Ron Paul

The Coming GOP Fratricide?


Reason contributor Terry Michael conjures the ghosts of 1964 and warns about the coming GOP fratricide:

The bitterness with which Mr. Obama is bludgeoned reflects a tunnel vision that shouts the third reason Republicans are in danger of blowing a serious chance: They're losing touch with the sensible center—independents and leaners watching the spectacle from the sidelines.

When Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum assert that only they are conservative enough to provide a winning contrast to Mr. Obama, both reflect willful ignorance of how you must campaign for November, focusing on persuadables. Possibly learning from his own fruitless pandering to social conservatives in 2008, Mr. Romney uses language that addresses independents as well as his own right flank. (On a libertarian mission, Ron Paul is fighting for a philosophy, not a nomination.)

Meanwhile, as the Republican cage-fight continues, Mr. Obama recently paid a YouTube-winning happy 90th birthday tribute to Betty White and performed a brief but crowd-pleasing rendition of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together"—something the four warring wings of the Republican Party might want to consider.

Whole thing here.

Michael, an open "libertarian Democrat," wrote about why a former DNC press secretary is considering voting for Romney. Check that out here.

NEXT: Shopping for guns and votes in Tallahassee

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

  1. Michael, an open “libertarian Democrat,”

    Any merit this post had was completely lost with this nonsense, even with the quotes.

    1. Theoretically it is possible. Gary Hart ran a fairly libertarian oriented campaign in the two 80’s races (’84 was stolen from him). Jerry Brown’s rhetoric is often appealing. The Democrats lost all sympathy from me with Waco, so I see them as being hopelessly mired in statism. The current generation of professional elites that make up the rank and file of those who decide the direction of the party are insufferably smug and have the intellectual curiosity of rat poison. So, though theoretically possible, at the moment, the best chance for recognition for libertarian ideas come from the fiscal conservative side of the GOP. Johnson, Paul, and at one time, Sanford.

      1. Jerry Brown is old enough to have seen the full effects of his side’s bullshit, but he remains enough of a partisan to only attempt to walk parts of it back. The idea of a libertarian dem is oxymoronic on its face, though I am open to being persuaded otherwise.

        1. I put it to you that most libertarians lean Republican because, while they favor a socially liberal stance, fiscal conservatism is actually more important to them (when forced to choose between the two). So I suppose the opposite could be true. Those who place more importance on social issues than they do fiscal, yet still believe in fiscal conservatism might lean Democrat.

          1. Where is the proof that Democrats give a damn about civil liberties?

            1. Where’s the proof Republicans give a damn about economic liberties?

              1. I beat you to it!

                1. Touche to both of you.

                  1. Also, until a two thirds or larger majority of democrats come to the realization that self protection is the ultimate civil liberty, than they will remain the weakest of the three parties on the issue of civil liberties.

                  2. Also, until a two thirds or larger majority of democrats come to the realization that self protection is the ultimate civil liberty, than they will remain the weakest of the three parties on the issue of civil liberties.

              2. I’m arguing against the presumption that libertarians emphasize fiscal conservatism over social liberalism because we’ll vote for a fiscal conservative Republican over a socially liberal Democrat. That is not true because there is no such thing as a socially liberal Democrat. The policies in this area they support such as affirmative action are illiberal.

                No need to bring up Nixon because it is irrelevant. The hard core support for affirmative action at this time and has been for the previous generation has its standard bearers in the Democratic party.

                1. The page was taking its sweet ass time, over a minute, to reload with the new info, so I hit resubmit.

                2. blast from the anti-affirmative burbs.

                  1. I’m not in the ‘burbs, and the government doesn’t classify me as white.

                    1. But, even if they did, or someone affirmatively Caucasoid like John said the same thing, it would not change the truth of the matter. The very idea that it would is illiberal.

