Ron Paul

Ron Paul Limps to Third in Nevada



Las Vegas – Ron Paul's distant third place finish in the Republican caucuses did not live up to the high expectations his campaign set for him in Nevada. For months now we have been told about his caucus state strategy and how it would allow him to gobble up delegates all the way to the convention. If a brokered convention went down Paul might be in a position to play kingmaker, we were told. Paul, with his devoted legions, was supposed to thrive in this tediously complex low turnout environment. It was Paul supporters that would not oversleep on a Saturday and show up to their caucusing station before 9:00 a.m.

At the time of this post Paul's highly touted Nevada operation failed to overcome the nearly nonexistent operation of Newt Gingrich. We are still waiting on a quarter of the precincts to report their totals. But as it stands right now, Mitt Romney won with 47.6% of vote; Newt Gingrich placed second with 22.7%; and Paul finished third with 18.6%. Rick Santorum, who pretty much wrote this state off, finished in fourth with 11.1%.

If this result holds it is a significant setback for Paul, as caucuses like this are the core of his campaign strategy, one similar to Barack Obama's in 2008. Paul supporters are the most fanatical of any of the candidates remaining but Nevada demonstrated that he cannot rely on them alone to carry him to victory in caucuses. His plans are running into another bump with at least one of the candidates taking the caucuse states very seriously. One bright spot for Paul is that his followers are versed in the state delegate process while most campaigns appear to be focused on just the ballot box. Paul may have finished poorly here but according to people in his campaign they are optimistic about their efforts to elect delegates to the state convention in Reno.

"We're liking what we're hearing," one operative told me.

In emails, Paul supporters frequently reported disappointing caucus results but were giddy over the election of their compatriots to the convention in Reno. It was not uncommon to read or hear about every delegate at a caucus being a pro-Paul delegate. This is a positive development for his campaign but it is not a process that is replicated in every state. If Paul continues to struggle in caucus states he will have to find more unorthodox ways to increase his delegate count.

NEXT: Takers vs. Makers in Today's America

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. Hey, *I* was first!

      1. Whatever, I’m the one who won the Nevada primary.

        1. A deal’s a deal.

          1. Wow! Just when you thing Reason can’t get worse. Not only is this post uninformative but it’s misleading on a level you’d expect from a FOX or MSNBC. Is the author really that unaware of what is happening in NV or is this just an “I want to watch the game so I’m phoning it in” blog post?

            1. Wow! Just when you thing Reason can’t get worse

              A small tip for the future: don’t give away your trollness on the first sentence.

              1. “Bee Tagger”

                “A small tip for the future: don’t give away your trollness” in your screen name.

            2. I feel obliged to ejaculate, “Drink!”

              1. I feel obliged to ejaculate, “Feck!”

            3. Funny, considering Mr. Quinn was literally in Nevada, at a caucus yesterday.

    2. Bi-curious? -Datebi*cO’Mis designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  1. If Paul were to try a third party candidacy, would he grab more votes away from Obama, Romney, or neither (ie independent non-voters)?

    1. he would guarantee an Obama win. While the Repubs can be the party of big govt, the Dems are always the party of even bigger govt.

      1. When were the “Repubs” a party of less government?

        More accurate: The repubs can be the party of less “more government”.

        1. You would have to go back to Robert Taft.

      2. Obama got us mostly out of Iraq and seems to want to do the same in Afghanistan. Had McCain won in 2008 instead, then we’d still be full bore in both countries and also be at war with Iran since 2009.

        1. Obama followed Bush’s withdrawal plan to the letter on Iraq, and McCain likely would’ve done the same.

          1. Obama tried to keep on in Iraq longer than the Bush deadline, but was told to go home.


            1. Good point.

        2. If I’d claimed at a BO rally in 2008 that BO would mostly pull out of Iraq in late 2011 and “seem to want to” get out of AFG in early 2012, I would have gotten a punch in the mouth.

    2. All 3, but mostly repubs/independents and the anti-war/drug legalization democrats.

      1. the anti-war/drug legalization democrats

        Wander off the plantation/reservation and we will beat your sorry asses right back.

      2. anti-war/drug legalization democrats.

        As I was drinking Powerade when I read that, you owe me a new keyboard.

        1. He owes you something for your fail?

          1. It would only be fair.

        2. Powerade? Somebody owes you taste buds.

          1. It’s got electrolytes. Ass.

            1. Yum. Ass.

            2. know what else has electrolytes?

          2. lmao

      3. “Drug legalization Democrats” lol that’s a good one.

    3. See

      All the polls that ask about both an Obama-Romney and an Obama-Romney-Paul race show that Obama would defeat Romney more easily if Paul ran as a third-party candidate. (Which, incidentally, he won’t, if only because he doesn’t want to ruin Rand Paul’s future in the GOP.)

  2. So no miracle this year. We’ll just have to wait for Rand then.

    1. In 2020, hopefully.

    2. Rand is a much smoother speaker than his father. Plus he’s already a Senator. He could make the Presidential run successfully.

      I really enjoy Rand in the Senate, and wish that there was a push to get more libertarianish Republicans into the Senate. I for one would love to see Gary Johnson parlay his Presidential run into a run for a Senate seat, knocking off one of the two Democrats currently representing NM. The Senate is a great bully pulpit for libertarianism.

      1. I really enjoy Rand in the Senate, and wish that there was a push to get more libertarianish Republicans into the Senate.

        Jim DeMint is working on it. Gary Johnson wouldn’t qualify.

        1. Why the hell wouldn’t Johnson qualify and what serious work has DeMint done in that direction?

          1. Gary Johnson couldn’t get elected dog catcher on the GOP or LP ticket. Why isn’t he running for a NM US Senate seat? Because he sucks as a candidate.

            DeMint helped Rand Paul get elected in KY and has been targetting moderate, establishment Senate incumbents.

            1. Uh…Johnson was elected as governor of NM. Twice. He may suck as a candidate for nom but he is the perfect libertarian for the purposes of a general election. He should’ve been the one people lined up behind instead of RP.

              1. People that get blinded by Ron Paul generally act this way about Johnson.

            2. Gary Johnson couldn’t get elected dog catcher on the GOP or LP ticket. Why isn’t he running for a NM US Senate seat? Because he sucks as a candidate. This sounds incredibly dumb considering that he was a govenor of a state….

    3. It seems Paul’s delegate count keeps going down as well? I remember them saying he had ten after Iowa and then picked up some others elsewhere, but in today’s paper an AP story said he only has four total.

      1. No one has any delegates in Iowa. Period.

        The state convention is in June. And the state convention is generally populated by establishment party members who vote for whomever has locked up the nomination by the start of summer.

        You can be assured that Santorum will have zero delegates coming out of the state convention even though he “won” the straw poll on caucus night. He won’t survive Super Tuesday, so he won’t have any support from the party geeks at the state convention.

        Paul’s strategy is to get lots of his supporters to the state convention to disrupt the status quo. I plan to be there and do my part.

        1. I thought the delegates to the Iowa state convention were selected immediately after the beauty contest, and that Paul supporters were more likely to stay for the delegate selection.

          At least, that’s what the Iowans here said.

          1. The press reports delegates to the national convention (which is what you win in a primary). The press tries (and fails miserably) to project how many national delegates a candidate will get coming out of the caucus system.

            The press is either to stupid to understand or to sleazy to explain that the caucus system is a state-level “party building exercise” and the state party will send delegates to the national convention to support whomever has clinched the nomination by June.

