should always be taken with a grain of salt. But a man who has wives overlap not just once but twice is hardly on holy ground.

          1. the question was legitimate and would have been asked of any other candidate. It happened with Clinton when Gennifer Flowers claimed a long-standing affair, again when Paula Jones came forth.

            Aww come on, the media did everything in their power to try and cover up Clinton’s personal sex life. They initially called most of his accusers liars, and they even attempted to try and cover up the Monica Lewinsky incident until they couldn’t any longer. And when they no longer could, they dismissed it as being irrelevant.

            And really they were right in that case, Clinton’s sex life and personal immorality was embarrassing, but it didn’t have any significant impact on his ability to be the president.

            I couldn’t see Gingrich’s ex-wives perhaps being newsworthy if any of this was new news, but it isn’t. His failed marriages have been known and well documented for years. They have even been the subject of blatantly false stories, like the one where he served his wife the divorce papers while she was dying, which never happened.

            1. When the story is sex, the media will be on it when the subject is a Repub. King’s question should not have surprised anyone. Yes, they covered for Clinton and let Edwards off the hook totally but simply airing the interview when ABC did guaranteed that the question would be asked.

              Newt was handed a gift – a personal question in front of an audience that does not like the media much. The result was predictable. That question had as much to do with his winning as anything.

              1. When the story is sex, the media will be on it when the subject is a Repub.

                Or Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Gary Condit,…..

            2. And really they were right in that case, Clinton’s sex life and personal immorality was embarrassing, but it didn’t have any significant impact on his ability to be the president.

              One of the few things Gore did right was have it out with Clinton after the impeachment. He let him know that only Clinton was personally responsible for what happened, and though he may have come out unscathed, they lost an entire year to advance their agenda. Gore was right. It had quite a significant impact.

              1. The Elian Gonzalez debacle probably had more effect on the 2000 election than the Lewinsky scandal.

            3. Aww come on, the media did everything in their power to try and cover up Clinton’s personal sex life.

              You mean in the real world that actually existed or the fantasy land Republicans remember?

              Cause I remember non-fucking-stop coverage of the Lewinsky scandal on CNN and MSNBC (though this was before the latter became a shill for the Dems) as well as the legacy networks. And the Flowers case was all over the existing media at the time (recall this was 1992 and the only cable news was CNN and CSPAN), and that was when Clinton was by no means beloved by Dems; it was during the primaries.

              1. I agree. The media even built up Ken Starr and editorialized that Clinton should resign. Then they made up some shit like it would be a ‘Constitutional crisis’ or something, and then after building up Starr, they said he was overzealous. It kind of mirrored the whole McCarthy episode in history, the way it unfolded.

              2. I remember things being pretty much exactly as you describe them. People have forgotten what the Clinton rumor mill was like in 1992, but here’s a hint: illegitimate, unacknowledged child by a black woman. Whether the stories had any merit or not, the point is they were out there circulating, and the coverage was at times pretty salacious. Lest we forget, Rush Limbaugh was already a big deal in 92, and at that point his own personal foibles had yet to be exposed and he was big on exposing the personal moral failings of others. Clinton never got the JFK-style free pass from the media that Republican partisans like to claim.

                1. Ditto. I have no idea what world Mike M. is living in, but that shit with Clinton was everywhere.

                  1. Without Matt Drudge the whole thing would have been ignored. You guys are senile.

                2. Clinton never got the JFK-style free pass from the media

                  He got a much better pass than that. Clinton committed acts of high treason which the media ignored. The Clinton sex stuff may have been titillating, but it was of no importance compared to the assistance that Clinton gave China in acquiring loads of important military technology. The strategic situation that the world faces today with regard to China is heavily shaped by the malfeasance of the Clinton Administration. I agree with the line of thought that Clinton actually welcomed the Lewinsky scandal because it gave the media a convenient subject to focus on instead of Clinton’s high crimes.

                  If the U.S. political system had been functioning properly during the Clinton years, Clinton would have been removed from office, tried for treason and hung.

              3. Sex sells. Doesn’t matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat.

                Go ask Anthony Weiner if they tiptoe around and don’t ask questions of Democrats in sex scandals.

                Personally, I don’t give a rip if a politician whores his or her way through several lovers a week, if they believe in limited government. Nor will I vote for a statist who keeps it in their pants.

                Alas, far too much of the electorate actually cares about this shit.

              4. As I remember, the Lewinsky story was known but not reported by Newsweek I think. Drudge, is what broke the story and forced it onto the front pages. It was what gave Drudge his big break.

                The media were definitely holding the Lewinsky story back.

              5. If you count the drudge report as the media. Odd that some obscure website would be the first to break such a big story.

          2. Newt’s a big boy, but also a big phony.

            Hate to burst your bubble, but you are surrounded by phonies. You don’t have to know any politicians for that to be true.

        3. Yeah man, that’s why everybody has repudiated the MSM by just blowing them totally the fuck off.

          As opposed to continuing to let the MSM set the agenda and call the shots and decide what’s going to happen, and what isn’t.

        4. Newt Gingrich was absolutely right: John King is a scumbag.

          Sure he is, but so is Newt.

          -jcr

        5. I think there is something to learn about not just candidates but anybody in learning of how they both acquire and treat the closest people to them.

          Gingrich throws his wives – people he allegedly loves and who make his children – under the bus. The kinds of people he attracts into his closest personal circles obviously help him in such collusions (wife 2 & 3 for sure).

          That is an important character reference on the guy. Same deal with Obama. He’s very loyal to his wife etc. I have no doubt. But look how he met her – she was his boss and I don’t think in their personal dynamic that’s ever changed – and how meek he is in general. Surrounded himself since the death of his mother with powerful, pushy, fawning women. A white mama’s boy with who’s-my-black-daddy issues. The fix? Black men in drag. Enter Michelle and Valerie. Yuck.

          Romney throws ideology under the bus every second of every day of his life I’m sure. Its in his DNA. But much as I hate to say it, you don’t find anybody who’s ever dealt with Romney on a personal basis who he cheated, swindled, hoodwinked, etc. You shake his hand on a deal, it probably matters to him.

          Again I’m no Romney fan at all, but objectively that seems true about the fellow.

          1. We are electing a President, not a close friend. His policy whoring is more damning than Newt’s whoring.

            1. People who stab anybody in the back for what they want are a bad scene no matter the context.

              And I’m more Ron Paul than the Mittrich by far. If you notice something about him, he neither throws people under the bus or abrogates his principles. Indeed, he is a ‘outsider’ in politics that way.

          2. you don’t find anybody who’s ever dealt with Romney on a personal basis who he cheated, swindled, hoodwinked

            Nope. Romney just lies publicly whenever he shifts his political positions. So, he makes a great crony and an untrustworthy politician.

        6. Hey, dipshit, are you really this stupid? Do we need to spell it out for you? If someone cheats on his wives, or asks for an open marriage, what the hell makes you think the public can trust him to deal honesty with the their affairs?

    3. This vote [is] an utter repudiation of Romney

      Yup. Until it isn’t.
      No worries.
      We have short memories and don’t get that political philosophy stuff at all.

    4. Will do anything, say anything to get elected. Fancies himself as a Teddy Roosevelt progressive Republican, but he hasn’t given any indication that he has balls or principles of any kind. He is however full of shit and a sense of grandiosity. Someone needs to bitch slap him. Since Romney is too much of a pussy and RonPaul and Ricky Butt Juice are distracted with their own personal war it looks like I’m going to have to wait for Obama to do it.

    5. I cannot find the article from 2011 that talks about how red states actually live off federalspending than blue states. Anyone know the title of that article?

  2. Ron Paul and his supporters are like those morons who went around saying the world was going to end last year and after it didn’t no one cared and they faded into obscurity. When America eventually recovers from the recession completely and we don’t go bankrupt and the UN doesn’t control the USD then people will laugh and say “Remember that idiot Ron Paul? lol Those fucking people were crazy”

    1. Stupid troll is stupid

    2. Ron Paul does not have a monolithic following. Did it occur to you that perhaps some on the RP wagon prefer an American economy that doesn’t fall into the same trap that consumed the Japanese economy? Sure, I’d rather live in Japan than say Congo, but do we really have to make that choice? Why do you assume that the RP campaign is based on an apocalypse? Last time I checked, it was about having less government.

      The real crazies are the ones predicting the Muslim takeover of the world unless we preemptively attack them.

    3. M, Ron Paul is only the best of Republicans…which sort of makes him the scum on top of the festering pot of shit. Real libertarians aren’t living and dying with Ron Paul.

      1. I don’t know if I agree with RP on everything, Pax, but I think he’s earned a better description than “scum on top of the festering pot of shit.”

      2. Ron Paul being a Republican is like winning the Special Olympics. He’s still a Republican.

        1. Better than being a Bosco

        2. Better than being a Bosco

    4. You posted the same shit, verbatim, you posted previously.

      Piss off.

      1. Still true.

        Deal with it.

        1. Re: M,

          Still true.

          Still what “true”? Opinions and predictions are not facts.

          1. No, M… it’s bullshit.

            1. Re: Mr. FIFY,

              Of course it’s all bullshit. But M here seems to think that just because he utters something it is therefore the truth.

            2. it’s still truly bullshit.

    5. Nice cut-n-paste trollage from the previous post from SC primary repot. “UN Doesn’t control the USD” ? What do you mean by that?

  3. SC is just one of 50 states, and not one of the larger states. I would not read much into these results, and certainly would not rule out Romney at this time based upon such scanty evidence. Romney and Ron Paul are the only two candidates on the ballot in all 50 states, and both clearly have the staying power to go the distance.

    I’d call the Gingrich win a fluke, until further evidence is in. He has a historical tendency to shoot himself in the foot, given enough time.

    1. A fluke? Maybe. But how about the fact that Romney LOST Iowa ins pite of the shenanagans of the Republican party screwing with the vote count. He LOST SC by a huge margin and his only win was in a liberal state?
      Romney is called a mderate but is in fact a New England Liberal that is NOT attractive to the majority of the rank and file conservitives. The Party elite wants him but they are about the only ones. He has spent millions, has the backing of most of the Media including FOX and has one victory in a very liberal state.
      Can you say loser?

      1. Romney is in more trouble then the establishment believes, but is still probably the front runner.

      2. john,
        to say Romney has the backing of Fox is to say the world is square. The Catholic channel has been the biggest driver of the tax return non-story, creams on itself whenever the next great right-wing hope emerges (from Bachmann to Perry to whomever), and has shown itself no different from the media it loves to lampoon.

        This is the network that willingly gave cover to a man who has had overlapping marriages TWICE. It’s the same bunch that would pillory Clinton for his philandering but gives Newt cover because he said a couple of Hail Marys.

        1. Except for Ron Paul, of course. Stomped all over him when he started surging.

          1. yup, and did likewise with Cain, buying stories that were unprovable as though they were gospel yet treating the allegations against Newt like attacks on heaven itself.

        2. EWTN has political coverage?

      3. Ron Paul did well in New Hampshire but he didn’t win. I’m not sure what exactly it means. I think this did more harm to Mitt than it helped Newt. I think Ron Paul’s position on abortion hurts him with moderates but his position on drugs helps, and that Ron is the most popular with liberals. So what Ron Paul needs to do is put focus on the drug war, focus on education, down play abortion but when asked state his argument in state right’s terms.

        1. “Ron is the most popular with liberals. So what Ron Paul needs to do is put focus on the drug war, focus on education, down play abortion”

          An excellent strategy. That should win him all the liberals in the Republican primary. What Huntsman let loose, Paul will scoop up. Onward to Victory!

        2. The overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters are, like Ron Paul, pro-life.

          I see more pure hate for RP coming from progressives than neocons.
          “Libertarianism is teh Debil”

          1. I see more pure hate for RP coming from progressives than neocons.

            Hang out at Free Republic or RedState much?

            1. Redstate is my benchmark for “conservative” RP hate.

      4. Romney LOST Iowa

        By 34 votes. It was known to be a virtual tie between him and Santorum regardless of who had more votes, so the effect of the “news” is minimal.

        Romney is the only candidate who’s been in 1st or 2nd in every state so far. Gingrich lost IA and NH by even bigger margins but everyone seems to forget.

  4. I think the debates showed that Gingrich is just better at articulating the ‘Culture Wars’. That’s a proven formula. It remains to be seen if he maintains his momentum.

    1. The man is an odious gadfly. Alleged cultural warrior or not, he is a rotund piece of elephant shit.

  5. This is typical media over-reaction. A week ago, Romney was a guarantee for the nomination. Now he is done. It seems no one is capable of taking a deep breath and writing a thoughtful, reasoned article. It’s all hyperbole, all the time.

    1. I would like to take a brief moment to LOL at your wonderful Name. Thank you.

  6. Romney is 6-19, lifetime, in electoral contests. At some point someone who is supposedly really really pundit-smart might ask, Is this guy a politician or a concept?

    Typically, “politicians” win elections.

    1. Actually, assuming the election is contested, at least half of politicians don’t win elections, at any point in time.

      1. and that’s ignoring the libertarian party!

    2. Is this guy a politician or a concept?

      He’s whatever you want him to be. And if you don’t like that, just wait around a month or so.

      1. “He’s whatever you want him to be.” Hmm, so that would make one Obama-type running against another? Since BO was the original blank slate. Not critiquing your observation, just thinking out loud.

        1. I meant to comment more on his flip-flops, but it washes out the same.

    3. Above par post.
      It is difficult for may evangelicals to get beyond his undergarments. I get the sense that Mitt is running for office more out of a sense of duty than a desire to actually have to deal with the job. On the other hand, dealing with swine and rats is Newt Gingrich’s idea of a good time.

    4. Romney is 6-19, lifetime, in electoral contests.

      Isn’t Ron Paul 12-4?

  7. According to the NYT editorial board, Gingrich has tapped into the vast wellspring of racism in America and will, clad in sheets and hood, ride a wave of hatred into the White House.

    1. …and they forgot to add that they helped him along on that task. They do it by writing shit like that.

      1. Same MSM that labelled those whites who voted against Obama AND those whites who supported Cain as racists.

        1. Wide left!

    2. This stuff will just get more and more hysterical as republicans figure out that Gingrich, Christie, Allen West, etc. are more popular for confronting the race/sexist/stupid card — something McCain/GWB/Dole,GWHB would do.

      So with more and more politicians just saying, “Again?” when they’re called racists, the attacks will increase in intensity — it will be like an extinction burst in a biological organism. Too many people are laughing, instead of cowering, at being called a racist for no reason.

      1. McCain etc would NOT do ….

        1. Where is Newt going with the race issue? (other than just to lather up his idiot base and win the nomination?)

          1. Where is Obama going with the wealth-envy issue? (other than just to lather up his idiot base and win re-election?)

            FIFY’d. No charge.

          2. newt has not brought up the race issue; he HAS brought up the stupidity issue – usually associated with the left – by making financial success seem dirty. the race issue is your side. Why do you think that only blacks get food stamps?

            1. Why doesn’t Newt just suggest eliminating the food stamp program? Seriously?

              And “only blacks get food stamps”? You need to be deprogrammed.

            2. “Only blacks get food stamps”? Are there no racist lies libertarians won’t believe?

              1. No one has ever seriously said that, Nick, because it’s absurd to say “only blacks get food stamps”.

                God, you’re a stupid fuck.

                1. wareagle said “the race issue is your side. Why do you think that only blacks get food stamps?”

                  Maybe you missed that Mr. FIFY.

                  1. wrong nicky….I asked why does the left believe that only blacks get food stamps since the mention of food stamps leads you sheep to cry “racism”?????????

              2. congrats to nick and shrike for providing evidence of another poster’s belief: you cannot debate with the left, only argue at them.

                YOU FOLKS tied race to the food stamp comment, not me. For that matter, not Newt, whom I don’t care for. At least shrike attempts a bit of reason with his posts. You, nick, make tony sound like a seasoned scholar.

                1. I read what wareagle wrote, Nick. You’re spinning it to fit the Team Blue narrative.

            3. “Why do you think only black people get food stamps?”

              Because Newt says he’s going to the NAACP so he can tell all those lazy blacks to get a job and get off food stamps.