                    2. Jesus Christ, did you stop to breath between all those posts you stupid fuckwit?

                    3. What is stupid about what I posted, Poopy? Please, try, to make a compelling case for it, since you are so fucking intelligent and everything, it should not be that difficult for you, right?

                    4. only in liberal circles can the answer to discrimination be more discrimination.

                    5. That idea came from a committee of men and women who were all educated at places like Harvard and Yale. Only the super educated could be so stupid.

          2. Or, for that matter, GOP gives a damn about fiscal discipline.

            1. They at least pay lip service to it, the Dems are openly contemptuous of civil liberties (see reaction to Citizens United).

          3. I don’t believe in compartmentalizing the social view from the fiscal view, especially considering how every view that is opposite to fiscally conservative is usually painted as being the more socially progressive view.

            1. Social and economic issues MUST be separate… and should be forever forbidden to be used as bludgeons by the Teams.

              Stop *all* social engineering. Of *any* stripe, left/right/whatever. We had more than enough laws _decades_ ago.

            2. those views CAN be compartmentalized in the sense that just because you find something distasteful does not mean you want govt banning it. For instance, I don’t advocate the use of meth, but I do think the drug war is govt folly at an exponential level.

              1. Meth is a PRODUCT of the drug war.

                Remove the drug war from the equation, and we’d have a safe, reasonably inexpensive meth alternative on the market in less than a year.

                1. you are making my point. Social conservatives presume the only alternatives are prohibition or alcoholism. The govt spends all that money to police transactions between consenting adults. Is society better?

                  Someone having an opinion is not the same as advocating a govt policy that makes that opinion into law. Remove the govt’s declaration of “war” on virtually anything and you get a safe alternative on the market. Airline security comes to mind.

            3. You’re right because economic and civil liberties are both threatened when you consider the tyrannical way statist treat businesses. It is not only economic liberties they violate through regulation, it is their civil liberties as well. Case in point being Citizen’s United.

          4. Well, economics is the foundation upon which social liberties are built.

            Lose the economic base, lose your liberty.

            Strengthen the economic base, liberty will follow.

            I suspect that more than anything is the reason libertarians seek Republican allies.

          5. Two reasons that libertarians favor fiscal conservatism over social liberalism:

            (1) People who describe themselves as fiscal conservative/socially liberal seem to sacrifice the former for the latter whenever they get the chance.

            (2) Fiscal conservatism is 100% about the size of government and thus its scope. Social liberalism is about, say, 20% government, and 80% culture. As a political philosophy, libertarians should prioritize the former over the latter.

      2. professional elites that make up the rank and file


        1. managerial revolution&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=


          Shit, Google. Place your link callback where it is absolutely unfuckinnecessary.

          1. May I hop aboard this thread? Thanks!
            I have nothing to say, but…well, if I comment further below, there’s a chance that–chatters being chatters–they might move along, denying me of My Moment!

            No, I have nothing to say…

            Why do you ask?

            1. No problem, but you are mistaken. He was asking me instead. That is what happens with threaded comments though, the chain gets broken.

    2. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

    3. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

  2. Hopefully it will be a real fratricide.

    1. No, it’s damn depressing. Obama is so terrible that any Republican would be an improvement, but every one of them has major flaws from an electability or libertarian perspective. But if Obama gets reelected and appoints more Supreme Court justices, get ready for the discovery of a right to socialist “fairness” in the Constitution.

      1. Newt, I think, is a worse alternative to Obama.

        1. Even Newt has a better understanding of the free market, and would choose better judges.

      2. “Obama is so terrible that any Republican would be an improvement”

        Untrue. As Bush has demonstrated, that most damaging thing for the US is liberalism under the Republicans banner.

        1. Exactly. Having Mitt Romney (or any Rep.) champion a VAT through congress would be a disaster of the first order.

      3. get ready for the discovery of a right to socialist “fairness” in the Constitution.

        The undiscovered clause in the Constitution – General Welfare.