    4. It’s too late. Capitalism is dead. Don’t you read Reason?

  3. As it stands now, only half of Clark County has reported, leaving around 8000 votes outstanding that will not begin being counted until 9am NV time. Follow @NVVoteCount and check their timeline along with @NVGop to get the whole picture.

    1. Yeah, this seems a bit of a premature post, to be honest. The count in Nevada is a mess right now. Entire county counts were being discarded and reset last night. Clark County is a disaster, and a full recount just got underway.

      It’s certainly very possible that Paul will finish third, but declaring it as such on Hit & Run’s main page at this point seems a little irresponsible.

      1. I’m not exaggerating when I say “mess”:!/AnjeanetteDamon

  4. Apparently, to contradict the Ron Paul statement, freedom isn’t popular.

    1. It appears that the Republicans want to lose to Obama.

      1. Better for the establishment to lose to the other party than lose control of its own party.

        1. That’s how the Libertarian Party has operated since, basically, ever.

    2. People love freedom for themselves, they despise it for others. I saw some polling numbers there were around 98% in favor of a broadly general right like Free Speech, but that it rapidly drops when you get into specifics, into the single digits even for not banning hate speech.

  5. Fuck you, Quinn; you “Vichy libertarian”.

    1. What exactly did he do? His reporting didn’t cause Paul to finish third in the polls.

    2. Yeah, Jay. You know, don’t shoot the messenger. Take it out on those who deserve it. My fellow Americans. For whom some days I want to seed the clouds with piss.

      1. For what it’s worth, with 87% of the vote in–yes, still only that!–…..s/state/nv gives Paul 5,457 votes (19 percent, still three percent behid Gingrich).

        To give an idea how bad that is: According to the 2012 World Almanac, p. 531, in 1988, when Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian, he got 3,520 votes–and the population of Nevada has more than doubled since then. So in real terms, Paul is getting fewer votes in Nevada than he did in 1988. (You may say that comparing caucuses and general elections is comparing apples and oranges, but granted that it takes more effort to vote in a caucus than in a general election, it takes some *pyschological* effort to cast a minor party vote in a general election, since such a candidate obviously cannot win, which is not necessarily true of even an underdog candidate in the caucuses–at the very least such a candidate could get some delegates.)

        Not that the other candidates did that much better: turnout in the GOP caucus seems to have been even lower than in 2008, even though in 2008 there was a lively contest on the Demcoratic side, too. This year, the GOP had the only contest–which you would think by itself would be enough to spur greater turnout even with a very imperfect field.

        1. The number of votes is not comparable. You could only legitimately compare this if this was a third party run again. For one, caucuses have much lower turnout – there may be quite a few people that would vote for Paul on a third party run but did not (or could not) vote in a GOP caucus for whatever reasons of their own.

  6. I have no faith in the election process anymore. There is no way anyone who calls themself a conservative or republican could vote for Romney. His successes so far I simply find inexplicable. I hear no one I know saying they would vote for him. The only people I know who have outright declared who they would vote for have said they like Ron Paul. Gingrich actually makes my skin crawl and that’s pretty hard to do

    1. I think your last sentence is why mittens is doing so well. Gingrich makes a lot of peoples skin crawl so theyre jumping on board with Mitt instead of voting for a weak RP to ensure Nucktits doesnt become thr nominee.

      1. You give them too much credit. These morons nominated “W” (over a lame ass field as well). We really shouldn’t believe that it could have ever been different.

    2. There are moderate, even liberal Republicans.

      1. What difference does that make? The problem with Romney isn’t that he’s a “moderate,” the problem with Romney is that he’s a used car salesman, just like the guy currently in office. Whatever needs to be said to get the car off the lot, he’ll say.

        What surprises/disappoints me is that we seem to have become convinced that this is somehow “presidential.” That voting for an opportunist looking to seize power for his own purposes is what we _should_ be doing, because that keeps us away from ideologues.

        I think we’re stuck with an endless parade of male models for the foreseeable future.

        1. Then you tell me how someone should get elected: By telling voters what they don’t want? There’s only one opening for the job; it absolutely makes sense to say whatever most satisfies voters, and it absolutely makes sense for voters to vote for whoever most satisfies them.

          1. When a candidate says one thing in front of one audience and then says the opposite in front of a different audience, voters should be smart enough to realize that the candidate is full of shit. If only people had the balls to refuse to vote for any candidate that lies to them on a regular basis, then that would be a good start.

            As Tucker Carlson said on RedEye one night, RP is incapable of pandering. About 20% of Republican voters prefer someone that is honest with them, while the other 80% prefer platitudes and policies that shift with the wind.

          2. No, a candidate should get elected by people agreeing with his policies and ideas. Narcissism and the idea that “only I can do it” should not be rewarded – it should be shunned. The idea that it’s all about getting elected for the politicians and getting “their party’s guy” elected for the votes – and forget the policies and philosophies the individual espouses – is precisely why America is so fucked up right now.

            1. Why should voters conform their policies & ideas to those of a candidate rather than vice versa? Doesn’t that reverse the service relationship?

        2. As long as any decision is ever made jointly, nobody ever gets exactly what they want, except by chance.

    3. Nobody good decided to run. Sucks, but it is what it is.

    4. His successes so far I simply find inexplicable.

      It’s his turn, don’t you understand that?

  7. At the time of this post Paul’s highly touted Nevada operation failed to overcome the nearly nonexistent operation of Newt Gingrich.

    Nonexistent unless you count indignant talk radio and Fox News. From what I can tell, enough of them were keeping Newt alive for the sake of pushback against recent media attacks on Gingrich’s sterling character.

    If any outlet had acknowledged Paul or reported on candidate positions in general rather than horse race bullshit, Ron Paul might be seeing little better results. But then, we voters are idiots, so who knows.

    1. true..the Catholic Channel cannot stand the thought of a “true conservative” not winning the nomination, nor can it stand a Mormon winning it. Neither can talk radio, and both have tried to sell folks on the flavor of the day from Bachmann to Perry to Newt to anyone but the business guy and the crazy old man.

      1. Here you go with the Catholic-bating shit again. Why don’t you just put some bedsheets and a hood on and get it over with?

        1. @wareagle I’m not sure just how Catholics have any much influence anywhere in the US. If anything, it’s the evangelicals and mainline Protestants whom both Bush and Obama had to pander to to win.

          1. Here in Northern Virginia the mainline Protestants are liberal and Catholics are conservative. The Arlington diocese is considered one of the most conservative in the country. Two very prominent Catholic conservatives from NoVa are Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General for the commonwealth, and Bob Marshall, state delegate and candidate for U.S. Senate.

            1. Catholics are pretty evenly split between the parties, nationally.

            2. Catholics are a mixed bag politically in the USA. They tend to be among the most “conservative” of those around them, but they also tend to concentrate in northeastern cities that are overwhelmingly “liberal”.

    2. Yes, you are an idiot for voting. Do you see the futility of it yet? Do you see?

      1. Non-voters forfeit their right to complain. IT SAYS SO IN THE CONSTITUTION. (Somewhere in the back I think.)

        1. Am I complaining, complainer?

          1. Did I say you were complaining? Read your Bill of Rights. As a voter, I have the right – nay, the DUTY – to bitch and moan.

            1. You implied that I was going to complain by insinuating that I lost my right to complain. Complainer. You like insinuating things? Huh? Implier!

              1. Some day we’ll have the states to amend the Constitution and be able to throw INFERRERS like you in jail where you belong.