              1. …good advice, for people of ALL colors.

    3. Why didn’t that work for Paul?

      1. The NYT editorial board is nothing if not predictable. Good point about Paul, although I think you know the reason why.

  8. Republican primary voters want someone who is combative and will overlook pretty much every other quality in a candidate.

    There is some wisdom in this. The U.S. is screwed unless a major course correction is made and reactionary forces will do almost anything to prevent a change. It will take a strong personality, suffering the slings and arrows, damning the torpedoes, fulling the speed ahead to make the change.

    1. Surely, you’re not suggesting that Newt is that person? Newt is all status quo.

      1. Newt is protean, Newt is ambition on legs, Newt could turn about to be anything. Last night he even started the process of co-opting Paul, with the gloss on the Fed.

        The one thing no one is confused about, however, is that he won’t take shit from anybody now. I have no idea what that means for the election and the country, but it’s better than listening to George Stephanopoulas talk about contraception for 15 minutes.

        1. Don’t call him shirley.

        2. Newt Gingrich is a cum stain on the nation’s buttocks.

          1. The democratic process is a cum stain. Newt is just a single spermatozoa looking for a sock.

      2. OK Jester. So what does that make Romney? Surely you are not saying Ron Paul is the man.

        1. I saw ovo’s post as a non-sequitur. I don’t agree with the Tulpean argument and most Republicans’ argument that anything is better than Obama. A bound Obama is a much better choice to me than an unfettered Republican czar like Romney or Gingrich.

          Republican voters don’t know what they want because they aren’t sure which strategy will defeat Obama- a white Obama (Romney) or a Culture Warrior (Gingrich).

          Ron Paul is NOT that man either. He is too preoccupied with real issues that need to be addressed.

          1. oh no, does Tulpa now have its own branch of libertarianism? It was bad enough with the adjective “misean”

            1. does Tulpa now have its own branch of libertarianism?

              No.

          2. It’s a choice between a pro-bailout Republican who thinks the government should do venture capitalism (Romney), and a opportunistic Republican who has no problem spouting socialist bullshit about venture capitalism to defeat him (Gingrich).

            Seriously. We’re fucked.

            1. Seriously. We’re fucked.

              When have ‘we’ not been ‘fucked’?

            2. We have been that since 2000 and 2008.

      3. Larry Kudlow has it right on Gingrich

        http://dailycaller.com/2012/01…..z1k8FmawaY

      4. “Surely, you’re not suggesting that Newt is that person?”

        What I’m saying is that Newt is the strong personality. What is questionable is what policy directions he will blunder off in. In the past, with the Contract with America, he chose to champion a number of policies that American voters supported, but which were not being pushed by the political establishment. It is not unreasonable to suppose that Newt would at least work to kill off the HCRA and put some brakes on other federal spending. After that, things get much more iffy with him. Certainly, he is not an ideal candidate, but he is better than someone like Romney who will be nothing more than a static target for the Democrats.

        I’m not sure that RP is forceful enough to impress Republican primary voters and Santorum is … Santorum.

        1. Newt is just as likely compromise with democrats and claim victory as harp on a few conservative cultue war topics because in the end the most important thing to newt is newts greatness, not some stuffy ideals like conservatism or constitutionalism. He’s worse than technocrat Romney because Romney just wants to run the economy, newt wants to be hailed as a “great man” and you can’t do that in opposition to the dems.

        2. Newt is not a strong personality. He does some grandstanding and shows some theatrics during the debates but how can a man that cheats on and then leaves multiple wives after they get sick (Cancer and MS) be called strong. He doesn’t have the stomach for real adversity.

        3. OK, I see what you meant. You give him a lot more credit than I do (because I grant him zero). Anyway, as I responded above, I’ll take a weak, frustrated Obama to an unfettered Republican czar. The W years are too fresh in my memory.

        4. Ron Paul is actually very persistent and will stand his ground. He is also relatively civil about it.

        5. Newt would probably “fix” the health care bill by tinkering with the mandatory minimum formula and declare victory.

      5. “not some stuffy ideals like conservatism or constitutionalism”

        Romney is a complete stranger to ideals.

        “Romney just wants to run the economy”

        No, Romneybot wants to not rock the boat and to obey his political programmers. As he dithers, he will become the target for every Democrat attack. He will be portrayed as representing all of the GOP gains in 2010 and 2012. The Dems will tear holes in him as he blurbles about civility. Romney is not a fighter. He is a pathetic, spineless whimp, which is why the political establishment backs him.

        Let Gingrich rave. Congress will control his excesses. Fiscal reality and the Tea Party Movement’s influence will reign in Newt’s ambitions. With a little luck, we might even see Newt latch onto the “renewing American Civilization” meme again and his energies will be directed toward Constitutionalism.

        More Obama would be a disaster. Romney would be a constant obstacle, a liability and a weak-point. Gingrich at least offers some reasonable chance at making progress in the right direction.

        1. Thread squirrels, what did you do to my reply to L_i_T?

        2. Let Gingrich rave. Congress will control his excesses.

          I wish I lived in the America that you do.

          1. I wish I lived in the America that you do.

            The Tea Party Movement has already altered the behavior of the House Republicans. 2012 will see the election of more Tea Party sympathizers in both the House and the Senate. So, yeah, Congress will keep Gingrich from going ape shit.

        3. “Let Gingrich rave. Congress will control his excesses.”
          Rare Newt interview.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KJoU6OBTc

        4. Gingrich at least offers some reasonable chance at making progress in the right direction.

          You mean by telling everyone that vanture capitalists are rapacious job killing vultures. That’s the kind of progress you’re talking about?

          1. More or less government interference in your life if Newton Leroy Gingrich is your President? At a personal breaking point here. I cannot stand the idea that this giant piece of garbage could dupe enough of people to vote for him. I have lost all faith in everything. This is a frightening country and a terrible time to be alive. Pass the tequilla and the hash pipe.

            1. More or less government interference in your life if Newton Leroy Gingrich is your President?

              I’m gonna say more. Different, but not less, means more.

    2. The U.S. is screwed unless a major course correction is made and reactionary forces will do almost anything to prevent a change. It will take a strong personality, suffering the slings and arrows, damning the torpedoes, fulling the speed ahead to make the change.

      Sounds like Ron Paul. He’s suffered the slings and arrows for 30 years, and keeps on fighting. No one else is even proposing to actually cut spending, much less with any credibility that they would follow through.

  9. The only thing to take away is that any of these Republican nutjobs are going to be crushed ala Goldwater style in November.

    The American people want good jobs not to roll back all the progress in areas like civil rights of the last 60 or 70 years or to cement in the income inequality caused by the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for all eternity.

    The GOP might even realize this when come January 2013 they don’t even have enough people to filibuster efforts to finally do what’s necessary to bring back an economy that works for the middle class.

    1. Yeah, you’re right. I keep forgetting that Republicans and libertarians are racist and leftists aren’t.

      1. Which party nominated a black man for President and ushered in civil rights? Which party continues to play around with three outright racists as their nominee?

        1. If you weren’t an ahistorical moron, you would know that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 took more support from republicans than democrats, and that the states in violent turmoil in the 1960s were run by Dems. Go away and read your World Book Encyclopedia for a while.

          1. Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act pushed for and signed by Lyndon B. Johnson. Democrat.

            Eliminating those laws and ushering back in the Jim Crow South supported by Ron Paul. Republican.

            Taking away what they need to survive to give away to banks, and then throwing them in jail instead supported by Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Republican.

            Barack Obama, historic first black President. Democrat.

            1. Hahaha. Ok, good spoof, but you should have changed your name to Tony.

            2. George Wallace. Democrat.

              1. What Nick just said about Paul, is bullshit.

                Nick, Jim Crow is dead. Forever. So is slavery. Neither will ever return. These are GOOD things.

                Get over it.

                1. You’re right, because the white hoods who march behind Ron Paul are kept out of power and the American people won’t accept their desire to take us back there.

                  1. nick, stop. You are embarrassing yourself. The only reason Obama was elected was being black; even Dems know there was substantive qualification to justify it. But voting for him let them quiet their liberal guilt. What has followed in his administration shows what you get by putting an empty suit, regardless of its color, into power.

                    1. Obama was elected because he offered a hopeful tested platform to lift all the boats in America and turn back the destruction of the Bush years. Along with years of experience at the Harvard Law Review and in the Illinois and U.S. Senates.

                      He has done that, and you lash out at his race.

                    2. if that is why Obama has elected, then he has failed in epic terms. Notwithstanding your gross mischaracterization of the Bush years, his “experience” at Harvard included a title – but no actual scholarship – while his political experience consisted of holding one office while running for another. I never said anything about his race, and if lashing out at anything, it is your mind-boggling level of ignorance.

                    3. I would say the tide is pretty low right now. Anyway, no one here is lashing out at ‘race’. You’re dealing with a mostly aracial group. This is where the individual is championed, not your sacrosanct ‘institutions’.

                    4. Gilespie is that you? I get the distinct impression that we are being toyed with.

                    5. What platform? All I heard was hope and change with the occasional reference to raindobws and unicorns.

                  2. Fuck you, Nick. You still haven’t apologized for calling me a racist.

                    I take that shit seriously. You don’t fucking LIE about people, without proof.

                    But then, you *are* a Democrat…

                  3. Nick, did you know that the Civil Rights Act come up before LBJ was president, when he was the Senate Majority leader? He wouldn’t let it come to a vote since Ike was president.

                    Also, what about the attacks on black Republicans like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain? The left forces them to be a part of their group mentality or they are beaten down.

                    You really need to take the blinders off and look at the world around you. If you are eating the lines given to you by either party, you are being deceived.

                    I had a friend who defined bigot as “Someone winning an argument with a liberal.”

              2. Here’s one for you Nick:

                Abe Lincoln: Republican

                Read your history and you’ll find that the Democrats used to pull the evangical, socon, even rascist vote. The poles have shifted since then.

                I still don’t understand how you can call RP a rascist. He speaks out against discrimination in the judicial system, against the drug war, and against making minorities reliant on the federal government. If he was rascist, why would he do that? It’s a not a politically advantageous positions. It’s a complicated argument to make that doesn’t yet hold a lot of water with what he hopes will be his constituency.

            3. Ron Paul has only criticized two clauses of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 one which has been used to allow affirmative action and one which affects private business. He has never spoke against clauses that prohibit discrimination by the federal or state governments nor against the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

              1. Let us guess, Nick:

                Anyone who is not liberal = Klan member.

                Go ahead, say it. If it makes you feeeeeel better.

                1. No, but it’s not a coincidence that all Klan members were and are conservatives and opposed the successful liberal civil rights plank.

                  1. yup, the Klansman tale sure explains the exalted Robert Byrd, lifelong Democrat and Olympian spender of the people’s money, usually on projects that bear his name.

                    1. “As a conservative Democrat with a segregationist background, US Senator Robert Byrd had spent half a century in Congress and was its oldest member”

                      You’re welcome for that history lesson.

                    2. so a Dem is only a Dem when he’s a liberal? Wow; you take full of shit to an all-time level.

                  2. The modern Klan originated in the progressivist politics of the state of Indiana. A throughly progressive movement at the pinnacle of its political power with life long progressives like George Wallace and Senator Byrd championing its cause until the cultural climate made doing so unacceptable.

                  3. not even close to true, Nick.

                  4. not even close to true, Nick.

                  5. That’s pretty funny, Nick, because where I come from, most Klan members are Democrat-voting union members.

                  6. You realize that in the 1920s, the Klan spanned the United States and was pro-union? In fact, in West Virginia the Klan inducted two African-American members.

                  7. Guilty by your personal sense of correlation. I see how your (tiny) mind works.

                  8. Where is the peer reviewed paper that supports your claim?

                    While not peer reviewed, tell me which party supported it more according to Wikipedia?

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ct_of_1964

                  9. Well, Nick, good thing most libertarians hate “conservatives” as much as they do liberals like yourself.

        2. History is a complicated matter where cynical motives reign supreme. To simplify it as you do makes you an easy mark:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ct_of_1957

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..ct_of_1960

          The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern block was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

          1. You expect me to read that?!? With a mouthful of big black Obama cock??

            Shiiit maaan

            1. And here come the handlejackers with all sorts of disgusting racial slurs.

              1. Not everything is racist, Nick.

              2. Saying someone is black when they are is NOT racial slur. However, I too dislike it when people try to hijack someone’s forum handle in order discredit them, or at least insult them. Use your own forumn handle, not someone else’s, Fake Nick. It’s hard enough having a discussion without blatently dishonest shit like that.

        3. Um, Nick… we had civil rights BEFORE Barry got installed as The Most-recent Oval Office Hood Ornament.

          1. “Installed”

            “Hood Ornament”

            Try and be less obvious about your repugnant views on race.

            1. “hood ornament” is racist? Please explain your side’s vitriolic outbursts re: Herman Cain, who looks pretty black to me. Cain, unlike Obama, actually led an organization, was held accountable for decisions, and likely succeeded in spite of his race rather than because of it.

              1. Obama led the largest campaign in American history and now leads the largest organization on the planet.

                And has succeeded in spite of those who focus solely on his race.

            2. Who is the racist, me? Who would never consider race as a criteria in deciding on the candidate I support. Or, you and Tim Cavanaugh, for that matter, who voted for a supremely unqualified black man for no better reason than the color of his skin?

              It’s you.

              1. I voted for Obama because he represents the triumph of reason and rationality over superstition and anti-intellectualism.

                1. you voted for Obama because he is black. Period. So far, his “triumph” has added 5T to the national debt, increased unemployment, expanded the scope of govt, and and and.

                  1. I told you why I voted for him. You don’t believe me because you see everything as a racial issue, thus why you believe the lies that only black people get food stamps.

                    I do know however that you won’t vote for him because he is black. Period. Not even if he made everyone in the country a billionaire, you’d still see that skin color and reach for whoever has the hood on.

                    1. nick, the injection of race came from you and you alone, which is typical of liberals who have zero substance with which to support their piss poor ’08 decision. And you purposely use the food stamp thing out of context – more people on food stamps includes more white people. Are you really that stupid?

                      By the way, neitehr Obama nor any other president has the capacity to make people billionaires. Only a level of nuclear stupidity could think that, so you have that going for you.

                    2. President Mugabe of Zimbabwe made me a multi-trillionaire, so presidents do have such a capacity.

                      In fact, I was a quadrillionaire until I gave a hundred trillion dollars away.

                      Robert Mugabe is also a black man. Perhaps black men are better than white men at making people billionaires?

                    3. “I do know however that you won’t vote for him because he is black. Period.”

                      That does *not* mean he or others on here, won’t vote for *another* black man, Nick.

                      Give it up. Calling people racists without proof – while a good tool in the liberal kit bag – is utter bullshit and is a dishonorable way to get votes for your Team.

                      Which is why you and your fellow Team members *use* that tool. Every day.

                2. Re: Nick,

                  I voted for Obama because he represents the triumph of reason and rationality over superstition and anti-intellectualism.

                  Oh sure – “Hope and Change” and “‘Twas the previous guy’s fault!” are the epitome of rational discourse and intellectual greatness.

            3. Look, Nick… I said “the latest hood ornament”. I consider ALL presidents to be merely hood ornaments.

              Try your “you’re racist because you’re not a Democrat” bullshit elsewhere. Like DU, for instance.

              1. Fellas, it’s a spoof. I’d like to say it’s not a very good spoof, but it seems to be working…

              2. Okay, I said “most-recent” instead of “latest”, but the “installed” analogy still applies; presidents are like appliances, and they are installed in the Oval Office.

                They’re politicians. Team Red, Team Blue, I don’t give a fuck. I distrust 99 percent of them, at least, IF I trust any of them at all.

                Better walk back that racist charge you leveled while you’re at it, cocksucker. If you knew how much hatred I have for racists, you’d do the honorable thing and apologize.

                1. For claiming to have “hatred for racists” you sure seem to support Ron Paul and the rest of the Republican agenda.

                  1. nick,
                    since you have missed it – Ron Paul is at odds with the “Repub agenda”. Sharp observers figured this out since the Repub establishment ignores or marginalizes him, the other candidates (save Romney) call him things like dangerous, and the conservative media treats him like an outlier. Other than all that, you are probably right.