        1. “If it’s founded on good intentions, it’s constitutional”

    2. Obama is being “bludgeoned” because he fully deserves it. No president has ever been as openly hostile to the nation’s values as he is. Gradually, the talking point of “income inequality” gains traction as the left keeps repeating it, much like it started with health care how many years ago. The left counts on people being too stupid to figure out that equality of result is impossible, especially when govt presents itself as the guarantor of that equality.

      1. Income inequality must be completely rejected out of hand. It is a completely invented concept that serves no other purpose than to buy votes. It is based completely on the FALSE concept that the economy is a zero-sum game. But I’m preaching to the choir, here.

        The point is, it cannot be allowed to gain traction as an issue. Anytime it is used it needs to be aggressively discredited as the trash concept it is.

        1. no, as ron paul said in the last FL debate, wealth is ALWAYS transferred from the shrinking middle class upwards when our money is systematically devalued

          1. apples…meet oranges

          2. That’s theft, not mere “income inequality”.

            Leftists militate against income inequality even if it’s the result of honest and free transactions.

            1. oh so now wealth transfer is a crime (theft)?…which, of course, lacks the elements to be criminal.

              >so why is wealth transfer, thru unsound money, incentivisied ill behavior?

              1. Stealing is stealing whether it is formally illegal or the purpose of law..

        2. Income Inequality is an allegorical demon from academic lore. A beast conjured up by evil monocle wearing men who lays waste to the villagers.

          That these villagers don’t do anything which equates to some kind of economic value factors not in their voodoo mathematics.

          1. Shorter o3:

            Teh waelthys iz evilz!

            1. exactly, teh wealthy deserve to have their eyeballs dipped in liguid gold

              1. Somehow, I think you’re serious.

        3. Income inequality is a perfectly legitimate and real phenomenon, and unfortunately human nature includes envy, so gross inequalities can lead to social troubles.

          The question is, whether it’s a preventable phenomenon, and if it is, does preventing it have adverse side effects which are worse than those of income inequality itself.

          1. I just think it’s ironic that the left has for decades promoted welfare dependency, single parenthood, street/ghetto culture, mass immigration of poor Third Worlders, and all sorts of economic idiocy, and then is shocked at “rising income inequality.”

            1. It’s almost like they *knew* those things would happen, eh, PSF?

              1. For most I think it’s just a form of ideological blindness.

                1. “Central planning”, Papaya. That’s how the Teams roll.

          2. Bullshit. When the rich make money it is due to the creation of wealth. When wealth is created it benefits all. Granted the rich, by percentage make more, but the poor still do better than they would have otherwise.

            1. I actually agree, but there is still income inequality. To say it’s a nonexistent concept is to miss the point.

              I think you guys (and I) are just saying that income inequality is better than the realistic alternatives.

              1. Of course everyone’s income is different. The point is that it produces no detrimental impact and this is where the class warriors are being disingenuous.

  3. Penna. GOP endorsed yesterday a former OBAMA supporter for the US senate race.
    Tea Party groups are livid; they had supported an open primary in hopes that the one experienced fiscal conservative, state rep Sam Rohrer, could win the primary. Business as usual – and the LP must be reacting with glee at the number of GOPers being shown the door. Kick out of the tent the RP ”lunatics” and invite other fiscal conservatives to be in charge of shoveling the elephant poop.

    1. Bob Casey’s going to demolish either one in November so it really doesn’t matter.

  4. Concern troll is concerned.

  5. The GOP heads of families had decided on their Prince Dauphin but a man with money who ambitiously seeks power is willing to prostitute his morals.

    We know Gingrich’s game but I expect we’ll learn more about Romney’s…

  6. Second, Republican rants against Mr. Obama reflect hatred not seen since Franklin D. Roosevelt was excoriated as a traitor to his class and Ronald Reagan was accused of throwing sick and hungry old people into the cold.

    Good grief, talk about a short memory. “Bushitler”, anyone?