                1. I reject your imputation that I am an inferrer! Insinuator!

                  1. STFU you two and choose which color I’m going to paint your houses: red or blue. Note: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

                    1. This battle of wits has ended.

                    2. This battle of wits has ended.

                      It was over before it started, my imputational amigo.

                    3. Note: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

                      Why do you get to choose Libertarian by quoting a Rush song?

          2. Voters are suckers! Squawk!
            Voters are suckers! Squawk!
            Voters are suckers! Squawk!

        1. “You’re a beaner towel!”

          1. ?No te olvides de traer una toalla!

      2. Do you see the futility of it yet?

        If voting is futile as a tool to correct injustice, how much more futile is bitching about injustice on a blog where everyone agrees with you anyway?

        Remove the Santorum from your own eye before going at FOE’s cornea with a microfiber cloth.

        1. But no one here agrees with Sleazyarch, even when they do.

      3. Yes, you are an idiot for voting.

        No he’s not, MUTHAFUKA

  8. Anybody But Rommel!



    1. Wait! Rommel is running? I might back Rommel!

      But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t qualify, as he’s not a natural born citizen of the U.S. Besides, he’s older than Paul and has Parkinson’s as well.

  9. Maybe Nevada libertarians wanted to kill the Ron Paul candidacy before the newsletter controversy went mainstream and set the movement back 50 years.

    1. In my opinion, it’s encouraging to see how much the interest in Paul increased between 2008 and 2012, but we need a better candidate.

      Rand Paul, 2014.

      1. Sorry, I meant “Rand Paul, 2024”.

        1. Why not 2014? Running for President in an off-year, he’d have no competition.

          Crazy like a fox.

        2. 2016 would be too late. We’ll all be microchipped by 2024. At least it will save us from driving to the polls to elect the next Big Brother.

  10. I am super confused at this point. Ron Paul initially won Clark county and now he’s only in second there with 19% and only 50% has reported in.

  11. LIMPED INTO A DISTANT THIRD? Really? They’re still trying to count the votes at NOON on Sunday and with being approximately 1% behind Newt, that doesn’t equate to a “distant third.” Truth in journalism…it’s way past time for some of that, don’t you think?

    1. I’m thinking Quinn’s being on the ground in Nevada is keeping him from seeing the forest for the trees. There’s still a lot of counting to go, and second place has swapped back and forth a few times already.

      Maybe I’m being pollyannaish here. But as I said above, I think it’s a little early to be rendering final judgments about “third,” let alone “limps.”

      1. Put it this way: This hasn’t budged since 4 a.m. And prior to that, it had been stuck at 44% for hours.

        1. Clearly Paul needs to invade the yellow lands to gain more units.

  12. OK, so maybe he shouldn’t have written off South Carolina and Florida. Maybe the media exposure and momentum that came out of those races was worth as much as the delegates one would have gotten. Maybe, given that he seems to be the only one in the race with an apparently endless supply of small donation money, he could have afforded to blow a little on something other than delegates.

    Lesson learned.

    1. FL and SC have nothing to do with it.

    2. Media exposure? For Paul? You nuts? He could bloody well have won the state and coverage would have inexplicably shut down due to “technical difficulties” and Florida would have been figuratively banished to the netherworld by the media.

  13. Has the biggest anti-war, anti-banker bailout, pro-liberty, civil-rights “plank”. Maybe the average voter doesn’t yet have enough revulsion for the War/Welfare/CorporateBailout/CivilRightsCrushingSecurityState.

    1. {Ron Paul h]as the biggest anti-war, anti-banker bailout, pro-liberty, civil-rights “plank”. Maybe the average voter doesn’t yet have enough revulsion for the War/Welfare/CorporateBailout/CivilRightsCrushingSecurityState.


      We have a citizenry that hasn’t yet passed the point of diminishing returns. They like their war and the gravy train and spending programs more than they hate debt for their children/grandchildren and don’t seem to mind watching their freedoms wither away.

      1. They like their war and the gravy train and spending programs more than they hate debt for their children/grandchildren and don’t seem to mind watching their freedoms wither away.

        I think it’s more accurate to say they don’t UNDERSTAND the “debt for their children” part. This stuff is all too complex for the average voter to grasp. Hell, I know plenty of smart people who don’t really get the basic dynamics of our economic system/government debt/etc.

        1. No, SS recipients do not understand and they do not want to. They will still say that they are only getting back what they put in. I’m sorry that you old farts were lied to for years, but that doesn’t excuse your continued belief in a fucking fairy tale.

          1. Agree with juris. If you want hilarity and amusement for an hour, tell a Boomer that SSI is basically welfare for old people.

            As a whole, they do not understand its insolvency and will not voluntarily give the goodies up. As they are one of the most reliably voting segments of our society, their wishes will govern. I can see the program being tinkered with: remove the income caps subject to SSI, advance the eligibility age by 1 year every 2, implement some half-assed form of means testing—but the program is not going away until every other nook and cranny of the Federal Government has been pruned away. You can look at Medicare the same sort of way.

            It’ll take the rest of the world refusing to buy any more U.S. debt, or something equally catastrophic, for these programs to go away. Sucks for the rest of us.

            1. It’s sad to know that the rest of us will have to go broke and watch whatever wealth we’ve been able to amass fall through the floor in value when the system goes tits up so that old fucks can keep getting their extra few hundred bucks a month and heavily subsidized medical care.

              And the biggest problem is that none of those old fucks will lose a goddamn dime of their benefits. All we’re looking to do is make the program optional for younger folk, and cutting benefits to not one single penny more than they put in.

              If you want a retirement program that pays interest or inflation or whatever, put your own money away in a private retirement account of your choice. But leave my money the fuck alone. I don’t care how much you put in; you don’t deserve a goddamn penny of mine.

            2. It’s worse than that. My parents (younger Boomers) will rant and rave for hours about the socialistic Ponzi scheme that is SSI. But talk to them about ending the TSA or the EPA and you are talking to a brick wall – they want “reform” but think there is some legitimate role that must be filled by government there. It’s completely baffling.

              It’s the “let’s cut stuff – BUT NOT THIS STUFF” that creates this problem. No consensus will be made – and the country will collapse as Greece is. Under crushing debt and a failing system.

          2. I don’t think they’re ignorant and I don’t think they’re keeping quiet about it. I think they’re proud and gloating while stomping on the generations they’ve extracted the better deal from. If they could take everything from everyone else in the world, any avg. one of them would probably do so and then yell, “Ha-ha!” at all the naked and starving remainder of humanity.

  14. Anybody home?

    For months now we have been told…

    …and some of us were delusional enough to listen and believe.

  15. It seems clear the ‘establishment’ of the GOP are fully backing Romney at this point. They know Gingrich and Santorum are unelectable and they don’t want Ron Paul rocking the boat. They’re playing it safe by nominating someone who, for all his big talk, has no intention of changing a thing in Washington.

    1. If by “establishment” you mean the voters, yes. They are the ones who are, you know, doing the voting. This much is clear.

      1. Who votes is not important – it’s who counts the votes that is important.

        And I’m beginning to believe the conspiracy theories now. Something underhanded appears to be going on with the vote count in Nevada.

        1. Yep, those heavily Mormon counties along the Utah border couldn’t possibly have gone for Romney.

          The truth is out there!

          1. Stupid Establishment!

            [stamps foot, weeps]

      2. Unfortunately the Paul worshippers will never accept that. There has to be a grand conspiracy behind his unpopularity.