                  2. It’s amazing how easily some of the commentariat is sucked in by obvious griefers.

            4. I think that reflects his views on the US Presidency more than it does his views on race, no?

      2. And Democrats provide good jobs at a wholesome living wage too. It is important that you remember that fact.

    2. Does you mother have any children that were NOT born brain damaged?

      1. And here come the insults and violence from people who can’t dispute the facts.

        1. What violence?

          You’re full of shit, just like any Team Bluetard.

          1. Like there won’t be libertarian gun nuts taking shots at Congressman when Obama wins again in November?

            Ask Gabby Giffords about what insane cranks did after WINNING the House, imagine when they lose horribly.

            1. Re: Nick,

              Like there won’t be libertarian gun nuts taking shots at Congressman when Obama wins again in November?

              You mean there was a second gunman? And libertarian at that?

              You should have yourself examined by a psychiatrist, Nick. You’re susceptible to fabulation.

            2. HA HA HA!

              Excellent trolling efforts. I especially loved the “libertarian gun nuts” part.

              1. There will be more Occutard-fueled violence in the future, than right-wing-fueled violence.

                And Nick is probably hankerin’ for some’a that.

                1. There won’t be violence coming from Occupy Wall Street, but there will be self-defense if the Republican agenda keeps being forced on the nation.

                  1. If the liberal powermongers and pundits keep whipping up the useless wealth-envy, there may well BE violence.

                    1. Nick just said so – he called it “self-defense.”

                  2. Yeah there was no violence or rape at any of the OWS camps. None whatsoever.

                    And I know you’re a retarded ass troll, but fuck you very much we are not racist.

    3. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  10. Why is nobody mentioning the fact that Ron Paul won the Young voter Demographic handily ?

    The Future is so Ron Paul, don’t get demoralized too soon.

    1. Because nobody gives a shit about a racist cult leader whose insane crackpot rantings will be forgotten about in a few months when history leaves him in the bin like the rest of the Jim Crow South.

      1. Re: Nick,

        Because nobody gives a shit about a racist cult leader whose insane crackpot rantings will be forgotten about in a few months when history leaves him in the bin like the rest of the Jim Crow South.

        He was talking about Paul, Nick, not Jeremiah Wright.

        1. Drum roll for OM.

        2. EPIC WIN

    2. “The future is Ron Paul”

      It’s not for Republicans, but I think some of his ideas have resonated well with both Republicans and Independents.

    3. Ron Paul isn’t going to run again.

      1. But Rand Paul might. Also, the “future” statement means that even if he loses, his ideas ARE the future.

    4. Yes, it’s always heartening to think that the political majority of the future will favor Ron Paul over some candidate that still draws breath. But it may not matter, because our republic may have degenerated to the point that dead voters decide everything.

      1. But it may not matter, because our republic may have degenerated to the point that dead voters decide everything.

        Makes sense. Most of the voters on social security seem practically dead to me anyway.

  11. Takeaway lesson:

    I needs me some sweet, soothing reportage from Doherty on Paul’s promising long game.

    1. Paul is too old to have a long game.

      1. You forget that there is more than one Paul

        1. Rue Paul is not a politician.

          1. Haha. That was funny. Seriously, I’m not being sarcastic; that made me laugh.

          2. Who the fuck is Rue Paul?

  12. These last four are as bad as Cain, Perry, and the Crazy Whore.

    I want them forced to answer “How much in each entitlement program will you cut now?”. Start with the big three, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Ron Paul might provide an honest answer – the others will run and hide.

    1. “the crazy whore”. Don’t you love it when the party of tolerance, diversity, and acceptance shows its real self?

      1. You’ll have to forgive shrike, he’s retarded.

        He pretends to want to smaller government, but he just can’t help but love Obama.

        1. From Mises – hardly in the tank for Obama

          http://wp.mises.org/blog/change_by_prez1.jpg

          Dems spend less – a fact.

          1. Re: shrike,

            Dems spend less – a fact.

            Except from 1933-1946 and 2009-today. Oh, and from 1917-1919. But every other time, the Republirats were big spenders.

            1. Democrats spend more efficiently. On things like the economy, jobs, health care, education, etc.

              Republicans just like to waste it on wars to defend their daddy’s honor and the police state. Not to mention all their dick replacement military boners.

              1. Re: Nick,

                Democrats spend more efficiently.

                No, Nick. They simply spend LESS (historically, at least.)

                On things like the economy, jobs, health care, education, etc.

                Considering the great job this spending has done, I believe it is your bouts of fabulation kicking in again, Nick.

                I beseech you, go see a therapist. Next thing you know, you will swear you see little fairies trying to pull your teeth out.

            2. I linked Mises. Case closed. (I could link the same info at Cato).

              Only here, amongst the conservative posters at H&R, is Bush held up as a paragon of small government.

              1. shrike spin strikes again. You will find no one here defending the Bush checkbook. Yet the fact remains: Obama has added more the debt in 3 years than Bush did in 8.

                1. He linked to a chart showing one year. Also, Obama’s bailouts were pushed forward so the figures posted are BS anyway.

          2. Can I have another 2.3 trillion? You know, a little walking around money while I’m still in office.

          3. Congress controls the budget, not the president.

    2. Whats wrong with cutting the amount of spending in entitlements? We are gonna do it for defense, so why are entitlement programs sacred cows?

      God Damn, we have a 15T debt and run trillion dollar budgets and even raising taxes to 100% are not gonna help our debt issues. Geez all entitlements do is keep people down and subservient to the government. They sure as hell don’t give people any opportunities. Welfare has kept generations of black people down, broken, and enslaved to team blue. Guess Nick wants to keep his slaves except for the occasional token success story.

  13. The American people want good jobs

    A not-insignificant number of people recognize the simple truth that “good jobs” require profitability.

    1. No, they require sensible regulations and labor laws that ensure employers can’t get away with the borderline sweatshop labor conditions most working Americans find themselves in today after the gutting of the regulations and labor laws by years of Reaganite Republican rule.

      1. Re: Nick,

        No, they require sensible regulations and labor laws that ensure employers can’t get away with the borderline sweatshop labor conditions most working Americans find themselves in today[…]

        This must be like The Lake House, where Nick must be writing to us from the middle of 1840.

        […]after the gutting of the regulations and labor laws by years of Reaganite Republican rule.

        I actually saw more regulation being taken out during the Clinton years than before or since. The Federal Registry has not been gutted one word or iota, in fact growing by great strides during the years of the supposedly “free marketeer” George Bush – or did you suddenly forget SarbOx?

        1. Seems more like you forget the Bush Tax Cuts that took tons of revenue out of the economy and gave us massive budget deficits and then the Bush Administrations compounding the error by not properly regulating the economy allowing the banks to loot the populace and eventually the oil companies to spill oil all over the Gulf of Mexico leaving a dead zone.

          1. Re: Nick,

            Seems more like you forget the Bush Tax Cuts that took tons of revenue out of the economy and gave us massive budget deficits

            Seems more compared to what? Because you mention this fable about gutting regulations and you fly off a tangent with tax cuts. It seems you have no real arguments, Nick.

            1. He’s a typical Team Blue dumbfuck, OM.

              1. He’s not typical. He’s psychotic.

                1. Like I said, ryan…

              2. He’s a paid DNC operative with team blue talking points.

                1. Nick = Sock puppet

          2. actually Nick, (by the way, what asylum are your currently housed in?) tax cuts do not take “revenue out of the economy”. Quite the opposite, they keep that money in the economy rather than in the hands of govt. When questioned, 99% of serious people would rather see that money in private hands than in those of govt.

          3. The Bush cuts gave us the deficit?

            Now I know you’re a troll. The reduction of the tax intake due to Bush’s cuts is not nearly equal to the jump of the deficit since then.

            The best figures put forward by LIBERAL talkers is that the cuts caused about 1/3 of the current deficit.

        2. He is trolling, of course. Given there are plenty of people who fall for the progressive elites carny act and are willing to give up their hard earned wealth and steal a huge chunk of ours in hopes that the carny puts on a good show means you should probably keep doing what you are doing.

        3. This must be like The Lake House, where Nick must be writing to us from the middle of 1840.

          +1

          Good one OM.

      2. ~50% too much obviousness.

        1. I prefer giving letter grades

      3. No, they require sensible regulations and labor laws that ensure employers can’t get away with the borderline sweatshop labor conditions most working Americans find themselves in today

        You mendacious asshole. You have no fucking idea what ‘sweatshop labor conditions‘ are. Why don’t you spend some time in the 3rd World, as I have, before you spout such nonsense.

        Are you that myopic and self-involved to believe that anything else then French-government-mandated-3-months-of-holidays is ‘sweatshop labor’?

        1. Compared to the sensible and successful but not quite perfect rules of Europe, most Americans who live in or near poverty literally do work in sweatshop conditions. No vacation days, no universal health care, no free college education, the threat of losing their job for any insane reason their employer decides on, etc.

          1. “not quite perfect”

            Therein lies the problem with both Teams… both seek to make things “perfect”, according to each Teams’ belief system.

            It cannot be done.

            Give up on the pipedream of using government as a perfection machine.

            1. Better to try and make things better for everyone than to give up and convince yourself you’re happy in the chains of the elite.

              1. You, of course, only refer to Team Red when you say that, right, Nick?

                Tony apologizes for your Team at every turn, too. You two should get a room with a jacuzzi and split a bottle of free-range wine.

              2. “you’re happy in the chains of the elite”

                ? Five year plans and new deals,

                ? wrapped in golden chains

          2. Your response again shows that you have no idea what an actual ‘sweatshop’ is.

            No vacation days, no universal health care, no free college education, the threat of losing their job for any insane reason their employer decides on,

            That is not a sweatshop. Sweatshop conditions are threats of rape, death, or maiming; withholding pay, child labor, human trafficking. All of these are usually only able to exist with the implicit awareness of a corrupt government that condones such conditions.

            Your hysterical proclamations of such conditions existing widespread in the United States is an offense to those who actually suffer from these conditions in the 3rd World.

            1. All sorts of corporations withholda respectful level of pay, it’s a good way to keep profits up.

              And Newt Gingrich himself has been demanding a return to child labor.

              Without workplace regulations, in the world you libertarians want there would be even more death and maiming of American citizens by employers. With no punishments for them because it’s their “right” to a profit.

              As for rape, I seem to remember a vote in Congress where Republicans opposed any sort of punishment for contractors who sexual assaulted their employees, prompted by rapes at Halliburton.

              Most people don’t want to go back to the 19th century, they like being protected from vulture capitalists.

              1. Now you’re just being obstinate.

                I’ll leave you to your parochial, I-have-never-left-the-country-so-I-think-my-problems-are-the-WORST-ever mindset bubble.

              2. Re: Nick,

                All sorts of corporations withhold [a] respectful level of pay, it’s a good way to keep profits up.

                Are you really talking about the Labor Theory of Value, Nick?

              3. There has to be a Godwin equivalent for liberals with “Halliburton!!!”

          3. We should take it easy on young Nick,like all embodiments of Poe’s Law he labors under the constant delusion he serves a much grander purpose than the one he ultimately succeeds in accomplishing. Plus its bad form to mock a persons mental disabilities. Unless they’re self inflicted.

  14. As for jobs, look closely at Obamas actions. If he wins again the real unemployment rate will be 30% instead of 20%

    1. If he wins and there isn’t a Republican Congress in power we’ll probably get around to eliminating the economy destroying Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy as well as an economic stimulus package big enough to spur aggregate demand.

      And by the next time you get a chance at the Presidency you’ll have to be arguing against the Full Employment brought on by Obama’s successful policies.

      1. Is this the one where Spock’s got a beard? I *love* this one.

      2. i’ll demand your aggregate

      3. Those horrible tax cuts were extended by the majority democrat house and senate and signed by your anointed one. Get a new line of propagandist billshit asshole.

      4. “…we’ll probably get around to eliminating the economy…”That sounds a little wishy washy to me,change that probably to a definitely or a certainly and I could agree. And he’s into”Full Employment”that’s so cool,just like in the Gulag. I tell you this Nick dude knows his shit. No half assed statism here. Gotta respect a man that tells you right up front what he stands for. Mad props Bro! RED TEAM 2012!!

  15. For the Tonys and nicks oout there, the simple fact is that every government created job will cause a similar reduction in the private sector. Government jobs are pure cost. No one profits except the hiree and that is at your expense if you are a tax payer.

    1. Government jobs create value by providing for those things that the market cannot and will not provide thus reducing the costs for every private sector job that would otherwise have to pay for education, health care, etc.

      1. Re: Nick,

        Government jobs create value[…]

        No, they don’t.

        by providing for those things that the market cannot and will not provide[…]

        I’ve seen things that the market provides that rival anything the government can even dream about, like truly free education.

        http://www.khanacademy.org/
        http://www.uopeople.org/

        The reason you think otherwise is because you’re a direct result of Pulbic Educashion.

        thus reducing the costs for every private sector job

        You’re also woefully ignorant of even the most basic concepts of economics.

        1. Guess you missed the fantastic world class education we have provided today by underpaid and overworked teachers in the … GASP … government schools!

          Scams like unregulated online education can hardly compare to the successful track record of public education. It’s like comparing Bernie Madoff to legitimate businesses.

          1. Re: Nick,

            Guess you missed the fantastic world class education we have provided today by underpaid and overworked teachers in the … GASP … government schools!

            “Fantastic” is the right word. Just look at the etymology…

            Scams like unregulated online education can hardly compare to the successful track record of public education.

            You think that education needs to be regulated?

            It is confirmed – you need to see a doctor: you’re susceptible to fabulation, Nick. That is a bad thing, by the way.

            1. If education isn’t regulated how will people not be taken in by cranks who teach things like Creationism, global warming denialism, holocaust denialism and Republican economics?

              1. Apparently, you’re okay with people being taken in by cranks like you, Nick.

              2. Re: Nick,

                If education isn’t regulated how will people not be taken in by cranks who teach things like Creationism, global warming denialism, holocaust denialism and Republican economics?

                And if it is regulated (i.e. only one version given,) how can they know the difference? How can they know any better? How can people not succumb to Lysenkoism without being able to ponder other ideas? Or is that what you’re really peddling?

              3. THE PARTY TEACHES THE TRUTH. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A LIE.

              4. The Pol Pot School of Reeducation. Of course, you don’t understand the link.

              5. Uh, they’ll decide for themselves? This is perhaps the BIGGEST complaint I have about pro-regulation stances. They insist people are too STUPID to think and decide for themselves. They just frame it other terms.

  16. Is it just my imagination, or does Katrina van den Heuvel get stupider every day?

    1. She sounds like the left’s Peggy Noonan.

    2. Yes, and I predict this trend to continue indefinitely.

      1. Nah, she reached peak stupidity years ago.

        1. i’ll reach your peak

        2. Peak Stupidity is a myth.

    3. It was hilarious when George Will pointed out that there is no difference between Romney’s position on Iran and Leon Panetta’s.

    4. Admit it. You would hit it.

      1. Katrina? I haven’t watched political content shows in years, but she use to be a sexy little minx. Has she aged well? If she hasn’t that may be why she sounds more stupid. Pretty covers up a lot of flaws.

      2. Do I get to put a sock in her mouth while the deed is done?

  17. I think the base understands the following:

    Why would Obama want to run against the man who helped balance budgets, paid down debt, lowered taxes, helped put policy in place for a booming economy whcih created jobs jobs jobs and is capable of motivating the base etc…

    You know because:

    Why would Obama want to run against a flip flopper from MA when he himself is polling under 50% and most especially since it didn’t work out so well for Bush. 😉

    Why would Obama want to run against Romney whom he can easily paint as a 1%er and Wall St’s boy toy who hides his money offshore and made a fortune as a corporate raider. Surely in this political environment that’s a big mistake because people just love those CEOs who cash out credit give themselves raises then bankrupt the companies, send jobs to China and such. People love and reelect Governors who impose fees on the blind and try to impose them on the mentally challenged. Its a sure loser for Obama.

    No way, not in this economic and political environment. Obama would be a fool to wish for someone whom he can say my O-Care was based on your R-Care and some of your people even helped us write it.