    Yes, Bush was a lousy president and deserves much of the criticism leveled at him, but the idea that Obama has received more hatred and invective than Bush did is laughable on its face.

    1. Given Obama is a murderer, as Russell Means bluntly stated, anything the GOP candidates say about him is pretty soft compared to the reality of the situation. That being, Obama deserves an impeachment, a trial and a visit with sparky. Why equivocate with the truth Mr. Michael when that equivocation only empowers the status quo to go forth with criminality even more boldly?

      1. ^with gems like this, is it any wonder libertarians arent moar accepted?

        1. Some folks are born made to wave the flag
          Ooh, they’re red, white and blue
          And when the band plays “Hail to the Chief”
          Oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord

        2. That was me. I don’t even know how to do a name blank.

          1. Shorter o3:

            I wil defendz Obama on evrthingz!

    2. Good grief, talk about a short memory. “Bushitler”, anyone?

      “Selected, not elected”, “Not My President”, “Bush Caused 9/11”, “Regime Change Begins at Home”, “Chimpy McBushitler”, “Bush R Teh Dumm”, “War Criminal”, “Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

      And those are the nice things Team Blue said about him.

      1. But that was different!

        1. We want civility now! That means you need to shut the fuck up!

          1. Don’t make me torch this fuckin’ place!

      2. rearrange a couple letters, add an l and t, and Bushitler become Bullshitter!

  7. If you look at the history of the Republican Party over the last 30-40 years, you’ll see similarities between the more libertarian-leaning brand of conservative movement started by Ron Paul and the Tea Party in recent years and the rise of the Christian Right’s influence in GOP politics years before. Both started out in local grassroots levels and it was a movement that took several years to take hold. I beleive this new libertarian-conservative trend will eventually become a force that the GOP leadership will have no choice but to embrace.

    1. That’s a really interesting point! Cool lets hope you’re right.

    2. There was, however, one shortcut the religious “right” had available and took: In many cases, they were able to organize locally via their churches. So this one might take a little longer.

  8. “On a libertarian mission, Ron Paul is fighting for a philosophy, not a nomination.”

    Where do people get this notion? Maybe this was true in 2008, but there’s no real evidence he doesn’t want to win.

    1. by his own admission, Paul does not expect to win. Wanting to win is different. Paul understands electoral reality but he also sees that the issues he has talked about for years are finally getting center stage: the debt is impossible to ignore, ditto the intrusiveness of govt and the notion that every global problem requires a US military solution.

      Paul is successfully laying the groundwork for future candidates of like mind. The emergence of people like the occutards only serves to make Paul’s message stronger – folks see this motley bunch of hypereducated punks demanding this and that at public expense, and they are saying enough.

      1. hypereducated punks

        Why are you denying the job-market value of a Master’s in Sociology, WarEagle?

        1. There’s gotta be a six figure civil service job for someone with those credentials.

          1. BUT WE GOT MASTER’S DEGREES!!!!!

            1. The only people who are qualified to make decisions, are just like me.

      2. Speaking of the Occutards, the Park Police claim that they’re finally going to begin kicking those filthy bums out of McPherson Square tomorrow since the House shamed them into doing it.

        Note that this is the same Park Police who had no problem instantly arresting Brooke Oberwetter and those other folks for the horrible crime of dancing at the Jefferson Memorial. Gotta love those double-standards.

        1. They have a nose for knowing who is a dissenter and who is a useful idiot.

    2. It certainly appears to me that Paul is pursuing a cagey strategy that will leave him with a good hand to play even if he doesn’t win the nomination outright. He seems to want to win, and to have chosen a pretty good approach, given the obstacles that he knew, from the 2008 campaign, would lie in his path. I don’t think that the conclusion, that Paul is “fighting for a philosophy and not a nomination,” is supported by the facts of Paul’s campaign.