        Mind you, I like Ron Paul, and barring a Gingrich/Santorum comeback threat will vote for him in the PA primary. But he was never going to win, conspiracy or otherwise. The GOP base hates his foreign policy and drug stances, and he’s simply not a skilled enough politician to overcome that.

        That said, his campaign is 10x more competent than they were in 2008. But it’s not going to be enough.

        1. Tulpa, do you know when I hate you most – when you are right.

          1. Thanks. Like any gadfly, I thrive on opprobrium.

  16. Obama and Romney are so closely alike in all things policy-wise that it makes perfect sense these are the two candidates. Vote for either one we are doomed.

    If you are slighlty inclined to raise taxes on upper incomes, vote Romney. If you want to bomb more countries, vote Obama. Otherwise, flip a coin.

    1. Obama and Romney are so closely alike in all things policy-wise

      …such as…


        1. LOL

          Whatever Romney says, his policies will pretty much be the same as Obama’s, just as Obama’s was pretty much the same as Bush’s. There may be some little difference in terms of tax rates, but the spending (which is the real “taxation”) will be pretty much the same, despite what Romney says. Romney already expressed support for throwing American citizens in prison forever based on unproven charges of terrorism. Romney has Obama’s fallacious idea that trade is a zero-sum game. Despite what Romney says about Obamacare, he likes the idea (how could he not like his own idea?), and will perhaps fiddle around the edges a bit, but won’t take any drastic efforts to end it or anything.

          1. Both Bush and Obama gave the legislature and civil service a great deal of rein in exchange for support (or lack of opposition) for some limited set of goals.

            Further suspect that the civil service has gotten much of what they wanted from Obama by knowing how to play upon his prejudices.

            I expect that this phenomenon will continue with Romney.

            I will be very pleasantly surprised if Romney curbs anything in a meaningful manner. It’s probably academic, honestly, I don’t think he’s got a whelk’s chance in a supernova of beating Obama.

    2. So were Bush and Kerry in 04. And Obama and McCain in 08. Seems like America gets the same policies no matter what, only the team that enacts them changes.

  17. Yes Garrett, In your make believe world where half the US population suddenly turned into Libertarians, Paul’s results would be considered disappointing. But in the real world where 80% of the US population could not explain just what exactly a Libertarian is, a 76-year old with halting speech and college age supporters, is doing much better nationally than any one could have ever predicted. (10 months ago all I heard was Paul represented only 5-7% of the GOP) He’s doing far better than any other Libertarian in US history. One suspects his message wrapped in a younger, more handsome, more smooth talking politician and he would do much better still. Paul’s vote totals from 2008 to 2012 show solid, gradual improvement to the Liberty movement so far:

    2008: 9.9%
    2012: 21.4%

    New Hampshire
    2008: 7.7%
    2012: 22.9%

    South Carolina
    2008: 3.6%
    2012: 12.9%

    2008: 3.2%
    2012: 7.0%

    2008 13.7%
    2012 18.7% (est)

    1. We’re Doing Better Than Expected!?

    2. This article is way premature in being put out there with a title like this. This is something that the MSM would put out there to belittle Dr. Paul. I just subscribed to this Mag. 4 months ago and if this is the kinda of crap reporting that you are going to put out there for me to read, I am going to cancel my subscription.

      As vindex60 shows above Paul has gained in % and the counting has not been completed. To state also a distant 3rd is unacceptable also being in that he is less than 1000 votes behing Newt.

      1. You forgot to say that it was better under Postrel.

        1. It was, of course, but since everybody knows that, what’s to remember?

      2. I am going to cancel my subscription.

        Whoa son, it is way to early to be drinking. Can we at least hold off until game-time.


          Also, I have never had mead while playing Skyrim, and I have a bottle in the fridge. Mead is fucking delicious.

          1. You should try home brewed mead.

            1. Links, por favor?

              I get shit from Meadery of the Rockies for now.

              1. I don’t have any links. I got my recipe from a medieval food historian when I was in graduate school. Straight from the manuscripts. SHit is the nectar of the gods.

                I made 5 gallons in the first batch (named Feorst Bach), and we’re down to just 1 bottle. It was bottled in March of 2003, and I’ll likely drink it on the 10 year anniversary.

                1. And it rolls in at about 13% alcohol by volume.

                  1. All that said, this link ought to give you a starting point. If you email me I can give you the recipe I was given.

                    The process takes longer than home brewed beer, but it’s worth it (especially since I loathe beer).

                2. Sure you will.

          2. I am an accomplished meadmaker. I would be happy to answer any of your questions. You can send email to the address attached to my handle.

            1. Which honeys do you like?

              I may be partial (being born and raised in So FL and all), but I REALLY dig Orange Blossom from Florida. It’s light and makes for a wonderful mead.

              Orange blossom is also the only honey that takes on any of the characteristics from the plant the flowers are on. The citrus oils are so pungent that it makes it way in to the flowers and the resulting honey. I wouldn’t say that it tastes like oranges at all, but there is definitely a citrusy undertone.

              About 15 lbs for 5 gallons ought to do ya. Maybe a shade more because it’s really light and thin.

              1. I find Orange Blossom to be one of the most disappointing honeys when made into mead. I has a great aroma when coming out of the jar, but none of it seems to carry through to the final product.

                If you want to fixate on Florida Honey, you should set you sights on Tupelo which is one of my all time favorites.

                I have used with great success: Tupelo, Fireweed, Buckwheat, Tulip Poplar, Goldenrod, Blueberry, Blackberry, Raspberry, Cranberry, and a Clover/Black-Locust blend.

                1. I no longer live in FL and would be more interested in honeys from my adopted home of KY. Alfalfa honey i likely the way to go in order to stay local.

                  1. check out the honey locator at the National Honey Board.


                    Search for suppliers by type and by state.

                    I’m a big fan of the site.

      3. Garrett Quinn, Go and work for Fox news, Time Magazine or Newsweek, they I am sure would love your slant on the POTUS primary elections.

        What are you going to say if Paul ends up in second at the end of the day? Paul supporters stuffed the ballot box and is guilty of voter fraud?

        1. Scott, are you leaving before SF gets a chance to scar you?

        2. Here come the Paul worshippers.

        3. Does anyone else here hate people who say “POTUS”?

          1. Not like people hate on SCotUS.

            1. I say POTUS,
              You say SCOTUS…
              Let’s call the whole thing off.

          2. At least one of them was a worthy object of such: FDR. It was a code he used for the office.

        4. This could get ugly, Scott.

      4. You should have seen it when Virginia Postrel was here. Those were the days.

        1. The unrealistic emphasis on ideas…
          The dearth of snarky piffle…


          Good riddance, Ginny!

    3. Then why the fuck were you Paul worshippers talking about how he was going to own in Nevada for the past week?

      Losing to Gingrich, who had no presence in the state whatsoever, is a fucking embarrassment. And unless Paul got like 40% of the remaining votes, he’s not going to catch Newt, so quit whining about it being “premature”.

      1. It is always interesting to see people reply to someone that supports Paul with curse words to show their opinion.

        Also to have a reporter say that a candidate limped into 3rd when voting is not finalized is irresponsible.

        Who are you planning on voting for and are you doing anything in supporting him?

        Why is it that we are called “worshippers” when all we are doing is supporting a person that promotes liberty and the Constitution and are hoping for a better future for our children. At least you know where Dr. Paul stands and if you don’t like him don’t vote for him.

        Sounds like we will be at in another conflict in the next few months anyway with Iran. All it will do is put us further in debt and cause more people to want to do us harm.