    Nope, No way Obama wants to run against Mittens who doesn’t defend himself or conservatism very well. Nope, not in a million years does Obama want to run against Mittens.

    Seriously, think about it. Why would Obama want to run against a guy who doesn’t motivate the base of the Republican party.

    And of course we all know Newt’s affairs will take him down like they did Bill Clinton in 1992. Bill would have been POTUS if it weren’t for them flings. And Newt actually marrying the women is far worse than Clinton dumping them right after he had his fun.

    /sarcasm

    It sure would be fun seeing Obama diss Clinton and his legacy to try and make the point against Newt that budgets weren’t balanced, debt wasn’t paid down etc… Do you think that will PO the Clintonites who are already POed Obama played the race card on (of all people) the Clintons last election. Quite the conundrum for Obama if Newt is the nominee. What else does Obama have other than personal attacks that people aren’t going to care about?

    Oh wait! The people that worked with him hate him blah blah blah.

    Newt passed the only conservative entitlement reform in our lifetime. Why would I trust what the people who ran him out of town on trumped up BS charges say ie Romney is the guy? Those people doubled the debt in his absence while they grew the size and scope of government more than any since LBJ. Those people left the GOP brand so tainted that Republicans were basically unelectable in 2006 and 2008 and we got Nancy, Harry, Obama another 5 trillion in debt piled onto our children and Obamacare as a result.

    The fact the establishment GOPers call themselves ‘conservative’ is a joke because conservatism begins with and ends without fiscal sanity. The fact they call Newt immoral because of his personal business which does not affect my children is laughable because piling 10 trillion onto the backs of my children is far more immorally irresponsible and reprehensible than anything Newt ever did in his private life.

    We know why the establishment wants the flip flopping milquetoast mush that is Romney and its because they can push him around and its quite the contrary with Newt.

    The American people don’t want business as usual, we want big reform in DC and Newt can deliver it and knows how to twist arms to get it done. Romney’s executive experience will frustrate him more than it helps him because he can’t order pols around like his subordinates at Bane and he won’t have line item veto like he did as governor. We don’t need another Harvard know-it-all who knows nothing about how to operate in DC in the WH.

    Romney motivates the base even less than McCain and will lose or at best it will be too close to comfort and the last thing the country needs is another Gore vs Bush type debacle ending up in the courts.

    Imagine the conundrum for Obama attacking Newt’s record as Speaker he’d be attacking Clinton too ie balanced budgets, paying down debt, jobs jobs jobs etc… I wonder if the Clintonites have forgiven Obama after Obama played the race care on the Clintons last election.

    1. Obama will have no problem poking holes in every single one of Newt Gingrich’s nutty racist views about how the world works.

      He’ll just be able to point to the logical end result of the 1994 “Republican Revolution” which was endless lies into war, tax cuts for the wealthy and an economy left in ruins.

      1. Nothing like a little troll-on-troll action.

        1. That happens a lot here.

          1. I think the nitwits fail to understand I’m coming from a purely political reality perspective. By all means let Mittens win the nomination so Democrats can take the House and Senate back too and get those millions and billionaires paying 70% again while they take your money after you die. What ever! But I don’t think you pinheads realize the potential Newt has to bring a “throw all the bums out!” message with they “they added 10 trillion to the debt after they chased me out on BS charges”.

            Oh well, never let it be said libertarians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Newt even sounds Paulish on The Fed.

            What ever!

            1. “What ever!”

              WOW. Just WOW. I have no rebuttal to such a PERFECT argument. And “Newt sounds Paulish?” If you use THAT as a compliment, don’t expect people to suddenly root for Mr. Newt over Ron Paul.

              1. Which other non Paul is talking about auditing The Fed and bringing back some sort of gold standard?

              2. The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.

                They’ll lose alright ? they’ll lose power to others. That’s their real fear.
                http://tinyurl.com/87doa4z

                “The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination….We are going to make the establishment very uncomfortable. We are going to demand real change in Washington.” –Speaker Newt Gingrich about the establishment (on Meet the Press / quoted in the NYT Michael Shear article)

              3. The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.

                They’ll lose alright ? they’ll lose power to others. That’s their real fear.
                http://tinyurl.com/87doa4z

                “The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination….We are going to make the establishment very uncomfortable. We are going to demand real change in Washington.” –Speaker Newt Gingrich about the establishment (on Meet the Press / quoted in the NYT Michael Shear article)

      2. Re: Nick,

        Obama will have no problem poking holes in every single one of Newt Gingrich’s nutty racist views about how the world works.

        You’re probably right that Obama will poke holes into Newt’s bullshit worldview. Whether that view is racist or not is subject to conjecture.

        He’ll just be able to point to the logical end result of the 1994 “Republican Revolution” which was endless lies into war, tax cuts for the wealthy and an economy left in ruins.

        1. Obama will poke into Newt’s santorum hole?!?

          I’d watch that!

    2. Cool story, makes you think!

      http://www.proxies_4_privacy.net

    3. Newt didn’t help balance the budget. He actually stood in the way by voting against the Omnibus of 1993 which directly led to the run of surpluses.

      1. Not only surpluses (before the Bush Tax Cuts gutted them) but the booming economy of the 1990s. (Again before the Bush Tax Cuts gutted it.)

        1. Are you really giving credit to the federal government for the .com boom?

          The federal government created none of those businesses.

          The government doesn’t create jobs or wealth. The best they can do is get out of the way.

      2. Bullshit.

        1. Notice how he conveniently leaves out the second debt trench being excavated by HIS party…

          1. Obama has slashed more spending than Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan combined.

            1. That’s a good one, shrike.

              1. Its a spoof.

                One of your assholes has lost the debate and can only lie for me.

                1. Its a spoof.

                  puppet-spoofing

                2. Who can tell the difference, shrike? IF it was a spoof, it might as well have come from your fingertips.

            2. Re: shrike,

              Obama has slashed more spending than Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan combined.

              I don’t know how things are done in your house, shrike; but in mine, when the missus says she will not buy those shoes she saw at Nine West after all but just the handbag, that’s not “slashing spending.” And neither is what Obama did.

              1. Its the equivalent to upending the game board (the spoofing).

                “Goddamnit, I lost so you can’t play anymore!”

            3. We have reached peak douche.

              1. We reached that decades ago, BP.

      3. Nice try, but the economy was already in a boom well before Clinton was sworn in.

        1. Yes, thanks to the effective tax and regulatory policy by Clinton/Gore.

          1. Why is 39.6% such an important tax rate, compared to 34%? Just cut spending by 5.6%.

            Shit, it’s not that complicated.

            1. 39.6% isn’t, but it’s a step back to the rates of the 1960s and 70s when the economy was booming and working for all Americans.

              1. It is, Nick, because all we’ve been hearing is “roll back the Bush tax cuts” – one of the few good things the man has EVER done in his life – and said tax hikes are always presented as the magic bullet.

                It’s bullshit wrapped in fake concern.

                1. Yet you whine about deficits and a bad economy at the same time.

                  Rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts is just a start, but it’ll get us closer to a society where everyone pays their fair share so we can provide a basic standard of living for everyone.

                  1. But everyone won’t be paying their fair share, Nick. Even your Magic Tax Rate on Fucking Evil Wealthy People won’t see to that.

                    1. It will if you don’t staff all the agencies with anti-enforcement zealots like the Reaganites and Bushies spent decades doing.

                      Hilarious how they didn’t just gut the regulations but the bodies themselves, put in all sorts of corporate stooges and then you useful idiots come along using it as an indictment of the government and poor people instead of going after the corporate jackboots trying to bring down the country.

                    2. Too bad Dubya added more regulations than the previous 3 presidents. Douchebag.

                  2. Re: Nick,

                    Rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts is just a start, but it’ll get us closer to a society where everyone pays their fair share so we can provide a basic standard of living for everyone.

                    What’s a “basic standard of living”? Is it as basic as eating grass, or as basic as working the fields?

                    I just want to know.

                    1. OM, …I think for Nick, a basic standard of living is having free access to miracle drugs that cure diseases once considered 99% fatal, the right to attend over-priced bloated “education” institutions to major in some easy bullshit NO ONE finds useful, the right to an awesome office job where you don’t have to do much work but you get paid enough to live in the city and frequent over-priced bars as you hang out with your cosmopolitan friends and fight off alternating bouts of herpes and genital warts (treatments paid for by you and me of course), the right to retire at 40 because, you know, working sucks and we should be allowed to party for most of our existence with no regard for who/what/how/when/where actual shit will get done (i.e. food production, oil refining, etc.). Oh and, of course, access to your own personalized Unicorn you can sodomize to your heart’s content.

                  3. When do the 47% pay their fair share?

          2. Yes, thanks to the effective tax and regulatory policy by Clinton/Gore.

            While he was still Governor in Arkansas? Okay.

    4. Needs more words. Longer next time, pls.

      1. hheeehee hehaahaahaa

        usually when i say LOL i’m lying but now i’m not

  18. Our endorsement of Gingrich over Romney clearly establishes our desire for a different flavor of big government Republicanism. Sure, we continually pay lip service to small government ideals, sound economics, and personal liberty. But in reality we want our Medicare and Social Security untouched, we insist on being the worlds policemen at any cost, and if we could just legislate enough morality into our public institutions the culture could be saved. What we really want is the same unconstitutional centralized authority that the Obama administration has inherited and cultivated, but we want to do good things for society with that power. For example, dropping more bombs, ignoring entitlement spending, educating the public that our greatest threats at home are illegal Mexicans, gays, and marijuana, and a commitment to the continuation of deficit spending… but at a slightly slower rate. This America, is our recipe for success, doing the exact same things differently.

    1. Except one thing Gingrich gets right is a more COMPASSIONATE view of immigration. If anything he is very much for immigration REFORM over immigration REDUCTION.

    2. Finally, a little truth. The southern GOP is all about hating blacks and loving war – -it has little to do with personal freedom, economic liberty, or freedom in general. Secession would have been a good thing for personal liberty and the long-term health of the Republic. Instead we have southern douchebags like Lindsay Graham and Newt Gingrich running the nation into the ground with their grandiose plans for our lives.

  19. Government jobs create value by providing for those things that the market cannot and will not provide

    Close your eyes and wish real hard.

  20. One thing I’ve learned from investing is: psychologically, humans assume that the current trend is permanent and irreversible.

    Another thing I’ve learned from investing is: NO trend is permanent, and ALL will change course.

    Nothing moves in a straight line.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think this means that three weeks from now Ron Paul will be leading the delegate count. It just means that this SC primary thing isn’t as much of a BFD as the media is ? and will continue ? making it out to be.

    1. threadjacker

      1. …In turning down Keystone, however, the President has uncovered an ugly little secret that has always lurked beneath the surface of environmentalism. Its basic appeal is to the affluent. Despite all the professions of being “liberal” and “against big business,” environmentalism’s main appeal is that it promises to slow the progress of industrial progress. People who are already comfortable with the present state of affairs — who are established in the environment, so to speak — are happy to go along with this. It is not that they have any greater insight into the mysteries and workings of nature. They are happier with the way things are. In fact, environmentalism works to their advantage. The main danger to the affluent is not that they will be denied from improving their estate but that too many other people will achieve what they already have. As the Forest Service used to say, the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer….

        1. Where all the eugenicist turned to justify their desire to trim down the human race by a few billion after their race based reasons became hugely unpopular.

  21. Romney is too obviously a politician willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, and is not a reliable conservative, so he inspires little passion among hardcore GOP types or Tea Partiers. Gingrich has lots of baggage but is less impure ideologically and can articulate some things that energize the base, so he’s getting attention now. Santorum: yuck. Pretty much everything that libertarians and conservatives dislike in the GOP in one package. Paul, unfortunately, is too much of an ideologue. If he could tone it down by about 25% he’d likely win, but it’s way too late for that. America could well elect a libertarian-leaning candidate, but they won’t go for a purist.

    1. If he had “toned it down,” he wouldn’t get the followers he DOES have. It’s not just his views, but his utter unwavering SINCERITY in extolling their virtues that draws people to him.

      1. There are far, far more people drawn to moderate libertarian ideas than there are libertarian purists. If you want to win a national election, you have to take that into account.

        1. So what would your “moderate libertarian” candidate look like?

          1. Racist, but dresses fabulous

          2. I thought Gary Johnson looked good.

            1. I still think he does.

              1. Yeah, but when was the last time a third party presidential candidate did anything beyond helping the candidate furthest from his ideological position?

          3. Gadaffi in skinny jeans, locaste shirt, and flip flops.

    1. And the FCC wants to control internet content.

      We’re fucked, no matter which Team has all the levers and switches at hand.

  22. I think that Newt will dive to bottom once again when people are reminded of what a dishonest, manipulative, egomanic he is. Here the Republican party has a decent, honest, conservative candidate (Ron Paul), but instead the keep promoting the slime balls in the running. I hope Newt wins FL too, and all hell breaks lose as Ron Paul continues to gain momentum and convert the sheeple to his liberty movement. It’s probably wishful thinking though, because John Q. Republican Public wants to be spoon fed a candidate that won’t change anything.

  23. Romney is too obviously a politician willing to say whatever it takes to get elected, and is not a reliable conservative, so he inspires little passion among hardcore GOP types or Tea Partiers….

    As Mr. N. Titties.

  24. I don’t mind trolls but eventually it becomes spam. When incorrect arguments about deregulation are mentioned a hatchet should instantly drop or there should be a flag which redirects to a Frequently Refuted Talking Points section.

    1. This thread is nearly all puppet and troll.

    2. I just use the scroll wheel on my mouse

  25. threadjacker

    You’re not from around here, are you?

    1. Just 13% of those surveyed backed the Affordable Care Act.

      What the hell do doctors know about the health care industry. I voted for Obama because he represents the triumph of reason and rationality over superstition and anti-intellectualism. and he want get bogged down in the petty concerns of special interest like those of doctors who want their interest to override the common good.

      1. I mean he ‘wont’, damn it. He ‘want’ let insurance companies abuse us. I mean he ‘wont’ do that!?!

        Fuck you, Freud!

      2. You’re a very eloquent sap.

  26. It’s truly impressive how resolutely (and successfully) the ABC “Round Table” bobbleheads strive to expunge Ron Paul from their collective consciousness.

    1. Why bother talking about irrelevancies?

      1. You must mean the ones you’ve been dropping like turds across this thread.

  27. I think that there’s no way that 18% of the electorate in South Carolina have postgraduate degrees, or that 5% have annual incomes greater than $200,000.

    Something is wrong with those numbers. It looks like they were made up.

    1. Just because South Carolina is all hookworm-ridden barefoot sisterfuckers who only fasten one-strap of their overalls doesn’t mean they can’t spend Grandpappy’s untaxed corn-likker fortune on a advanced degree from Clemson or USC.

      1. nice wordplay, this is a good comment.

        1. Yeah, but he either forgot the ‘blade of switchgrass between their teeth’ or left it out for brevity. Either way, the picture was incomplete for me.

          1. FWIW, Gary Johnson got more votes in SC than in NH.

            1. SC has 3.5 times the population of NH. (I do think he’ll do better in GA.)

              1. I meant I thought Paul would do better in GA, but I’d forgotten that was Newt’s home state.

      2. Heh. Funny.

        I know quite well that South Carolina is not the backwards place that it is often made out to be, but I also know that cost-of-living and average incomes are lower than in other states (even $100,000 is rare – much less $200,000) and that the economy has been hampered by a lack of suitably educated professionals. Less than 25% of South Carolinians have Bachelor’s Degrees, so it is difficult to believe that 18% have post-graduate degrees.

        Perhaps the figure is slightly higher because voters tend to be more educated than non-voters, but it is still difficult to believe those figures.

        1. SC Republican voters are going to be way more educated than SC Democrat voters. If you don’t immediately know why ask Slappy.

    2. Reading comprehension, how does it work?

  28. Gingrich at 40%? The gullibility of the average voter stuns me to no end. He is not even a shred of the man he makes himself out to be.

      1. An imperfect man is an imperfect candidate in a field of imperfect candidates to be an imperfect office holder in an imperfect political system in an imperfect world, but is the choice of an imperfect subgroup of imperfect voters in an imperfect party.