      I am beginning to see a slogan on Facebook that contains a lot of truth: “If everyone who said ‘I like Paul, but he can’t win,’ would actually vote for Paul, he WOULD win.” At some point, assuming one actually has convictions, one needs the courage of them, too.

      1. Many things would happen if _______. That generally does not make _______ any more probable or attractive.

  9. “On a libertarian mission, Ron Paul is fighting for a philosophy, not a nomination.”

    Where do people get this notion? Maybe this was true in 2008, but there’s no real evidence he doesn’t want to win.

  10. “On a libertarian mission, Ron Paul is fighting for a philosophy, not a nomination.”

    Where do people get this notion? Maybe this was true in 2008, but there’s no real evidence he doesn’t want to win.

    1. The media has repeated it so often that it is accepted as fact. Logically, It is inefficient for both time and funds required to run for the goal of ‘spreading philosophy’. I think it more interesting the psychology of this mantra

      1. Fart, fart, fart in a jar, jar, jar.

        1. It’s funny no matter how many times you hear it.

          1. Meesa no like dis rather!

  11. I’d take Romney over Shitorum, Gingrich, and Obama, but do you think if all these pundits were to stop saying that Ron Paul has no chance of winning people might actually begin to believe that he can win?

    I hope RP starts winning states like Maine, Nevada, Idaho, Missouri, etc just to show that he’s the only candidate along with Romney that has a serious shot at the nomination.

    1. here’s what is ironic: conservative pundits love to accuse of Obama of Alinsky tactics, yet what do they do re: Paul? Try to discredit and marginalize him, attack him and his ideas on a personal level, and all those other things recommended in the book of Saul.

      A shrink might say Paul’s talk reminds of the things they claim to favor but never talk about, all that small govt stuff. So they lash out at him instead.

    2. I have the utmost respect for Ron Paul, but I think it’s time to let go of the fantasy. He’s not going to win the nomination.

      1. It’s unlikely but not impossible.

      2. Dear Mr. Fantasy,

  12. Oh, man… a double murder-suicide between Team Red and Team Blue… shit, that almost makes me wet thinking about it.

    1. We’re going to count that as a threat to every politician. Might as well turn yourself in for treason.

      Or… we can just come over and shoot your ass dead. Your choice.

  13. Michael is repeating the myopic talking head nonsense. The fact Santorum and Gingrich did not make the ballots in Virginia and Arizona means that they can’t win the nomination as neither of them has the organization in enough states to pull it off. The media pundits have lost all perspective to the fact they only talk about Gingrich and Santorum to sex things up in this otherwise boring race where without Paul the outcome is inevitable. In truth that inevitability is entirely their fault for the blackout they impose on Paul. A year from now they will all be bitching about President Romney, the man they put there!

    1. 2012 — Cut that soldier’s mic off! He’s gonna say something outside the political mainstream about the wars!

      2013 — Goddamn that President Romney, why want he bring the troops home?

    2. The reality is that a GOP primary with only Romney and Paul would be a landslide for Romney. One reason Mitt has been nice to RP.

      1. With the distractive narrative out of the way, what is Romney’s appeal to the rank and file of the GOP?

        1. In a contest with RP, it comes down to Romney’s willingness to attack Iran and his unwillingness to legalize drugs.

          1. That just sucks.

            1. Yes, it does. But that is God’s pran for us.


    That’s horrible. Looks nothing like him.

    It says its a “talking” action figure. Do you suppose it speaks more cogently?

    1. They’re awesome!!

      The proceeds go to support one of the Super PACs that support Paul. The same one that made this brilliant video which can’t be shared around enough.

      1. That was way better than I was expecting,the title”chinese troops in texas”had me bracing for some kind of fema camp,conspiracy gibberish.Is this being shown on tv or is it strictly youtube?

        1. I think YouTube alone for now. Either way, it’s WAY too long for TV at over 3 minutes, and you can’t really cut it any without it losing its cadence and its impact.

          But brilliant it is.