        Could care less on the teams playing in the Superbowl this year but it’s time to drink a few beers with friends and support a team with a name that I can appreciate, GO Patriots!

        1. I’ll probably vote for Johnson in Nov (assuming he’s the Lib nominee). I may vote a straight L ticket, since it is plain enough that the Repubs have no use for people that believe in liberty.

        2. It is always interesting to see people reply to someone that supports Paul with curse words to show their opinion.

          You obviously don’t come around h&r much. We reply to questions about the weather with curse words. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

        3. As I stated above, unless there’s a danger of a Santorum comeback I’m voting for Paul in the PA primary.

          I refer by “Paul worshippers” to those who react to the slightest criticism of RP with flaming vitriol and who react to Paul defeats with accusations of Establishment conspiracies.

          If you don’t think Ron Paul fucked up* with his management (or lack thereof) of the newsletters bearing his name, you’re a worshipper. You can support him AND admit he’s made some huge mistakes AND admit his message is not, in the final analysis, popular.

          Politics is the art of compromise, and black-and-white thinkers aren’t well-suited to it.

          * apologies for the language, but that’s how I roll.

          1. I don’t think he fucked up, just that he didn’t think at the time that he’d be running for president again. Nobody at the time thought he was racist, but people who had followed his career tended to think he’d sunk into cynicism and was just milking the hard money crowd.

            1. A man’s essence is defined by what he does when he thinks no one is looking.

              I prefer to think Dr Paul’s essence is absent-minded overtrust rather than cynical exploitation.

              1. Mitt Romney fucking goats in his garage defines him then?

                1. That’s absent-minded overtrust, not absent-minded overthrust, Soooo!

          2. Got it. I don’t worship and he has had issues but is the only one that can save the GOP. Not that I care about them since until I got it the the last year I voted for the lessor of 2 evils at least in my opinion. This year it will be Paul, write in Paul or Johnson.

            We are screwed…but I can always hope??

            Langauge not problem when it’s backed by sound thought..

            Just hoping for a future for my children and future grandchildren…..Peace! Please..

            1. Huh, who’s the candidate who’s been leasing a couple of evils?

    4. Also remember that reporting both before and during the NV caucuses was that Ron Paul was only going to get 9% of the vote.

  18. Well, time to get hammered and watch the Super Bowl. People are authoritarian dick wads, and the Ron Paul moment won’t come until we are so broke that we can’t support an empire.

    Also, I apologize for John and MNG this morning. In the immortal words of everyone, “WHAT HAVE I DONE?”

    On a happier note, has anyone tried Batch 19, the Pre-Prohibition style lager yet? It is quite excellent.

    1. You mean the new beer by MillerCoors. No, it isn’t available here.

      1. Is it by MillerCoors? Damn, they have started to make not total shit beer.

        1. Also, it is a good sign that microbrews are pushing the big boys in a good direction, though with Blue Moon and Batch 19 Miller Coors is doing better than InBev.

          1. InBev has bought-up lots of great craft breweries. You need to see the movie Beer Wars.


          2. InBev owns Goose Island. That is far better than anything MolsonCoors or SABMiller has done (MillerCoors is co-owned by those two, lets use the real names).

  19. Sadly, not even the positive, politically transcendent message of Ron Paul can apparently overcome Newt Gingrich’s megalomania and the fact that most voters are morons. I’m hoping he wins Maine just so he can put that feather in his cap and that Shitorum drops out after Tuesday.

  20. Who knows what the final vote will be but I think its obvious Paul would have taken another 5-7 counties in NV if Romney wasn’t a Mormon…

    1. 5-7 counties? There are only 17 in the state and only a few have a large Mormon population. I don’t think so.

      1. if Romney wasn’t a Mormon…

        Stupid political realities!

        1. Seven percent of the total Nev population if I recall correctly. I suppose if they vote for their religion that explains Reid too.

    2. Romney got a smaller percentage of the vote this year than in 2008. I don’t think the Mormon voters are a big issue.

      What makes me suspect fraud is that Gingrich is doing well.

      1. I suspect there are a lot of anti-Mormons in Nevada too, for the same reason you find a lot more racism against blacks and Latin Americans in the US than you do in Europe.

      2. This is what I find questionable; Gingrich, from what I was reading, had only a slapdash campaign going on in NV. That he could come in second place is weird. Either:
        1. People just don’t like the liberty message and/or Ron Paul’s delivery of it
        2. Talk Radio pumped Gingrich up enough to counteract his poor NV campaign efforts
        3. There is vote fraud going on.

        Perhaps it is a combination of one or more of the above…

        1. Gingrich, from what I was reading, had only a slapdash campaign going on in NV. That he could come in second place is weird. Either:
          1. People just don’t like the liberty message

          You could stop right there. About 20% of the Republican primary voters are libertarian leaning right now. That’s about all Paul can expect to get in any state, plus or minus a bit.

          Suck it up, that’s reality.

          1. When only 5-7% of them were libertarian leaning in 2008, Paul pulled nearly 20% in states like Maine. Are you saying that he won’t improve significantly on that as he has improved on every vote percentage so far?

  21. No Puppy Bowl thread?

    1. I think that the puppies are perpetually going, “What the fuck?” during that whole thing

    2. Played in Korea this year! Should be interesting.

  22. Paul, with his devoted legions, was supposed to thrive in this tediously complex low turnout environment.

    The reason Obama is president now is largely due to swing-voters being sick of the WoT and Iraq circa 2008.

    In 2008, Paul offered an option to people who were sick of the war but wary of Obama’s economic ideas.

    War radicalizes people on both sides, both for and against, and without that anti-war impetus, Paul’s just not drawing as well.

    I suppose the good news is that Obama won’t benefit from anti-war impetus in the general election either, but that won’t help Paul.

    1. Er…but Paul’s getting higher percentages.

  23. Welcome our noble unlimited term president.

  24. Hello troops,
    I’m sure you are all aware that it is Superbowl Sunday, and we all need to be extra vigilant today. If you see something, say something. Here is a list of things we all need to be watching out for:

    suspicious activities

    Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of others

    Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities

    Are observed switching SIM cards in cell phone or use of multiple cell phones

    Travel illogical distance to use Internet Caf?

    Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)

    Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address

    Suspicious or coded writings, use of code word sheets, cryptic ledgers, etc.

    Encryption or use of software to hide encrypted data in digital photos, etc.

    Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game

    Request specific room assignments or locations.

    Use cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else’s name.

    Arrive with unusual amounts of luggage.

    Make unusual inquiries about local sites, including government, military, police, communications, and power facilities

    Refuse cleaning service over an extended time.

    Use entrances and exits that avoid the lobby.

    Abandon a room and leave behind clothing and toiletry items.

    Do not leave their room.

    Okay, now try to keep that all in mind. Go out there, and have some fun!

    1. Go read accounts from people who traveled in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 80s and marvel at the similarities in the governments’ warnings and restrictions.

      Unbelievable. Especially for a country that got significantly hit, what, three times? (1993 WTC Bombing, 1995 OKC, 9/11…a few isolated shit-heads’ attempts after that.) This isn’t Israel we’re talking about. Or Moscow with the Chechens.

      1. OKC wasn’t the work of a terrorist organization, but an dangerous loner. So it really doesn’t fit the mold they’re “preventing”.

        1. I tend to those who think that McVeigh/Nichols had help. Thought I’d read that Nichols was in Cebu City at the exact time Ramzi Yusif was, which, if true, strikes me as a pretty big coincidence.