  29. Wow, Nick. Just, wow. Are we sure this is a new troll? Sounds like maybe he’s been saving this up for a while, maybe a couple of years.

    1. It’s rectal, back off her pills.

        1. Nah it’s just the latest iteration of Max Chony.

  30. What do you think, kind readers?

    I think The Establishment has changed it’s mind. Or at least the part of It that matters.

    They’d rather keep Obama Boy after all, and Romney suddenly seems too likely to unseat him. So they’re going with the Grinch who will almost certainly loose.

    1. “Grinch who will almost certainly loose”

      The truth is in the typo.

      1. Which one?

      2. I think it should read “Grinch likes his women loose”

    2. Do you really think they’ll give me a second chance? I did everything they ever asked me to, and when they started throwing support to Romney I just couldn’t believe it!

    3. They’ve probably got Obama secretly on-board the Iranageddon train so Jesus can finally come back and usher the faithful into the hoary hosts of hoggoth. Or something like that.

  31. thinking back to 08 when the tally of paul’s votes amounted to perhaps some 5% nationally with his best showing being in iowa for the early states of about 10% and his base stuck with him still through the years, and it is now 2012–this is what some of the original supporters went through and it shows their will to change the country.

    regardless of what happens here, you can rest assured that this movement will go on, so for those easily depressed, it is your decision, but whether you decide to carry on with the same passion because of this turning into a marathon instead of a 1 month burst of passion and an expected win as swift as a night spent on internet gaming, the rest of us will carry on, and from the quadruple expansion of the movement since 08, i would say it has very much been pre-determined that we will pass the critical mass at some point. that point is very soon in fact, i suspect. if up to me, i would say, ‘don’t miss the boat’.

  32. My take on it is this: The GOP needs to grow the fuck up.

    The whole, “The media, academia, etc. is controlled by TEH LIBURLZ!!!” has gone too far. I understand why it exists- when most reporters in the mainstream media are either left leaning or Democrats, then bias emerges even when a reporter thinks that they are reporting the news completely straight. Human interest stories are also complete appeals to pathos, the argument of libertarian arguments to logos (although I think that we go logos a bit too much).

    Academia doesn’t even try to hide a liberal bias.

    And it does get tiresome to go on even non-political sites and hear the implied, “All right thinking people are liberal” crap. Or the more infuriating, “Reality has a well known liberal bias” (Best response: And economics has a well known conservative bias).

    However, Newt won the primary because he attacked the media. He tapped into a narrative, pushed by talk radio, that there is a Vast Liberal Conspiracy against True Conservatives in favor of Squishy Moderates like McCain and Romney. Therefore, you saw so called “social conservatives” fall over themselves to defend a man whose morals are questionable at best because he was a True Conservative. It really has discredited social conservatism in my eyes.

    Also, on a larger note, here’s what it made the GOP look like: A teenage fan of a cult band. You know the type- always bitching about how no “gets” the band’s music, including the music journalists. Here’s the problem: Sometimes, you’re bands album gets a crappy review because the music press don’t “get” it. And sometimes it gets a crappy review because it sucks. Newt is the latter case, and the fact that conservatives haven’t recognized it means that they have lost the ability to distinguish between the two.

    1. Re: Last Son Of Krypton,

      However, Newt won the primary because he attacked the media. He tapped into a narrative[…]

      Interestingly, a warning given by none other than Bernie Goldberg seems very appropriate here. He mentioned during a CSPAN talk about his book “A Slobbering Love Affair” that if the press continued protecting their preferred candidates, a true demagogue would come and blame the media for everything, and people will believe him. Even though in all probability Bernie is somewhat partial towards Newt, the even he was warning about comes eerily close to what happened during that debate – you have a true demagogue blaming the media and the people believing him despite their better judgment.

      The media made their own coffin and opened their own hole in the ground. They’re indeed to blame for what will happen next if the people do not come to their senses.

      1. These are both very interesting posts. Conservatives need to quit crying so much.

    2. Excellent work.
      I blame Rush Limbaugh for this.

    3. No offense, but social conservatives are just NOW discredited in your eyes?

  33. Rolling back the Bush Tax Cuts is just a start, but it’ll get us closer to a society where everyone pays their fair share so we can provide a basic standard of living for everyone.

    Something something “abilities”

    Something something “needs”

    1. Yeah, something like that.

  34. Well, libertarians it’s been fun slapping down your nethanderal views. I’ll check back in the future to see if you’ve actually learned any simple facts about history or political science or economics or really, anything else about the real world.

    It’d probably help your movement if you had an actual plan to improve peoples lives instead of just a singular focus longing for a return of the Confederacy but with extra corporate overlords.

    Don’t worry, you can stay irrelevant too, the rest of us will keep working hard to improve your lives along with those of yes, black people and Hispanics and the gays too! And we’ll let you have universal health care and college education just like everyone in the nation. And our troops will still defend you, so will the police, and the fire fighters will put out your fires. And of course, you can drive on our roads.

    Next time you leave the house, if you ever do, look around and you might even feel a little desire to thank us for providing you with so much. I’m sure a freedman with modern civil rights will be enjoying the fruits of our labor as well so you’ll have your trigger to justify going back to wallowing in your backward paranoid ideology.

    Cheers.

    1. Re: Nick,

      Well, libertarians it’s been fun slapping down your nethanderal [sic] views.

      Nice of you to think that your Fantastik Pulbic Skool Educashion was so great.

      1. And funny that you think you were “slapping” libertarians when you were doing nothing more that bloviating with platitudes and non-facts that could only have come from socialist journals. Your argumentation style is inept and frowsy, with no regard for presenting anything near cogency, just cliches. You’re the typical result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Educashion Seistem and a college system that has no regard for intellectual standards.

        1. If you responded to Nick, you’re a bigger idiot than he is. After all, it’s obvious “Nick” is just another Gojira-inspired attempt to troll you all. Seriously, I don’t know how long it is going to take to learn not to respond to the trolls, but I guess we’ll have to let these comments bottom out before you get it through your head to stop entertaining the attention-whores.

          1. You seem awfully cranky Rev. I think trolls provide a valuable service, especially to people like me who know enough liberals that honing my arguments and rebuttals helps a lot.

          2. Though my usual mode is to ignore the trolls and comments that are longish and packed dense, it was a nice Sunday afternoon for a little troll bashing. There is something you are not getting. It is often more pleasant to deal with a non serious troll than it is a serious bull headed person for whom you disagree.
            Usually the only reason someone disagrees with me is because they haven’t thought things through which is correctable, or they are invested in their point of view to the extent it is necessary to justify the waste of space that is their lives (hi shrike).
            The latter type either make me want to take a bath or think some really unpleasant thoughts that bug me through out the day. I’d rather deal with an obvious troll than to waste my mental focus on pointless things of which I have no control.
            No advice is necessary here. It is what it is, and I am what I am, and that isn’t going to change. Yes, there is a third reason someone may disagree with me but only an ill mannered person in possession of a lowly disposition would even mention such a possibility, so I shant.

    2. My Mom just called me up for Sunday lunch, and I’m not really enjoying having my ass handed to me, so I’ll just declare victory, toss off a few insults, and go eat something.

    3. Nick is Tony? 70% probability.

  35. During my time living in South Carolina, I thought a large majority of the people I met throughout the state, but particularly around Columbia, were grade A morons. These election results only confirm my prior suspicions.

  36. The GOP electorate knows what it wants, and deserves to get it, good and hard.

  37. it’s been fun slapping down your nethanderal views.

    Is that what you’ve been slapping?

    Is it?

    1. it’s been fun slapping down your nethanderal views.

      I don’t want to save the world no more,
      I don’t wanna die in a nuclear war,
      I wanna sell off t a distant shore
      I am an Ape Man!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEep67akIn4

      1. Love me some Kinks.

        1. STEVE SMITH APPROVE

  38. Let me point out that the only acceptable outcome in today’s AFC championship would be a massive sinkhole opening up in Foxborough, Mass.

    1. I dunno, I would definitely want to see a Harbaugh Super Bowl. Although I think the Niners defense vs the Patriot offense would be an equally great Super Bowl.

      1. I guess it comes down to who would I rather see have crushed Super Bowl hopes: Pats fans, or Ravens fans? I guess the best reasonable outcome is Ravens lose to the Patriots by a field goal, then Brady gets his ass handed to him in the super bowl.

        1. Well, you’re halfway there.

    2. No matter who wins, someone goes home crying. Since I feed off of tears to sustain my happiness, I win no matter what. Pats have been pretty good to me on that score. But their fans tears are extra sweet and juicy given the expectations built up behind those ducts.

  39. Is there any decent journalist out there who can sit Newt done and just grill him on his bullshit worldview without giving him the opportunity to lash out and be a victim?

    Because that’s the only reason why people went for Newt, he’s supposedly exciting and tough. Newt better send John King a fruit basket or something thanking him for helping him win.

  40. Here are the kinds of retards Ron Paul is up against. Not necessarily in SC, but probably on the left coast and in Yankee-ville.

    As smart and as principled as Ron Paul is, I do not think anyone can overcome that level of stupidity.

    Meanwhile, I am disgusted with my home state. I think it was because Mitt the Mormon is eeewww icky (Mormon! Yankee!). Santorum is a papist, of which there is a sizable population here, and hawkish; I guess SC voters really like killing them Muslim turrists before they kill us. Newt is a good ol’ Southern boy, and ol’ Ron is wacky for not wanting to fight moar warz.

    Seriously, Newt voters of SC. Fuck you all. If it wasn’t for the awesome weather, and the housing prices, and the unending job opportunities in my profession, and the excellent food, and the gorgeous babes, I’d totally fucking move to Alaska.

    1. Here are the kinds of retards Ron Paul is up against.

      Retards are kicking Paul’s ass.

      1. Products of Public Education. That is all.

    2. I’m just thankful they didn’t vote for Romney or Santorum – and Ron Paul did quadruple his support in the state.

    3. Even I must admit that site is fucking retarded.

    4. That list reminds me what a good candidate Ron Paul is.

      I particularly like Item #1, where it says Paul opposes *equal rights* for minorities because he’s against affirmative action. It takes a particular genius to “reason” in this way.

  41. I came here to find solace. To lick my wounds. To vent amongst fellow libertarians and freedom loving folk.

    I was really hoping that the conservative/Christian right was waking up. I understand that Paul probably wouldn’t win, but fourth place? They can’t even tell that Santorum was lying to them (17% ?). Nor, can they figure out that it’s not the MSM that they’re going against. Nor, can they figure out that it’s not Obama that they’re supposed to be against; it’s lawlessness in government. Obama is only the result of a lawless system. The Pea Brain Party is joke. They voted for somebody that’s for big spending, and has a bad habit of it (40% ?).

    They can’t get the concept of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. They call him an isolationist. Really, I don’t understand how the other guys are not. How can you not be an isolationist if you’re threatening countries that have different set of morals and culture than you do? Ron Paul is advocating for the people to influence these countries which is peaceful and just. It’s also a small government idea. Does government need to do the people’s work? As for Ron Paul wanting to legalize drugs. Advocating for drug laws or keeping them illegal is only asking for a bigger government. Does this sound like a conservative ideal? Conservatives who like the anti-drug laws are only defeating themselves. They want smaller government but turn around and want more laws.

    But, hey, it is South Carolina – the epitome of Social Conervativism. Some socio-cons can’t even get out of their own way to see what’s really hurting them. Now, onto other states that have voters with larger and multiple social circles.

    Ok. I’m all done ranting. I feel better now.

    1. I think the all or nothing primary hurt Paul, with many people voting for the less of two evil front runners, especially with the super evil Newt surging.

      1. Hey you,

        I am feeling your pain.
        Cure: glenmorangie 18yr and a little football.

        1. I’m doing much better now. My Giants are going to the Super Bowl.

      2. They voted between two different evils. The complacent evil and the psychotic evil. They picked the latter.

  42. I don’t think that a single delegate going to the GOP convention represents the vote for the perfect candidate. The nominee will inevitably be like the heel in a loaf of bread. A compromise candidate would be stronger and would provide justification for holding a party convention in the first place.

    1. It’s also the only hope that Ron Paul has for influencing the election in a positive way. He hasn’t learned how to do everything that’s required to win outright, and he never will. If you agree with the article above, Paul’s buddy Mitt hasn’t either.

  43. So Newt’s pathetic showings in IA and NH don’t constitute repudiations, but SC voting against Romney is a repudiation “that will be repeated in state after state”?

    Bite me, sir.

    1. Kinky…

    2. but SC voting against Romney is a repudiation “that will be repeated in state after state”?

      Yep,

      Your douche idol is done.

  44. Here are my three takeaways:
    1.Fundies are fucking stupid!
    2.Fundies are fucking stupid!
    3.Fundies are fucking stupid!

    1. Not to mention hypocritical.

      “So Newt is an adulterer, so what? At least he’s our adulterer!”

      1. You would think that would sink him, but he also supported the healthcare mandate, supported a carbon tax, and supported TARP. What the hell, Tea Party?

        1. As Episiarch correctly pointed out a few weeks ago, it may have started good, but these days the Tea Party just = TEAM RED but HARDER.

          1. It was hijacked. Socons like Palin stole it right out from under the libertarians.

            It went from small government, fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution to we luv Jezuz and hate mooslims, which transformed it into Hard Team Red.

            When there is no difference between the TP and Team Red, why do you need a TP?

        2. But, don’t you see? He’s such a good debater!

          1. He’s a master debater.

          2. Look at it this way:

            They won’t vote Paul for 3 reasons; foreign/military policy.
            “He can’t win”
            “His supporters are a bunch of culty robot hippie idiots”

            Now that leaves 3.

            Romney: a Massachusetts liberal (just like Teddy Kennedy!” who is the darling of those in the GOP the conservative Tea Party-types hate.
            That douchebag Santorum who “can’t win”
            and finally Newt: Took over Congress, reined in Clinton, ended welfare, held responsible for the cheap gas, good times and “balanced budgets” of the late 1990s. They’re willing to forgive his last 12 years or so of squishy Washington insider/establishment cheerleader cause NOW he’s callin’ out the liberal Media and that Commie Obama.

            The Right is disgusted by their choices but they have to make one.

            They’re sticking it to the GOP establishment, MSM and Team Blue.

            Wrong? From my perspective yes. Stupid? What choice do they have?

  45. Okay, looking forward I think we will see this is just a really horrible flash in the pan for Newt:

    Romney will win Florida handily, he’s spent so much money there and he has the support of both the elderly and pro-business Cubans. This will give him a big lead in delegates.

    Then comes Nevada, Maine, and Minnesota where Paul will make his charge since he’s been the only candidate focusing on these caucuses. He’ll do well and get a bunch of delegates to ensure he sticks around till the end.

    Missouri will be interesting since Newt isn’t on the ballot and by then it will just be Paul and Romney.

    1. Newt is going to get skewered in NV, MN, ME.

      And then everyone will realize, oh, Newt has one win and it’s in a neighboring, and very culturally similar, state to his home.

      Or maybe they won’t.

  46. Hey, how about that Tea Party?-what a joke. Where are they now? Old white people who had a panic attack over a someone with a “foreign” name?-born in Kenya, no less. The sooner the GOP is over the “Tea Party” illusion the better. And that goes double for libertarians–it was all a sham, people.

    There would be one virtue of Newt as the GOP standard bearer: seeing the “family values”, “sanctity of marriage” crowd gagging as they are forced gobble the knob of this disgusting pig, ala Callista.

    1. We came. We say. We conquered.

      Now, back the to my game of pinocle.

      1. “game of pinocle”

        Pinochle is spelled with an “h”. There is no such thing as pinocle.

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pinochle

        1. THERE IS NOW.

          1. “THERE IS NOW”

            Pinocle
            —“The word you’ve entered isn’t in the dictionary.” …Merriam-Webster

            1. Who actually goes to the dictionary for words? It takes too long for new ones to get added.

              1. …too long for new ones to get added…

                New words get added fairly quickly. I’d say that it takes too many people to support the new word (sorta like electing a president). ‘Pinocle’ doesn’t stand a chance of getting support from enough people to get elected into the dictionary. No way. Give it up. Surrender. Ain’t gonna make it. Snow-balls-chance-in-hell.