          1. Here’s Ron Paul’s House speech that the video is based on:


    2. If you’ve never been stuck in a toy store with a talking Ron Paul doll, you would have no idea how silver-tongued they can be.

  15. Right. By this reasoning, Reagan has no shot against Carter. Smart money’s on the peanut guy!

    1. All of the “experts” thought Carter was a shoo in for re-election in 1980

      1. Experts eat shit and fuck ducks. I’ll trust what I actually see in the campaign, not what some shitheaded fruitcake over at Huff Po Galactic Headquarters decides his stupid fucking ass ought to throw together for the next deadline.

        1. You are correct. And you have to remember most of what they right is just what they hear in the Washington echo camber. And all of that is just designed to make liberals feel better.

          Who knows if they are right. They might be. But if they are it won’t be because of anything other than luck.

        2. This comment>>>article

        3. This comment needs to be on reason’s cover page

      2. Especially with a major independent running to pull votes from Reagan.

      3. And none of the experts saw Carter coming in ’76 either. One newsman, I think it may have been Bradley at WaPo, had to look up what ‘evangelical’ meant. These are the experts at knowing what that next big thing in politics will be in advance.

    2. Don’t even compare Carter to Obama. What has BO deregulated? Which inflation hawk has he appointed to the Fed chairmanship?

      1. Excellent point.

      2. It was an electability issue Tulpa. But you’re right.

        1. it says a lot about how bad obama is, that i can look back occasionally almost fondly at some aspects of the carter administration

          1. Do you *really* think deregulating trucking and the airlines as a negative, Mister Dunphy?

            1. For God’s sake, don’t forget legalizing homebrewing.


    1. You’re right!

      Get the fuck over here and mow my lawn!

    1. Your AP article said he was an 8 year department veteran, the one from earlier said 4 year veteran.…..latestnews

      Neither gives the age of the cop. If he was hired at 18 (possible?) he could be as young as 22.

      I suspect there is more to the story.

  17. There are 195 countries in the world. Some have more land area than others. Look at Russia and Canada. They have so much land they aren’t even making use of. Occupy Canada + Russia!

    1. Occupy Moscow would be interesting to watch. Occupy the Northwest Territories would be its own version of Survivor.

      1. Survivor Indiana?

      2. Despite the Reds winning over 19% of the vote in Russia, there’s a tremendous counter-balance: plenty of Russians hate communists/communism and socialists/socialism in general with a burning passion. It wouldn’t be healthy for Occutards to do something like that.

  18. Let me be clear, everytime I read that Newt leads I take another victory smoke.

  19. How anyone couldn’t beat Obama now baffles me, unless they actually agreed with Obama’s actions up to this point.

    Obama has directed the people’s money to his campaign contributors, given those same contributors jobs (Jeff Immelt), attempted to undermine the 2nd Amendment (Fast & Furious), thrown the people’s money away on bad business ideas (Solyndra, Beacon Power, Ener1), screwed bondholders out of their legitimate claims against GM and Chrysler for the UAW, then sold Chrysler to Fiat for next to nothing, assassinated an American citizen (Anwar Al-Awlaki), maintained that he has the privilege to indefinitely detain people (NDAA), launched an air war on Libya without even notifying the Congress. These are just the ones that spring immediately to mind.

    The fact that Romney (the establishment candidate) isn’t singing this song indicates to me that he plans to do more in the same vein. Which is why he’s the establishment candidate.

    1. Yep

      Fuck Romney. I’d rather have the real deal with O.

    2. Get ready for four years of bafflement. People keep looking at obama’s record and wondering how he can possibly win the election. Hint: look at his supporters, not his record.

  20. John McCain: Dumbshit.…..f=politics

  21. Al Sharpton: Dumbshit.…..s&ir=Black Voices

  22. Franklin D. Roosevelt was excoriated as a traitor to his class

    His “class” has nothing to do with my disgust for FDR. The man was a goddamned fascist.