          Regardless, even if you count OKC as an the work of a lone nut, it’s still a successful attack with a large bomb. And the type of successful attack these DHS regs are supposed to prevent. Even with OKC in the loss column though, the regs are still overkill for the U.S. at this time, IMHO.

    2. Hell, I do at least these items virtually every time I stay at a hotel:

      Evidence of a residential based internet provider (signs on to Comcast, AOL, etc.)

      Checking your email via a web portal is suspicious?

      Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game

      Skyping is suspicious?

      Request specific room assignments or locations.

      Wanting to be away from large groups of chilluns or close to the elevator is suspicious?

      Use cash for large transactions or a credit card in someone else’s name.

      Using legal tender is suspicious?

      Refuse cleaning service over an extended time.

      Not wanting housekeeping to fuck with your shit is suspicious?

      Use entrances and exits that avoid the lobby.

      Wanting to avoid the most crowded part of a hotel is suspicious?

      1. I didn’t even know the real Janet Napolitano posted in Hit and Run!

        1. “I forgot to add this one: Posting on sites that criticize DHS. All you assholes are now under suspicion.”

          1. All you assholes are now under suspicion

            Took you long enough…

  25. As a whole, they do not understand [social security’s] insolvency and will not voluntarily give the goodies up.

    They understand it just fine. They’re not voting for it to go away because they’ve been putting money in for 40 years and they want that money back. The younger generation can just suck it up and fork over the cash.

  26. Limps to third even though 30% of the votes remain uncounted? TOTAL FRAUD!

    1. You mean 29%. He’s 4% behind Gingrich. He’d need to beat Newt by 9% on the remaining votes, which he hasn’t done anywhere else in the state, to catch him.

      1. Just fyi: There are 29% of the precincts left to be counted. They’re in Clark County (i.e., Las Vegas) and comprise far more than 29% of the actual vote total.

        1. Thank you people like Tulpa, for your unrelenting cynicism (that is a compliment, not an insult). And thank you people like TomD, for your unrelenting informed optimism.

          Fingers crossed.

  27. So I was just at a Star Wars modeling site, and fucking fuckitty fuck, how the fuck do those people do it? I’m now going to dedicate myself to learn modeling and make a model of Ron Paul, just for the hell of it.

    1. I’m a model if you know what I mean
      And I do my little speech at the lectern
      At the lectern, at the lectern yeah
      I shake my libertarianism at the lectern

      1. I’m a doctor if you know what I mean
        And I do my little speech at the lectern
        At the lectern, at the lectern yeah
        I promise liberty on the lectern

        It has a more accurate cadence than your version.

  28. This is the first time in a while I have read a Ron Paul article on here that doesn’t fellate him and insist that he is destined for a close second nationally, if not first. And — surprise! — it’s also the first time in a while that the Ron Paul article hasn’t been written by Bryan Doherty. I hope he’s at home, sobbing and thinking about suicide while hugging a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

    1. I agree!!

      Moar Newt Romney!!

      The Ultimate Conservative!

    2. You’re an asshole…and Doherty should never write about Ron Paul (or anything else) again. His child-like pollyanism just looks hilarious then sad in retrospect.

  29. Indy hot dog vendors on Orange Alert

    As reported in the Daily Mail, suspicious activity that trainees were taught to look for when the Giants meet the Patriots in Indianapolis later today includes wearing a hooded sweatshirt, using a video camera, driving a van, and using a recording device on a cell phone.

    I don’t know if he drives a van, but Bill “Spygate Jedi” Belichik better be careful around the hot dog venders.

    1. Along with everyone with an iPhone or Android phone.

  30. Sad to say, I think some of us need to wake the fuck up.

    It’s not that RP isn’t a “slick” politician, or that he doesn’t speak well (disproven by thousands of youtube videos), or that people don’t “really understand” his platform.

    The GOP base understands. And they don’t want it, period. They fully recognize the double-standards of wanting “smaller” gov’t but continuing the DoD buildup and the WoD. They know the implications, but they choose to continue wanting forever war, and they choose to continue locking up nasty minorities and threatening young people for doing something they themselves probably did in the past.

    Mostly they choose not to confront the fact that they’re stupid as hell for having bought into the medicare/SS fantasy for so long. Ignore what they say, and look at how they vote. They will not give up their benes, anti-socialist small gov’t ideology be damned.

    The vast majority of people understand RP’s platform, but they actively do not want liberty for themselves, or anyone else. Looked at though that light, all of the voting results so far make perfect sense.

    1. one of the first sensible posts i have seen. cheers

      one of the most common canards here (and elsewhere) is when people say (i see this from progressives all the time) “if only people were as smart as us (or know what we know), they would believe what we believe politically”…

      this is SO common amongst progressives, but also sadly common amongst libertarians

      the truth is, in general, it’s not a matter of being better informed that leads us to different political views. it is more often a matter of, to paraphrase thomas sowell, a conflict of visions.

      we , to a large extent, accept DIFFERENT premises, that necessarily lead to different conclusions, and we also weigh tradeoffs, and do the game theory thing with different weightings, resulting in different conclusions

      one hysterical poster here, says that if somebody doesn’t agree that all drugs should be legal, etc. they are a “fascist”. i can’t remember if it was epi or sloopy, but it doesn’t really matter

      that’s great, but it’s just dismissive name calling, steeped in elitism

      the fact is, we can win small battles (like in the war on marijuana), but this purity test, my way is the only way, everybody else is a fascist if they don’t agree with me attitude, is typical of losers, and it will only make the struggle more difficult

      this is also typified in the perfect is the enemy of the good losers who constantly whinge about medical mj, when in fact, medical MJ has VASTLY increased personal freedoms. sure, it has warts, and it’s not legalization, but the REALITY is, in a med mj state, anybody with a pulse and a LITTLE effort can get legal medical MJ. in many respects, it’s easier than getting a gun permit to carry.

      but it isn’t good for the purists.

      gojira, you are right.

      fwiw, i know a lot of cops who support RP. NOT because of the WOD stuff (many are against the war on pot, but the idea of legalizing meth, etc. not at at all), but because of the federalism stuff, the anti-war stuff, etc.

      pragmatism is the call of the day. it rubs ideologues the wrong way, but it’s how you win, in situations like this

      1. Dunphy, the way any political movement shifts society in its direction requires both the radicals providing the compass and coalition builders advancing things on the margins.

        Without the radicals to keep them honest, one will get absurdities like libertarians that think the state should dictate what people put into their bodies.

      2. I should have thrown the WoDV in there, as well, considering it probably impacts more people than the WoD and is laregely a bipartisan effort.

        1. yea. and the operative difference is that the WODV affects far more innocents, and has fewer due process protections.

          also, the WODV incites the media to frothy excess, much like cases of alleged cop brutality or racial profiling.


          because both the war on DV and the alleged cases of brutality/racial profiling involve an “oppressor” against a victim class.

          in DV’s, it’s evil big burly men vs. victim-women

          in the cop stuff, it’s powerful armed jackbooted govt. thugs vs. innocent “citizens”, doubly so when those citizens are darker hued. extra good victimology narrative

          such narratives invite the media to throw scrutiny out the window

          that’s why the DV superbowl sunday MYTH to this DAY still gets traction. similarly. with alleged brutality/racial profiling, it fits the preferred metanarrative – underdog vs. oppressor

          in both cases, truth is the casualty and the media doesn’t seek answers. it seeks hysteria.

          that’s how the super bowl myth kept repeating itself and STILL does.