                (& submit)

                1. Stop bringing logic into this! LALALA-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU-IF-I-CAN’T-HEAR-YOU-IT’S-NOT-TRUE!!!!

            2. I’m sorry to inform you that PINOCLE (without the H) is in the North Amercian Scrabble legal word list, so you can at least use it in tournament play (or if you have a copy of the list at hand, you can use it against your crazy old aunt who think’s she’s the bee’s knees at Scrabble).

        2. If you are going to waste your life being a pedant, you should at least make some effort to be right.

          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochle

          Pinochle or Binocle (sometimes pinocle, or penuchle) is a trick-taking game typically for two to four players and played with a 48 card deck.

          Good luck with the OCD.

          1. OMG! Pinocle=Pinochle=Binocle=(J? Q?)

            I surrender. The snow ball survives the flames of hell. Way.

            I am humbled.

  47. “What do you think, kind readers?”

    Holy shit! Reason picked up 296 new readers on a Sunday?

    1. I was thinking more along the lines that they were hoping to limit the comments to about 20. Most of us have no right posting in this thread.

      1. I hate to tell you db but the 296 posters = 100 people

        1. Oh, I thought since everyone spoofs everyone else, there were either 296 individual posters, or only 2.

    2. The time has come for those who fart in jars to stand up for what smells.

  48. Two things we’ve learned about Tea Party Evangelicals:

    1) Only an adulterer can kill Muslims.
    2) Only a Muslim-killer can be an adulterer.

      1. can she spell ‘know’?

        1. Can she fart in a jar?

    1. The things you have to do to unseat an incumbent these days.

  49. Gingrich pretty much won for three reasons:

    One. Many people down there in the Bible Belt still think Mormonism is a Satanic cult.

    Two. Rick Santorum, despite his pandering to the Christian Right is still a carpetbagging Yankee (these people still think it’s 1865.)

    Three. They’re still buying into the myths about Ron Paul (anti-military, isolationist, etc.)

    1. Evangelicals know what they want. Haters of evangelicals live in their own little world, something that they castigate evangelicals for doing. If the only thing you want out of life is a caricature to beat up, you’re just another left wing Democrat whether you admit it or not.

      1. A good percentage of Evangelicals actually still vote Democrat.

        1. Those are the ones that are stupid. Grrr!

      2. If you don’t want to be caricatured, don’t live up to the part.

        1. Who’s “we”? I don’t even go to church.

    2. these people still think it’s 1865

      This be true, out in the sticks. I used to live in the south.

      They’re still buying into the myths about Ron Paul (anti-military, isolationist, etc.)

      And Ron Paul has done an utterly pathetic job of proving the MSM wrong on this count. Which as I’ve said will be his undoing.

      We can skewer the MSM for smearing Ron Paul’s economics. But even when I talk to people who absolutely won’t vote for him, nobody argues when I say “but dammit if you don’t want to see this country do the Greek thing, he’s got the only show on the road”. Ron’s message rose about the MSM noise.

      It’s encouraging to know that’s actually possible.

      But you can’t win the case for Paul on the foreign policy front. His message is not rising above the MSM noise on foreign policy, because the only message he’s getting through is a bad message.

      So maybe 20 or 50 years from now his economics messages will have gotten through to our intelligentsia. By which time the nation will be bankrupt and it won’t matter anyway.

      1. So maybe 20 or 50 years from now his economics messages will have gotten through to our intelligentsia. By which time the nation will be bankrupt and it won’t matter anyway.

        By then, we’ll be living in Mad Max times after pretty much pulling a Rome during Iranageddon. Some states will have become dictatorships (SC probably). Most places will be lawless hellholes where roving bands of idiots try to set up a new government through murder, rape, and theft. Me, I’ll be dead. Probably blown up while waiting in a soup line by the kid of some Persian woman incinerated by a cluster bomb during Iranageddon. Thanks a lot Government.

  50. BTW, Laura Dekker completed her solo circumnavigation of the world yesterday. This girl is a hero, proving the Dutch nanny state wrong and thumbing her nose at them.

    1. New Zealand is already claiming her, just because she was sort of, you know, born there. (In a boat in port.)

      Victory has a thousand fathers….

      1. Success is very slutty; ask any politician

      2. “Victory has a thousand fathers…”

        And after last night, three wives.

  51. I predict Newt will not win Virginia

    1. Seeing as how Gingrich didn’t make the ballot there…..

    2. …but Romney will? Yeah, you’re prolly right.

  52. It’s wearing out my scroll button to see so many people on this site trying to refute arbitery claims. Watch more football!

    1. Arbitrary

    2. I’m with you. I just ctrl+f’ed and skipped past everything with “Nick” in it and didn’t start reading again until it was done.

      1. Control-f is the shortcut of the communist, the crypto-fascist, and the theocratic Islamo-Christian set.

        F-3 for freedom!

      2. I think Nick was actually Tony.

  53. Let’s go Pats. Time to send Stabbin’ Ray into retirement.

    1. Just say no to Tom Brady.

      1. Oh, I dislike the Pats, too, but I hate the Ravens. I’m hoping the Giants go all the way.

        1. Someone on the internet doesn’t like my team! [5,000 words on why you’re wrong]

          1. Look, dude, no one wants to see a Ravens/49ers Superbowl. They want a Giants/Patriots Superbowl. You just need to come to terms with that. Jerk.

            1. Lots of people want a Har-bowl.

            2. Fuck what everybody else wants. I just want to see the Pats and Ravens lose.

            3. People just want the Patriots to lose. That franchise runs on pure evil.

            4. I think everyone outside of the Northeast and its descendants is sick of rivalry games between New York and Boston. Yet the network foofs think we all love nothing more and will do whatever they can to bring it to us.
              Please, anything but another one of those incest fests.

              1. Yeah. I think most people would be satisfied with the 49ers or Ravens versus each other or the NY Boston teams. It is just another NY Boston rivalry is old.

            5. Nice to see you have your finger on the pusse of America as always.

              1. That was a reply to Epi and “pulse”

                1. On the pussy of America.

              2. “L” isn’t even near “S”…

    2. God, Flukko is a terrible QB. The only throws he has are check down to Rice and bomb to Smith. Of course, run fast in a straight line is the only route Smith has. Why the hell would the Pats let him get behind the defense.

      1. Should have had a TD on that 45 yard pass in the second quarter. Instead he screws up the throw and the guy who is wide open has to come back to the ball and dive to catch it. Hit him with a good throw and he walks to the end zone. It is the kind of throw the “experts” would spend 20 minutes explaining how horrible it was had Tim Tebow thrown it. But Flacco does it and it is great.

    3. Getting ugly out there. Tempers starting to flare up.

  54. What do I think? Interesting facts, less interesting conclusion. To be fair, I didn’t read the entire thing, just the blurb including in the post here. However, if they were simply looking for something other than Romney, why didn’t they choose Paul or Santorum who both showed better in Iowa and NH? It seems likelier to me that the R’s in SC are “war hawks” and want someone who’ll “talk tough” with the likes of Iran, China, etc…

    That’s my take anyway.

  55. Takeaways from the SC Republican primary.

    1. Being a bigot is a big plus in a state the flies the flag of America’s worst traitors.
    2. Being a hypocrite doesn’t cost a thing in a state where bigots claim to be Christians and supporters of a traitorous confederacy claim to be patriots.
    3. Race baiting still works in the south.

    Put all the takeaways together and we’ve learned nothing new.

    1. America’s worst traitors

      That’s a little misdirected. The large majority of the people who signed the constitution held slaves. Doesn’t make since to call someone a traitor because they hold slaves when the very people who wrote the words of the D of I and the Constitution did the same.

      I agree slavery is moral and needed to be ended, but slavery still had a lot of support even in the northern states. During the civil rights movement, many of the atrocities committed were in Harlem, Chicago, and Detroit.

      You can call the South immoral, but I don’t think you can call them traitors.

      1. I think he’s talking about secession, dude – which is controversial to call treason in its own right.

        1. Just embrace the term “treason” and it ceases to be controversial. Everyone assumes that being a “traitor” is a bad thing. It may or may not be: context-dependent.

          1. “If it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

        2. States rights’ “Final Solution” is secession. Ask Rick W. Perry.

    2. America’s worst traitors.

      Ron Paul supporters?

      1. “If this be treason, make the most of it!”

    3. Ummmm….what was 1776? The Brits considered that treason…sent an army to bring us back to the fold.

  56. Know what’s more fun than watching football? Playing Dark Souls.

    Well, not really. Playing Dark Souls is like nailing your dick to a chair. But I’m still doing it, for some reason.

  57. I spotted more food for taught at
    http://biggovernment.com/cjohn…..r-lessons/

    1. “Charles Johnson Fellates Gingrich for 868 words”

  58. I’ll bet Ron Paul regrets not playing the race card when it really mattered.

    1. Can’t you just be happy that your guy Newcular won, and leave it at that?

      Jeeze Max, so mean all the time.

  59. Pavlov has nothing on Nick.

  60. Go Newt Go! don’t forget to take down/destroy whatever is left of the lunatic fringe Tea Party while you are at it.

    The “noise” you hear coming from Washington is the Obama reelection team rolling on the floor laughing hysterically.

    1. Noot is a disaster and will be a canker sore on the GOP all year long.

      Fox News polls have him at 26F/57U while Obama is +3.

      Ron Paul is the only way for the GOP.

      1. No he is not. Obama is minus three. Obama hasn’t been positive in months. His negatives are in the stratosphere. Stop listening to the voices in your head Shriek.

        http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..-be-tight/

        1. John, I’ll be fucked if I am going to vote for the Fat Lesbian who has held 20 positions on 10 different issues.

          1. I am not telling you to vote for him. I am just telling you don’t be shocked if he wins. Obama’s negatives are so bad. It is going to be hard for him to win.

          2. And BTW Rev. Blue Moon, screw you for tossing my name out up there regarding “Nick”. I only ever used spoof handles for a few days at a time, and admitted to it. Saying I “inspired” future waves of trolls is absurd since this place was already overrun with them before the two weeks or so I used a couple of spoof handles.

            To say that I “inspire” trolls but the likes of Tony don’t is insipid.

            1. And BTW Rev. Blue Moon, screw you for tossing my name out up there regarding “Nick”. I only ever used spoof handles for a few days at a time, and admitted to it. Saying I “inspired” future waves of trolls is absurd since this place was already overrun with them before the two weeks or so I used a couple of spoof handles.

              Don’t shit up the threads with spoof trolls and people won’t associate you with them.

              That said, sorry that I got that wrong.

              1. So, Tony, MNG, WI, et al troll for months on end, but that’s fine, no one blames them for anything.

                I have a couple of spoof handles for a couple of weeks, and suddenly I’m a monster inspiring every other troll.

                FUCK YOU. You don’t like it, stop posting here, go to a site with registration. I haven’t done any trolling in months, and don’t plan to in the future, but this shit of picking on me when I was maybe 1% of the trolling going on for a few weeks is getting old, and it’s fucking stupid.

                That said, thank you for the apology.

                1. You read it hear folks, Gojira is the 1%. We have found the true enemy of the OWStreeters, and his name is Gojira.

              2. Who died and made you God?

                1. That was directed to RBM.

                2. Who died and made you God?

                  Jesus.

                  So, Tony, MNG, WI, et al troll for months on end, but that’s fine, no one blames them for anything.

                  I have a couple of spoof handles for a couple of weeks, and suddenly I’m a monster inspiring every other troll.

                  You should know better.

        2. The article said that 9% of voters would be swayed to vote for a candidate if Tebow were to endorse. That’s not that scary until you realize that that 9% are allowed to own guns, drive cars, and procreate just like normal people.

          Freedom can be frightening.

          1. You either live with other people’s choices or you don’t.

          2. You either live with other people’s choices or you don’t.

          3. I would be swayed if Chef Ramsey endorsed a candidate. That guy knows his shit.

            1. I’d watch Kitchen Nightmares:The White
              House. He goes into the WH kitchen and flips on a light and Obama’s banker buddies all scurry under the counter.

              1. Actually, that would make a good campaign ad for the GOP. Have some English guy with gray hair going around the Oval Office looking at the health care bill and yell, “It’s (bleep) unconstitutional!” Then have a close-up of his face chewing someone out, interspersed with footage of BO doing his “umm, uh, umm” thing. And finally, have him walk out of what looks like the door to the Rose Garden and do the bit where he talks behind the restaurant owner’s back after walking out of the restaurant.

                Basically, it should look like the Bud Light commercials with the coaches.

            2. cartman’s chef ramsey impression is to die for

              1. dunphy, we know it’s you. stop trolling.

          4. The average voter is the best argument in the world against democracy.

          5. The average voter is the best argument in the world against democracy.

        3. Yeah, but BO would probably still beat Newt or Santorum. The only advantage Santorum would have over Newt is that he’s relatively obscure.

          1. Why? Obama is wildly incompetent. He has written off the entire white working class vote. He has the minority vote and the upper class white douche vote and that is it. Absent really historic turn out, I doubt that is enough to carry him.

            You just can’t get around the unemployment numbers. And it is looking like gas is going to skyrocket this summer. The idea that people under those conditions will re-elect Obama because Newt Gingrich had an affair is laughable.

            1. You’re a lying POS. You quibble about Obama +/- 3 and ignore Gingrot’s -31 in the same Fox poll.

              Vote for the Fat Bastid – I don’t care. Watch him sink the down-ballot.

              You idiot Bushpig.

            2. Yeah, and in view of all that, Newt still has worse unfavorables. 57% unfavorable is not something you can overcome.

              Dems hate him from back in the 90s, indies hate him because he’s always been an extremist.

              1. newt does that. he inspires genuine dislike and even hate amongst people. romney doesn’t. doesn’t necessarily translate to the voting realm in the ways one might assume, but on the leftie boards, nobody talks about HATING mitt, or thinking he’s evil, etc. which they do say about newt.

                they make fun of him, call him mittens, or a stepford husband, etc.

                you would think the repub candidate that inspires leftie hate would be worse for repubs than one who they merely dislike, because it would motivate leftie voters to vote AGAINST him vs. for obama

                however, few repubs have ever been better at generating leftie hate than nixon, and he did pretty well, so i am not sure what the hate factor says

                1. for fuck’s sake. that last post was whit. i was cuttin’ and pastin’ and fucked up. my bad.

                  1. and for double fuck’s sake. whit is my volokh.com name (as oft mentioned.)

                    sigh…

                2. Nixon won because the Dems were in chaos in 1968 and nominated a hard left candidate in 1972.

                  1. Plus, a lot of indies and Dems were annoyed by the hippies and terrified by the militant left (some of BO’s mentors) at that time. Nixon promised the restoration of order.

                    1. tulpa, those are good points.

                      i am just saying that nixon proves that a candidate who inspires full on loathing and hate (which is rare, but nixon did) can still win

                      the way lefties talk about newt reminds me of the way howard stern talked about “pig vomit” in the movie private parts

            3. Obama is going to win.

              It’s unfortunate, but that’s what we’re looking at.

              1. Let’s not go that far.

                1. To me it looks like Dole II.

        4. John, if you’re going to link a poll, you should probably use one that actually supports your position. This one shows a +5 (51f/46u) for Obama. The only time it was negative was in Oct. 2010 (47f/48u) [though, among likely voters in that poll it was 44f/52u].

          The poll didn’t even have a head-to-head of Obama-Paul, only Obama-Romney (46-45), Obama-Gingrich (51-37), Obama-Santorum (50-38), and a three-way Obama-Romney-Paul (42-35-14). Nice way to deliberately frame your message, FOX.

  61. The whole primary process has been a joke. I’ll admit that I’m a Mitt supporter but I’m not entirely happy about this candidacy. However,

    1. Mitt is an “establishment candidate” and Newt and Rick are “outsiders”? Do words have meanings anymore?

    2. I thought what was so unacceptable about Mitt was his left-wing tendencies. So this is why… we will replace him with a guy who thinks that venture capitalists are a threat to the working class, and whose family values are consistent with dumping his horribly ill wife… twice.