    1. In the minds of millions, he saved us all from capitalism and greed. Unbelievable.

    2. I share your disdain.

      There was a documentary on the History Channel last night about the first 24 hours after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They portrayed his actions very positively, but I couldn’t give that piece of shit an ounce of credit. He, more than any figure in our history, is personally responsible for America’s decline. Every time the program praised his actions I wanted to retch.

        1. I’m savin’ that pic, Res. Much thanks.

          1. It’s especially infuriating because it’s all true. How the fucking shit can a petty, conniving tyrant become one of the most revered people in American history?

            1. It’s pretty sweet, isn’t it?

            2. I ask myself the same question, peasant.

              1. Yeah. Turns out Selena Gomez is an Obama-lover. I’m really struggling to keep those wild fantasies of mine from disappearing right now.

                1. She’s 19, what do you expect?

  23. The Coming GOP Fartricide? Death by fart? If not in a jar, then where?

    1. It’s been, what, three months now? When you’re old and find yourself in a particularly contemplative mood, look back on days like this and never forget that not a single fuck was ever given.

      1. Spoofers – what a drag.

  24. Was Ron Paul fighting for a philosophy when he published those fucking racist newsletters? Neo-Nazism maybe?

      1. You just expended calories yawning. That was a colossal, unforgivable waste of energy, dude, given that this is Max we’re talking about here. I think Max owes you now.

        1. Yeah. The pig-fucker oughta commit suicide over it.

          Ask your mom for a bottle of her pills, Max. Make sure they’re blue, at least.

          1. Honey… did you take Mommy’s birth-control pills? We’ve TALKED about that, honey! You can’t take more than one of those at a time!

            1. Ain’t *nobody* fuckin’ no pigs ‘less WE give the say-so. Capiche?

              1. Oh, and Max ain’t paid his dues this month.

          2. He was a waste of my sperm. I knew I should have pulled it out as soon as that whore laid down the quiff. But by that time, it was too late, the reversal of suction spunked my load in that whore’s belly. I was finished, and her dad tapped me on the shoulder saying that it would cost me five bucks more. That thieving whore knew exactly what she was doing!

            1. He pulled that five-dollar trick on you, too, huh?

    1. You know nothing of my work, Max. Especially when you compare that Paul guy to me.

  25. The Christian identity philosophy Ron Paul is fighting for:

    1. Take the pills, Max. ALL of them.

      Take some stool softeners and laxatives, while you’re at it.

      1. Take Ron Paul’s cock out of your mouth and get some air in those lungs, asshole.

        1. Never had a cock, never will.

          I defer to your expertise in these matters.

          1. That Max can suck a mean cock.

            1. Poor kid doesn’t have the hang of who pays who, though… he paid ME five bucks.

              He’s stupid, but he swallows.

              1. I know, Jim… I’ve tried to teach that boy how it works, but he insists on spending his comic-book money on blowjobs!

                1. What do you mean, “could”? I’m STILL good at it.

  26. Sweetie, did you take Mommy’s hot-flash medication?

    1. Moooommmm! Where the hell are those pizza rolls? I’m starving down here!

  27. Who gets aroudn with stuff like that, I mean like seriously. WOw.

    1. They must count that $700 billion stimulus as “giving to charity.”

  28. Every damn presidential primary is bloody.

    Why must we suddenly be surprised about it every four years?

    Anyway for the republicans there is no real fear and this article proves it….Terry Michael doesn’t remember 4 years ago because every election everyone forgets about the primaries the day the nominees are picked.

    1. By the way it does not surprise me at all that the a guy backing Romney is saying this.

      The more deeper the debate the more it prevent an empty suit like Romney from getting the nomination.

      “Lets keep it civil and shallow so my guy can squeak on by”

      Bullshitting hack.

  29. Terry micheal wants to vote for romney because he’s like clinton…get it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.