          1. Domestic violence is not a victimless crime. I have no prob with a war on that.

            1. the problem with a war on it is that people’s rights are being restricted, due process is being restricted, innocents have their freedoms shredded, etc.

              and like other wars, truth is the first casualty.

              i am 100% against domestic violence. duh

              it doesn’t therefore follow that shredding people’s civil, and in some cases, constitutional rights to fight it is a good thing.

              i’m against murderers, too, tulpa. it doesn’t mean we should eliminate accused murderer’s rights

              can you grok that opposing X, does not mean that shredding rights in the war against X is a good thing?

            2. oh, and also one of the cornerstones of the war on DV is prosecuting in many cases against (alleged) victim’s wishes and issuing protective orders against victim’s wishes. in that respect, many DV cases *are* victimless crimes. the “victim” is the state, and the state WILL press charges (unlike in the vast majority of other assaults, threats, etc.) even with noncooperative, nondesirous “victims”.

              and on a lesser standard of evidence, and with less due process

              1. So because the victim doesn’t want to prosecute, there’s no victim? That’s what a “victimless crime” requires.

                There are plenty of reasons victims of any crime might not want to prosecute. Stockholm syndrome with kidnappings. Codependency issues with domestic violence. etc. Doesn’t matter — the state has to step in to ensure that rights-violating behavior is punished.

                1. the state has to step in to ensure that rights-violating behavior is punished.

                  Wow…. just wow…

                  1. I know you have an issue with rights violations being punished in an orderly fashion rather than by familial blood feuds. It’s surprising that you’d be surprised that I think so.

                    Unless your surprise is due to not thinking domestic violence violates rights, in which case… wow.

                    1. And, you are, once again, completely wrong. Poor tulpa, batting .000 today.

                      I don’t think punishing people is at all important. I want to see victims made whole. If a victim doesn’t want someone arrested – it’s probable that the arrest will leave the victim worse off.

                      Your insistence that the perpetrator should be punished regardless of the further harm it might do to the victim is a terrible idea.

                      Not only does it harm victims, it makes things worse in other areas. Victims of abuse fear getting help because they don’t want their abuser arrested. People forego medical care rather than bring a family member to the attention of the police. The police face more hostility when they show up at violent altercations.

                      You really should pay attention to dunphy’s impassioned pleas to get VAWA repealed.

                    2. There are plenty of bad parts of VAWA and the Lautenberg Amendment etc. I’m not defending the entirety of domestic violence legislation.

                      I am however standing up for the fact that it is a real, victimful crime, unlike drug use/possession/distribution.

                      Allowing victims to decide whether prosecution occurs means the domestic abuser just has to get to the victim after the fact.

                      Victims of abuse fear getting help because they don’t want their abuser arrested. People forego medical care rather than bring a family member to the attention of the police.

                      You don’t seriously think that it is sustainable to turn the police into some sort of toothless pro wrestling ref, called in when the abuser gets out of hand again and again with no punishments ever applied to discourage this behavior.

                    3. Sounds like you just hate individual freedom of choice, if the person in question makes a choice (not wanting to drag family into the criminal justice system, choosing to stay with an abuser, etc.) that you don’t personally approve of.

                    4. And, you are, once again, completely wrong. Poor tulpa, batting .000 today.

                      Whereas tarran will bury you with his powers of condescension and sophist clucking.

                      I don’t think punishing people is at all important. I want to see victims made whole. If a victim doesn’t want someone arrested – it’s probable that the arrest will leave the victim worse off.

                      Thanks Dr. Phil could you give us some citation for this assertion and if you’ve ever heard of ‘battered wife syndrome’?

                    5. not all of them are VICTIM crimes, tulpa

                      when the judge issues an order AGAINST the “victim’s wishes”, the right to free association is quashed

                      and without good money for a good lawyer, it is almost impossible for the person to get the order lifted

                      by law, i MUST make an arrest for any DV order violation

                      i had one where i saw two street people drinking on the curb. i got their names and checked them for warrants. gave em a warning for the liquor in public

                      guess what. he had a no contact order against her, because 9 months ago she had been arrested for DV assault against him. the case was dropped. the order remained

                      he couldn’t get it lifted

                      she got arrested AGAINST his wishes, against common sense (they were happily chillin’), but i had NO choice under the law

                      those arrests are amongst the very few that legally require arrest

                    6. woah. i didn’t say repeat VAWA. i think VAWA has some issues. it needs fixin’ but lets not put words in my mouth. i didn’t say to repeal it.

                      clearly, the situation pre VAWA NEEDED fixin, but like most things, the pendulum swung TOO far and needs correcting

                2. tulpa, in many of these cases, the “victim” does not FEEL like a victim. for example, a poor woman who can’t afford a lawyer can’t get a JUDGE issued protective order lifted. therefore, everytime her bf comes over, if the cops find out (neighbors rat her out etc.) it’s a MANDATORY arrest

                  it eliminates the right to free association

                  that is one example.

                  another is when a petitioner gets an order for protection, eliminating a person’s RKBA they do not get (free) legal representation like in a criminal trial and NO CRIME NEEDS BE PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt, just that the woman has reason to be afraid, by a preponderance, and only a judge makes that determination

      3. “fwiw, i know a lot of cops who support RP. NOT because of the WOD stuff (many are against the war on pot, but the idea of legalizing meth, etc. not at at all), but because of the federalism stuff, the anti-war stuff, etc.”

        …opposition to the Civil Rights Act, right to an attorney, Miranda rights, etc.

  31. Are there really that many libertarians who think Republicans would see the light of libertarianism if only we had a slicker politician? We’ve been saying for years that dems & repubs are two sides of the same coin. Both sides want to reduce the size of the government when the other side is in power, and we get all hot and bothered about it, but all they’ve been saying is they want to reduce the size of the other side’s programs, not government overall. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want smaller government on the whole. The dems want less (of some) wars and the repubs want less (of some) social programs.

    Neither of the major parties is a good fit for libertarians, no matter what bullshit rhetoric they come up with to get us to vote their way this time.

    1. Are there really that many libertarians who think Republicans would see the light of libertarianism if only we had a slicker politician?

      You see that in the comments section here all the freaking time.

      “Oh Ron Paul isn’t a good speaker” (implying that if he were a better speaker, somehow things would be different).

      And “Oh, well the reps are bad, but the dems are worse” (implying that we’re ideological cousins with republicans).

      Hell here in a couple of months you’ll be treated to the sight of 1/3 of the regulars beginning to explain why we really should vote for Romney because even if it isn’t perfect TEAM RED > TEAM BLUE.

      1. imo, team RED > team BLUE. but team libertarian is better than either. it just holds almost no chance of winning a presidential race.

        that aside, assuming arguendo one does not think red > blue, it is pretty clear that GIVEN a team blue congress, a team red prez is preferable (and vice versa) since they tend to partially cancel each other out in terms of statist actions, and obstruct each other

        that’s a good thing, because the less cooperation we get, the less govt. excess we get

      2. A libertarian-at-heart candidate who soft-peddled some of the more extreme (from the conservative POV) libertarian stances would actually have a good shot at getting the nom in the GOP.

        For instance, if you had someone who said we shouldn’t legalize drugs but the war on drugs was being carried out in a far too overzealous manner, I don’t think conservatives would react badly. And that position, if implemented in policy, would be the best drug policy at the federal level since the 1970s.