    3. While I’m not happy about so-called RomneyCare (and I live in Massachusetts), claiming that Romney had invented the individual mandate is simply dishonest. The question is Massachusetts was: “when will we finally have the single-payer system?” Not “if” but “when”. Democrats control 80% of our state’s legislature. What Romney did was as free market as it could get here. Of course, he can’t talk about it because there’s too many details, and anyway the true conservatives think that governors create jobs.

    When Obama won I was hoping there would be some silver lining in that we would have less war, etc. Didn’t work out quite as I had hoped. If Newt wins I hope that the social conservative wing of GOP will be completely destroyed in the eyes of the average American because of their breathtaking hypocrisy. I gotta believe in something good.

    1. no one cares about hypocrisy, except when the other team does it. Then they care. So basically the charge just gets your side to agree with you and changes nothing.

      1. I’m not here to win any argument to change anyone’s mind. That being said, it’s not true that “noone” cares about hypocrisy. If you believe in anything then you will want to be consistent on that issue. I am pro-gay marriage, for example. If you showed me how something that I do harms that cause I will have to rethink that. I am sure a lot of people are like me in that general sense.

        1. Newb – that’s “I’m pro gay marriage – ‘no homo’.”

        2. Wow!!

          Mr. Perfection.

      2. No one cares about hypocrisy, yet the #1 complaint everyone has about Mitt is that he flip-flopped.

        1. That is because mitt is a loser.

          1. You forgot to say “poopy-face”

    2. Very good points. Particularly #1, I hadn’t thought of that.

  62. You know who else was brought to power by an electorate “looking for someone different”…

    1. Steve Jobs?

    2. Al Franken?

    3. Clay Aiken?

    4. Jimmy Carter?

    5. Genghis Khan?

    6. MATT DAMON

  63. Megaupload guy is total badass:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ooped.html

    1. I bet he owns a few monocles.I’m glad his wealth prevented him from ever sitting next to me when I was flying coach.

    2. Damn pigs broke the nice man’s intercom. Was that really necessary?

    3. Fortunately, thanks to dozens of police officers, backed by helicopters, they managed to detain the 38-year-old without anyone coming to harm.

      Pirates aren’t as tough as they used to be.

  64. Cundiff = -Tebow

  65. Ravens miss the 32 yard field goal! OH MY GOD

    1. After Evans dropped the winning TD a few seconds before…

      1. Excuses are for losers.

        1. Then it’s fitting.

        2. After going for it on 4th & 6 with plenty of time left, they deserve to lose.

          1. Now the Giants will put down the 49ers, and we will know our Superbowl teams.

            1. Fuck that. No more NY-Boston games.

              We’ll secede before we allow that.

            2. You are one hateful SOB.

              1. Me, or Tulpy-poo?

                1. It was directed at you, but now that you mention it…

            3. My moneys on the Giants as well.

              1. I think I’m the only guy on earth taking SF in this game. Oh well. If I win, you all have to do something embarrassing, to be named later.

                Unless you respond in the negative within 30 seconds, your silence will equal consent to the bet.

                1. I’m not worried about losing your stealth bet, Jimbo, because Eli has been on fire lately. 49ers are in trouble.

                  1. Eli has been on fire lately.

                    Too bad it’s raining….

                2. Well if the Giants lose l’ll be out a beer. Already lost one since Pats didnt cover the spread.

                3. The Giants’ dirty secret is that they’ve become totally dependent on big passing plays on offense. The weather is not going to help them today.

          2. Because Cundiff was a sure thing from 51 yards?

            1. No, but your chances are better than making 6 yards and, if failing, giving Tom “Shittiest QB of All Time” Brady more than enough time to light you up for a dagger TD, which was a very real possibility.

              1. But if you miss the FG Brady gets 7-8 yards in extra field position. Plus, he went three and out anyway.

                1. Yeah, but you didn’t know he was going to go 3 & out, so you can’t use an unknown future outcome to validate a controversial decision like that at the time.

                  I just love how the “defense wins championships!” crowd refuses to ever acknowledge defeat. New Orleans, Green Bay, and now the Pats, with a last-place ranked passing defense (in the Superbowl at least, they may not win). A bunch of people tried to retcon the NO win and claim that they actually had a “lock down” defense, which is absurd. When you think of a Drew Brees-led Saints team, what comes to mind? A modern day Steel Curtain, or gaudy passing numbers?

                  In the league right now, putting up big offensive numbers wins championships, QED.

                  /rant

                  1. OK, but there’s something to be said for keeping the other team from putting up big offensive numbers too, no?

                    You seem to be forgetting the two NFC teams.

                  2. And GB’s defense sucked this year, but was very good in 2010. How many sacks did Clay Matthews have again?

                    1. It wasn’t their D that carried them to the SB, it was TDs put up by their QB.

                      I’m not saying they had a bad defense, but it’s ludicrous to say it was dominant, or even as good as the Steelers.

                      The team with the better defense lost.

    2. I told you they’d lose by a field goal.

  66. WHO BROKE TWITTER

    1. what do you mean?

  67. I would just like to point out that earlier in this thread Nick referred to the 70’s as a time when the economy was “booming and working for all Americans.”

    Is this a common belief held amongst the left, or is the something unique to Nick’s special brand of cognitive dissonance?

    1. I suspect Nick wasn’t alive in the 70s.

      I also suspect Nick was Tony.

    2. Well that nick also gave us this little gem about Obama’s quals…

      Along with years of experience at the Harvard Law Review and in the Illinois and U.S. Senates.

      So I’m going with him being a troll. That is just too precious for anyone to actually use as a talking point.

      1. The whole “Europe is wonderful” schtick is beautiful too.

        While Europe’s welfare states may not be as bad as some righties like to think, the fact is that once you leave the tourist tracks you start to see the people that slip through the European safety net.

  68. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  69. Doesn’t matter whether it is Romney or Gingrich. Obama can beat both. Romney because he will be to afraid of being called a racist (echoes of McCain) and Gingrich because he has so much crap in his closet that it will be a free for all. For those who think his stellar debating skills will help are in for a rude awakinging if they think obama will take part in any debate with Gingrich. I am betting that he will find he is “too busy governing” to debate. Redumblicans deserve to lose.

    1. Your pronouns are a bit hard to trace back to their subjects.

    2. I agree that Obama can beat either of them, but that doesn’t mean he will. I’ve been saying for months that it doesn’t matter who the Republicans nominate in terms of electability, that the voters will be voting either for or against Obama, and paying no att’n to who the Republican nominee is other than that he’s the Not-Obama. Obama is such a polarizing figure, there’s nothing the Republicans can do to either help or hurt their chances of defeating him.

      There will be people who vote for Obama because they think that if he loses, for the next century it’ll be “We gave a nigger a chance as president and he blew it.” There will be people who vote against Obama because they voted for him before and are now sorry. There will be those who didn’t want him to begin with and still don’t. And there will be those who know he’s no good for the economy or world order in general or long term, but are benefiting in the short run and don’t have much longer to live, so they’ll vote for him.

    1. That was really racist.

      1. OK, not bust-a-gut funny, but it will do. Remarkably restrained for the MRC.

  70. You go Christie:

    “Newt Gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. Whether he’ll do it again in the future I don’t know, but Gov. Romney never has,” Christie said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    “I mean he was run out of the speakership by his own party, he was fined $300,000 for ethics violations. This is a guy that has had a very difficult political career at times, and has been an embarrassment to the party,” Christie added.

    What the country needs, the governor said, is not “another legislator in the Oval Office who doesn’t know how to use executive authority.”

    1. … and then he put the whole taco supreme in his mouth.

      1. Just cause you prefer the chili dog with mayo in your mouth doesn’t mean you should criticize his choice.

        1. You two forgot to put the quote marks around “taco”, “dog”, and “mayo”.

          Or learn how to spot and eschew sexual double entendres.

          1. Somebody’s got a dirty mind.

    2. What the country needs, the governor said, is not “another legislator in the Oval Office who doesn’t know how to use executive authority.”

      I think we’ve had just about enough use of executive authority. What we need is someone who knows how to not use executive authority.

      1. You do realize that President Paul bringing troops home and closing bases overseas, and dismantling the DEA, would all be uses of executive authority, no?

        1. You do realize that doing so would reduce the power of the executive don’t you?

          1. It is a paradox indeed, my young apprentice.

            1. Not really. An action to reduce executive authority is not the same as an action maintaining or increasing executive authority.

      2. Actually, that someone needs to know how to use the veto.

    3. All the Romney surrogates will have to come out and play this week.

      1. There are worse things to be.

  71. Pathetic scumbag dies:
    http://www.latimes.com/sports/…..;track=rss

    ESPN continues to defend him:
    http://espn.go.com/college-foo…..re-scandal

    It’s sad that he won’t get his comeuppance.

    1. Working on it.

      1. If you existed.

        1. JoPa will report being violated by a lesser demon, but the Grand Mal demon who receives the report will just pass the buck to Satan, who will not investigate.

        2. I posted, didn’t I?

        3. He still exists, he just isn’t in the NHL anymore.

    2. He asked for forgiveness.

      1. Well that settles it then.

        1. If it works for Newt it works for JoePa.

          1. JoePa didn’t rape anyone, and the guy accused of it has not yet been tried (or convicted) of any crime.

            1. Innocent until proven guilty is indeed our legal standard, but we don’t have to follow it for our personal opinion of someone.

            2. He had a weird voice and refused to retire despite being semi-senile. That’s enough for me to damn him.

  72. Jay Glazer gives a product placement shout out to Sham-Wow! Way to sneak that in there, baldy.

    1. Sham wow? How 2008.
      This year is all about the schticky.

      1. I heard Belichik turned down $1M to promote the Snuggie.

  73. World’s economic and political elite miss the point and double down on their failure:
    http://www.breitbart.com/artic….._article=1

    1. What the fuck is a “general morality gap”?

      At least he’s right when he says, “capitalism in its current form, has no place in the world around us.” But I don’t think he’s right for the reason he thinks he is.

    2. we have undermined social coherence

      Funny that the elites are now complaining about what has been one of their primary goals for years. I guess the demise of the nation state isn’t so near nor so desirable after all.

  74. Nice. We have movies trumpeting that they star “real active duty Seals”. Hollywood hasn’t loved the military this much since 1945.

    1. If their work draws primarily on their experience in the service they may be prohibited by Executive ethics rules from taking any money for it.

    2. Hollywood loves money, and they are all out of ideas. “Real” SEAL missions are what they have left, people love them and rightly so, maybe this movie won’t suck.

      1. I like it. Reality movies.

        Those used to be called documentaries.

        They can save a lot of money by just attaching HD cameras to drones, you know.

        1. Genius!

        2. That’ll last until the first unexpected shots of some frustrated front-line trooper blowing off emotion by pissing on what remains of a still smoking target.

          1. Predator porn’s fine, but no watersports.

  75. Vernon Davis is an idiot for drawing that penalty.

    1. LOL, especially if the TD gets called back.

    2. The No Fun League has too tight a sphincter with regards to endzone celebrations.

      Unless it delays the restart of the game, who the hell cares how creative a celebration gets?

      1. We will not allow the seriousness and dignity of our game to be demeaned.

        Unless it is done by a referee.

        1. Or the endless replays and commercial breaks.

          1. Or we could watch soccer, which is a 90 minute long commercial break.

    3. Harbaugh is right, though, that it isn’t any different than the Lambeau Leap, grandfather clause or not.

      1. Then he should work to get the rule changed in the offseason. Jumping onto a camera stand is going to get the flag every time. It’s a stupid thing to do.

        1. That’s what elections are for. To change stupid laws

  76. RELEASE THE KRAKEN

  77. I judge my candidates by imagining I am at a cocktail party, since my life revolves around drinking.

    Newt is the blow hard that corners you and tells you all of his grand ideas. You see the waitress coming and shake your head telling her that you don’t need a refill, then excuse yourself to go to the bar and hide the rest of the night.

    Romney is that guy that is too good to have a drink with you. (Not that you would really enjoy your drink with him around.)

    Santorum would lecture you about how everything you are doing is wrong. You would piss on his car’s door handles as you are leaving.

    Paul seems like your grandfather, he would tell you have you are throwing your life away drinking as much as you do and that those cigarettes are going to kill you but it is your life. You would feel a bit guilty about crashing this party and drinking a ton of booze but you will be looking for the next party when the weekend comes around.

  78. Another stupid penalty on V Davis.

    1. Can you put the throbbing hard-on of hate that you have against Davis away for the next 3 hours?

      1. My criticism is born out of love, not hate.

        I love him too much to allow him to rack up 30 yards in penalties for dead ball fouls.

  79. How bout dem Giants?

    1. ‘fess up, STEVE, you’re originally from the forests of the Poconos, aren’t you?

  80. Guess you missed the fantastic world class education we have provided today by underpaid and overworked teachers in the … GASP … government schools!

    Un-uhn. You mean like the world class edumahcation one can expect at Nanakuli High? Or the Detroit public school system? Or any inner-city public school system for that matter?

    Government indoctrination camps =/= education.

  81. DO I buy the truck sold by Sam Elliott or the truck sold by Denis Leary?

    1. Do I buy the truck made by Fascists or the truck made by Nazi sympathizers?

  82. So Santorum beat Ron Paul. How humiliating for the old fuck.

    1. Almost as embarrassing as your adult diapers, right sweety?

      1. I thought we were kicking him out?

        1. No, you know he likes to watch us

    2. I thought you were a Newcular supporter.

      Your Santorum love is a bit unexpected, Max.

    3. Have you been wronged by a Libertarian in your personal life? Call now and join the class action lawsuit

    4. So Santorum beat Ron Paul

      Not surprising in a state full of Jesus freaks.

  83. I have to admit Eli’s new delay of game dance is pretty good.

    1. I told the GF I’m looking forward to the new Youtube Eli shuffle videos.

  84. Question: Is the Bing commercial featuring Kevin Pearce and his return to snowboarding in poor taste in light of Sarah Burke’s death on the same half pipe on which Pearce was seriously injured?

    1. No more than the commercial with the UFC fighter kicking his kid out of the swing.

      1. I missed that one.

      2. Apparently chicks dig a guy who can cook and abuse his kids.

        1. The Casey Anthony type, methinks.

    2. who the fuck cares. i want to see video of the death trick. btw when watching violence on tv kinda dumb to question the taste of selling violence. whatever.

  85. I think it’s definitely going to drop to Paul and Romney. Can Paul fuck Romney’s shit up and pull around a sufficient number of people to win? Unlikely, but we can hope.

    1. Doubt it. Paul’s chance to fuck up Romney was the tax return issue. Paul should have been all, “Here’s mine. No problem.”

      1. The irony of a Freddie Mac influence peddler who helped to percipitate the 2008 economic crisis asking for the Romney tax returns, a tactic out of the Obama 2008 playbook, is really too much to take. I shake my head at the stupid people of this country that go along with this bullshit./

  86. No commercial more disgusting than Obama bragging about ethics. Pure chutzpah!!

  87. The No Fun League has too tight a sphincter with regards to endzone celebrations.

    I hate that shit. It’s a major reason I don’t watch football any more.

    You’re a professional football player. It’s your *job* to score touchdowns, you moron; that’s what they’re paying you to do. Hand the ball to the referee and go back to the sidelines and get yourself ready to score another one. Same for guys who make a tackle; just get up and go back to the huddle, you dope.

    Appy polly loggies; it’s not like I don’t know I’m in the minority on this.

    1. ‘Displays’ are common in lower animals and primitive societies.

      Our coach said: Act like you’ve been there before when you score.

    2. I’m with you. The best celebration for me would be exactly what you described. Act like you’ve been there.

    3. I suppose you’re against urinating on downed opponents, too.

      1. I really consider more than once per game to be in poor taste.

      2. Do you want to watch me pee on Mitt? Or someone from MSNBC?

        1. Peeing on Santorum should clear things up.

    4. I’m considered the world’s best paid and most successful and professional assassin and even I do a celebratory dance after every kill. What’s the big deal about football players having a little fun in a game?

  88. Sarah Burke’s death

    I didn’t know she died.
    Will Congress mandate full body armor for snowboarders, or just ban it?

    *crosses fingers*

    1. Ban body armor? Why would they do that?

  89. Niners DBs need some instruction from baseball outfielders.

  90. Yes! Officiating controversy, what any good playoff game needs.

    1. Excellent awareness on the muff returned; let’s see if the call is reversed.

      1. Probably not a TD since they blew the whistle.

    2. And it’s Ed Hochuli too….

      1. Mike Peirera will back up whatever stupidity Eddie-boy commits on the field. And fuck you if you question it.

  91. Another unbelievably stupid play by the Niners.

    If you’re not going to pick up the ball, run away from it. Sheesh!

  92. Wait a minute. The guy who recovered had gone out of bounds and come back in. Isn’t that illegal?

    1. Once he’s re-established his feet in the field of play, he can make a play on the ball.

      1. I meant isn’t it illegal for you to be the first player to touch the ball when you went out and came back in.

  93. Palin for Secretary of Defense
    Sean Hannity for Secretary of State
    Mark Levin, Attorney General

    1. Gingrich/Romney 2012

      Secretary of Defense: John McCain
      Secretary of Homeland Security: Rudy Giuliani
      Secretary of State: Jon Huntsman
      Attorney General: Rick Santorum
      Sean Hannity: Press Secretary
      Religious Advisor to the President: Pat Robertson
      Chair of President’s Council on Putting God First: Roy Moore

    2. Paul/Paul 2012

      John Stossell, State
      Judge Napolitano, Atty Gen
      Lew Rockwell, Defense
      Peter Schiff, Treasury
      Gary North, Education
      Donna D’Errico, Interior
      Pete Suderman, HHS
      Cheech Marin, DEA

      1. What is this “Education” of which you speak?

        1. Or DEA, for that matter. Ditto HHS and Interior.

        2. There will be a transition period

  94. I meant isn’t it illegal for you to be the first player to touch the ball when you went out and came back in

    The 49er touched it before him.

    Now who was it that told me the Pats couldn’t make it to the Superbowl with their defense (who actually won the game for them)?

    1. Appears to have been Pro Lib, sloopy, sparky, and fluffy.

      https://reason.com/blog/2011/12…..nt_2698640

  95. Wow. Why in the verse did the Niners call three straight pass plays with 1:50 left?

  96. Will someone please tell Joe Buck and Troy Aikman that just because the 49ers had a good record this year it does not mean that Alex Smith is a great quarterback. The choices aren’t awesome or awful. And consequently, the Giants aren’t necessarily playing the best defense ever, they’re just shutting down an average quarterback who is clearly throwing on every down.

    1. Will someone tell the H&R posters this is not a football blog?

      1. It is whatever the market wants it to be.

        1. Dude, Reason totally doesn’t want the ad revenue from football fans refreshing the page.

    2. Against a team that has a demonstrable preference for three wide-outs and two tight ends, pass rushing isn’t rocket science.

  97. Oh man, almost a chance for Joe Buck to underwhelmingly call another helmet catch.

  98. Fresh Krugnuts!

    On housing: as everyone now knows (but oh, the abuse heaped on anyone pointing it out while it was happening!), we had a monstrous housing bubble between 2000 and 2006. Home prices soared, and there was clearly a lot of overbuilding. When the bubble burst, construction ? which had been the economy’s main driver during the alleged “Bush boom” ? plunged.

    But the bubble began deflating almost six years ago; house prices are back to 2003 levels. And after a protracted slump in housing starts, America now looks seriously underprovided with houses, at least by historical standards.

    So why aren’t people going out and buying? Because the depressed state of the economy leaves many people who would normally be buying homes either unable to afford them or too worried about job prospects to take the risk.

    But the economy is depressed, in large part, because of the housing bust, which immediately suggests the possibility of a virtuous circle: an improving economy leads to a surge in home purchases, which leads to more construction, which strengthens the economy further, and so on. And if you squint hard at recent data, it looks as if something like that may be starting: home sales are up, unemployment claims are down, and builders’ confidence is rising.

    It’s totally getting better, guys! Dr. Krugnuts would never lie to you. Just squint real hard.

    1. Did Krugman come up with the NFL’s new playoff overtime rules?

      1. They make them sound so freakin complicated when they explain. Basically, a field goal doesn’t win it unless the other team has already had the ball. That’s the only change.

      2. The (pretty minor) rule change hasn’t affected any games yet, either. Denver won with a TD on the first play and NYG punted the ball away. All it does is prevent something weak like a team getting the ball and hitting a mid-range field goal to win.

        1. Basically, you can take the conservative route and play for the FG and rely on your D, or you can go for the end zone. What is amazing to me is how NYG managed to get themselves OUT of FG range.

      3. No, *holds up a cat* Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did.

    2. Pay no attention to the HAMP behind the curtain! Or the foreclosure moratoria!

    3. So why aren’t people going out and buying? Because the depressed state of the economy leaves many people who would normally be buying homes either unable to afford them or too worried about job prospects to take the risk.

      We should totally help them buy houses, what could go wrong?

    4. I also like how he’s surprised that houses aren’t selling for the price they were at in the midst of the bubble. 2003 is in 2000-2006 last I checked.

    5. From the comments:

      One needs to replace the bad private debt with government debt, because since the govt is the issuer of the currency, its debt cannot go bad.

      or as one put it: Crank up the inflation machine!!!

      1. Yes,and sock it to the taxpayers…and their children…and their children’s children to pay off. Serfdom is so yummy.

    6. But the economy is depressed, in large part, because of the housing bust, which immediately suggests the possibility of a virtuous circle: an improving economy leads to a surge in home purchases, which leads to more construction, which strengthens the economy further, and so on.

      More like a dog chasing its own tail. Much interesting ado about nothing, but it does drain the dog of energy so that he quiets down.

  99. It’s been gradual, but I dare say this game has gone from suspenseful to nearly boring.

  100. Well that’s it.

    Too many mistakes by the Niners.

    1. Superbowl rematch. I am 2 for 2 today! Go Pats.

      1. Fuck that. I’m running errands during the SB if it’s Giants-Pats again. Friggin ridiculous.

        1. You don’t even have to watch for the commercials since they’ll be all over the internet either just before or right after.

          Should be a good weekend to go skiing.

          1. Good idea on the skiing.

  101. Crap, two games won on botched special teams? Obviously its an important part of the game but I hate when games end like this.

    1. Prediction: Billy Cundiff and Kyle Williams are going to be free agents, very soon.

      1. “Kyle?” Gee, Mister. That sure is a funny way of spellin’ pariah!

  102. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. I probably am not going to watch this SB. God, so boring.

  103. If Newt is the nominee I hope Paul goes third party. I would prefer big government under Obama (who is at least not a war monger) than big government under a fat southerner with a big mouth.

    1. I would prefer big government under Obama (who is at least not a war monger)

      Allow me to quote Episiarch…

      “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA”

    2. Gingrich was born and raised in Pennsylvania.

      1. He was raised as an army brat – which is to say all over the place. He made his career in Georgia. Ergo he is a southerner with a fat mouth.

  104. Anyone else in DC? Fox has pulled the trigger early on Xfinity ads four times already, cutting off a play and even wiping out an entire punt and return. Maddening.

  105. Maybe Tynes will pull a Cundiff here.

  106. who is at least not a war monger???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

    how do you define war monger?

  107. What is going on? Between Cundiff running on to the field with like 20 seconds left on the playclock before his kick and Coughlin literally having no idea how much time was left on the playclock.

  108. But the bubble began deflating almost six years ago; house prices are back to 2003 levels. And after a protracted slump in housing starts, America now looks seriously underprovided with houses, at least by historical standards.

    So why aren’t people going out and buying? Because the depressed state of the economy leaves many people who would normally be buying homes either unable to afford them or too worried about job prospects to take the risk.

    So, the guy who got the Nobel Prize in Economics thinks that people choosing not to buy houses despite a large supply of unsold, unoccupied housing means that the market is signaling that it is “seriously underprovided with houses”?

    What. A. Fucking. Idiot.

    1. “Market signaling.”

      Dude, he’s totally riffing on Hayek’s work.

  109. BBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      1. BBBBBBBAAAA…. now I’m getting the dry heaves. crap

  110. How ironic that Newt “Dede Scozzafava”, “right wing social engineering”, “bold solutions”, “federal mandate” Gingrich has become the Tea Party standard bearer. Are they really that stupid?

    1. Newt isn’t a Massachusetts liberal like Teddy Kennedy so he has that going for him. When the GOP establishment asks “why can’t these hicks do what they’re told and vote for Romney?” a whole lot are going with the guy with the next best chance just out of spite.

  111. Whatever you guys want. Just vote for me, please.

  112. Yeah, Eli, you were great. Never mind that 10 of the 20 points came off of muffed punts.

    1. Yeah, if we were relying on one of the offences to drive down and score we would have been up all night.

    2. I noticed the kicker gave credit to “Eli, the offense, the defense” but didn’t mention the special teams who won the game for them.

      1. He was so douchy about snubbing the special teams players that weren’t himself he did it twice.

    3. I noticed the kicker gave credit to “Eli, the offense, the defense” but didn’t mention the special teams who won the game for them.

  113. Super Bowl XLII rematch. No Plaxico this time.

    1. Discount, Belichick!

  114. Does the South have Napolenonic syndrome because of General Grant and Sherman and the great work that they did? Is that why we have had so many chickenhawk southerner presidents who *heart* war?

  115. Hot Liberty chick?
    Angel hair
    Unicorn farts
    Fairy dust

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. Got a link to that info from a site other than that one?

  116. Goddamnit, fuck this SB.

    1. Bingo, the laughter above was supposed to be here, but reason fucked it. Just wanted you to know.

    2. Goddamnit, fuck this SB.

      You’re in a Starbucks, and getting lousy service? A little OT?

  117. I just wanted to be the first to officially announce that I am a complete dumbass for having picked San Fran over NY. I am a stupid poopy-face, and my butt smells, and I like to sniff my own butt.

    1. Hard to predict 2 turn overs on kicks (and one of them on a kick he wasn’t even fielding!).

    2. Well, yes.

    3. That douche who let the football hit him in the knee should have nightmares for life. I mean, what possesses you to go anywhere near the ball if you have no intention of fielding it?

      The kicker shanking his shot in the other game was also a big-time choke.

      Good thing I couldn’t have cared less who won, although another NY/NE superbowl is lame.

    4. It went to overtime. It was coin flip levels of close. Dumbass would be SF losing by a score of 52-3 or something.

  118. In other football news, Jay Cutler gets let down by his protection once again.

  119. Romney: I created 100,000 jobs in my time at Bane Capital Barack.

    Obama: I think its great you created 100,000 minimum wage jobs Willard but you gutted pension funds, closed down plants and sent the good paying jobs to China and Mexico….And when you were governor your state was 47th in job creation.

    Romney: BbbbBu..bbbbu but but…

    Obama: Calm down Willard its my turn to speak. I saved us from a near depression you Republicans left us with and since then I have created millions of jobs….blah blah blah.

    Romney But you did the same thing at GM Barack.

    Obama Stop being a hypocrite Willard you didn’t want to bailout GM at all and wanted to see all those workers lose good paying jobs just like you sent the good paying ones to China and Mexico after you raided their pensions and such Willard.

    Romney Stop picking on me Barack.

    Obama Willard you claim your business experience means you know how to create an environment for job creation yet MA was 47th under you.

    Romney: I inherited a bad situation Barack, I also had to work with the opposition party opposing me,

    Obama: ***big smile*** Thanks for making my case Willard.

    Enjoy the 70% tax rate when Obama destroys the GOP because they nominated Willard the glassjaw.

    1. huh? this is not camp mitt or camp newt or camp red.

      1. I know what Reason is. I don’t understand why they don’t want to stick it to the establishment GOP though.

        “The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.

        They’ll lose alright ? they’ll lose power to others. That’s their real fear.”
        http://tinyurl.com/87doa4z

        1. How is Newt Gingrich NOT GOP Establishment again? Power lobbyist and former SotH, and somehow he’s an “outside”? Please.

          1. Well…….how is Newt an establishment guy when th establishment chased him out on BS charges? Newt fought the entrenched entitled pols from the day he arrived there he didn’t sit on the back bench. 10 trillion added to debt since they chased him out. WTFU!

            “The buzz in Washington now is that the Republican Establishment fears Gingrich will cause them to lose the House and not get the Senate. Put another way, the current Republican leadership fears that the man who helped the GOP take back the House for the first time in 40 years and his allies in the tea party who helped take back the House in 2010 will cause the GOP to now lose.

            They’ll lose alright ? they’ll lose power to others. That’s their real fear.”
            http://tinyurl.com/87doa4z

            “The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination….We are going to make the establishment very uncomfortable. We are going to demand real change in Washington.” –Speaker Newt Gingrich about the establishment (on Meet the Press / quoted in the NYT Michael Shear article)

        2. How is Newt Gingrich NOT GOP Establishment again? Power lobbyist and former SotH, and somehow he’s an “outside”? Please.

          1. Even Newt is talking about auditing The Fed and going back to some sort of gold standard. Doesn’t sound very establishment to me.

        3. Yeah, reason doesn’t want to stick it to the GOP, which is why they NEVER even mention Gary Johnson running 3rd party much less act supportive of it. That’s also why they NEVER run hit pieces on the GOP candidates especially not Ron Paul (newzletterx!).

          It’s also why they never point out GOP policies that go against party rhetoric or the platform or common sense…

          1. Perhaps we could get Johnson’s veto pen into the WH? 🙂

  120. And there goes Serena.

  121. It’s fry chickun an waddarmelon time! *does a jig*

  122. Football is for rape/status loving white men. Discuss…

    1. I can vouch for this. I love football, as much as I do raping chicks using my privledge.

      1. man, i’ve had zero luck raping with my privilege. what model/year/color is your privilege?

        1. It’s a 1982 model, white, and about 10 inches by 3 inches.

          *rimshot*

          1. ah. luck of the draw. 1978, off white, and 8 by 2. oh well. good luck with yours.

      2. So Ben, how’s the offseason going? Bummer about your OC getting canned.

    2. The field goal attempt is just a metaphor for punching a woman in the cunt. Which, of course, we all want to do. Sublimated manliness; isn’t that what the game is all about?

      Anything else? Glad I could help you with the Hate Studies report. Due soon?

      1. The field goal attempt is just a metaphor for punching a woman in the cunt.

        Thread winner!

        1. I’ve never punched a women in the cunt. Am I missing much? sounds funny and metaphoric (bounus!)

      2. So that net behind the field goal is a hymen?

        Where’s the dentata we’re all so afraid of?

        1. If you ever ‘accidentally’ poked a woman in the asshole when she wasn’t expecting it, you’ve already got a good idea where the fear of vagina teeth gnashing your dick originates.

    3. Football is for rape/status loving white men. Discuss…

      I don’t know who it’s “for,” exactly, but jesus fucking christ almighty, football sucks.

      Damn, the NFL sucks. What a weird phenomenon that America has latched onto during these past three-or-so decades.

    4. Football is for rape/status loving white men. Discuss…

      Yeah, but mostly played by and excelled at by black men.

      1. Steve Smith is a good football player.

  123. So far, the race has gone exactly as expected last summer, yet the media treat the results of each state with astonishment.

    Iowa was won by a social conservative, Rick Santorum. Last summer we might have expected Bachmann or Perry or Cain to win, but Santorum would hardly have been a surprise.

    New Hampshire was won by Mitt Romney, who governed nearby Massachusetts and makes NH his summer home. No one was going to defeat him there.

    South Carolina was one by the biggest remaining neocon, as always happens. Gingrich is also from nearby Georgia.

    Florida will probably go to Gingrich, because the old folks won’t trust Romney. Then Romney will win in Michigan and California and plenty of western and northeastern states. Santorum will drop out and Gingrich will win most of the South.

    This is going to be a very close race, with Ron Paul picking off enough delegates to ensure a brokered convention.

  124. My one solemn wish above all is that those people who despise liberty and love war would at least be honest about it.

  125. 3 takeaway, maties:
    1. Catastrophic
    2. Doom
    3. Continues

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.