        Or if you said that we absolutely do not want Iran to get a nuke, but we had to be careful about what we did to prevent that, with force being a last resort and certainly not “automatic” as Romney/Gingrich/Santorum say it should be, would also not provoke the reaction Paul’s comments about how Iran has a right to pursue nukes have.

        Unfortunately, libertarians tend to be very black-and-white and unpragmatic. Also, the political system we have ensures that to become a successful politician, you almost have to be an unrepentant statist.

        1. The means used to achieve any end really matter… Externally it may not be visible but, for an individual, sacrificing integrity has its costs. I suppose that’s one reason Ron Paul isn’t more pragmatic, if you assume pragmatism to mean advancing his political career or getting the nomination. I dislike when some people (not necessarily you) refer to him as though he’s a tool for the advancement of their favored ideas or Libertarianism in general, disregarding reality for the sake of their vicarious aspirations.

          1. Since when is lying at least a little to get a job sacrificing integrity? I don’t know if I’d ever have gotten the teaching gig that I had for 8 years if I hadn’t said I’d previously taught a course at a college that had shut down since. And now I don’t even have to lie about my teaching experience.

            We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you. It’s what the customer expects, and there’s nothing wrong with it unless you take it to extremes.

            1. So as long as it works to your advantage, it’s not a loss of integrity? That’s not sensible at all.

              We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you. It’s what the customer expects

              The customer expects low prices. If they knew about the cheating they might stop buying from you. There’s a reason McDonalds and Walmart don’t want the methods of obtaining product publicized.

              1. I should clarify; in my example I think the candidate would be sacrificing integrity. But I don’t consider integrity to be a paramount value like others here do.

              2. No, it’s not a matter of whether it works to your advantage, but of what people expect of you. People are expected to lie on resumes, politicians are expected to lie about what they think, etc.

              3. McDonald’s and WalMart steal their goods??!

            2. I don’t expect nor want anyone to cheat anyone… The fact that people often do bothers me. I wouldn’t concede to that trend for obvious reasons. Manipulation and deception have negative consequences – I don’t believe that needs to be explained.

              As for personal use of deception and the results thereof… I could argue that it has negative consequences in all cases but I don’t feel like it. Obviously it can have positive consequences too and individuals will compare the expected results to the extent they are able and willing. There are no universal or moral laws to govern human behavior, so to each his own.

              Oh, and to answer your first question: Since always, to the extent that people have held honesty to be a desirable moral principle. I’ve had enough experience with various cowards and manipulators to have a strong distaste for such behavior.

              Anyway, I wouldn’t say honesty is always best. But, to conclude this, in the case of Ron Paul and his campaign I would say that repeatedly lying and intentionally deceiving the populace to gain popularity would be sacrificing his integrity, and that there would be personal costs for him doing so.

              1. The ancients taught their children to be good liars.

          2. If RP isn’t a tool for advancing libertarianism, what good is he? He’s just an cranky old scatterbrained obstetrician with some goofy monetary theories in that case.

            1. The beautiful thing is that he deserves the right to be completely useless. This is a fundamental God-given right and Americans practice it patriotically near every day in all affairs.

              1. So does the homeless guy who eats the expired yogurt cups in the dumpster behind the grocery store.

                That doesn’t mean I’m going to venture online to defend his honor.

                1. sounds like a fine American; I’m sure he is morally opposed to government-sponsored expired yogurt cups

      3. “Oh Ron Paul isn’t a good speaker” (implying that if he were a better speaker, somehow things would be different).

        Wait — you genuinely don’t think that if there were a figure with Paul’s exact background and principles — the voting record, the philosophy, the consistency, integrity, etc. — but with the presence and communication skills of, say, Reagan, that it would be any different?

        Paul is a great idea man, maybe even a great man. But he’s not a great communicator — something even his own campaign staff concedes.

        1. yup.

          and it DOES matter. look at the diference between reaction to the radio and tv viewers in the kennedy-nixon debates

          1. The truth is that style is at least 60% of communication and it almost always trumps substance. Libertarians hate that idea, but it is true.

            1. It’s not ‘style’ that causes people like Mitt and Newt to succeed. It’s the fact that they, and the media supporting them, pander to irrational whims which most people prefer not to analyze and correct.

              Cos that’d be hard and might feel bad. Wah.

              Mitt and Newt are not motivated by a desire for honesty in politics, fairness in legislation or adherence to principles. They merely use ‘style’ as a means of increasing their lies’ efficacy. Most people don’t give a lot of attention to economic theory or the basic principles in philosophy from which it’s derived. So without knowledge of the right decisions, they just pick the decisions that feel right. Such dispositions are easy for the establishment to exploit, and not so good for dissenters like Ron. Choosing to change his style would accomplish little.

              1. ..Because it would do little to change people’s deeply entrenched habits, which cause atrocities like voting for amoral douches and turds.

              2. Look, I would love to live in a country that picks presidents based strictly on their ideas (specifically, ideas that involve getting the fuck out of our lives). But we don’t live in that country. We live in a country where women get to vote. (Add rimshot here; it’s just a joke; don’t flame me.)

                You’re fooling yourself if you think style doesn’t play a part. It’s weird to even have to explain this on a political forum — it’s such a given that looks, demeanor and even stuff like vocal pitch have a major impact on voters, I’m surprised somebody would actually argue it.

                You’re right that they pander to irrational whims. But there’s a lot more to it than that.

                Indeed, I’d say that’s one of the things that makes Ron Paul’s story that much more remarkable and gratifying: His political success has come despite his surface shortcomings, which speaks a lot about the potency of his ideas and the value of his personal integrity.

                1. Above was addressed to ryan, in case the threading seemed vague.

                2. I understand what you’re saying, but my point is basically that if Ron Paul wants people’s reaction to his ideas to decide whether he wins or lose, the most style could do is increase their receptivity to those ideas.

                  Most politicians use style to obfuscate reality. Ron Paul has no desire to do that (or he’s just really bad at it), and he couldn’t/wouldn’t use style to a great extent because he’d be limited by his honesty and the need to express his ideas fully. In the debates, for example, there’s hardly enough time for him to both express his ideas and throw in a bunch of pretty words. For him, using style means a trade-off for receptivity at the expense of content.

                  Furthermore, I contend that the receptivity gained through such means is mostly superficial and would have merely a marginal benefit. It’s worth considering but it’s still very important that he gives his ideas the air time they deserve while he has people’s attention.

                  1. Speaking of a hypothetical candidate, you’d be right to wish for better delivery than Paul gives. I’m mainly giving this ^ under the present circumstances.

                3. there is no country on earth, btw, where people pick presidents strictly based on their ideas.

                  and btw, *i* don’t think it’s only about ideas. it’s also about leadership quality, diplomacy qualities, etc.

                  but it shouldn’t be about who is cuter, and that IS a huge part of it

                  and other stuff like that

              3. It’s not ‘style’ that causes people like Mitt and Newt to succeed. It’s the fact that they, and the media supporting them, pander to irrational whims which most people prefer not to analyze and correct.

                In case you hadn’t noticed, neither on of them is doing well. Total republican primary votes are 10%-20% less than they were in 2008 at this point, which is really remarkable considering how demoralized republicans were in 08 and how motivated they should be now. And Willard is winning primaries with a lower percentage than he got in ’08. Newt is only “succeeding” as the anti-Romney, and even so has won one of five primaries.

                The only rational conclusion is that about half the die hard republicans are resigned to the inevitability of Romney while the other half hates his guts and will vote for almost anyone else.

                As far as the question of style over substance, how the fuck do you explain the Obama presidency as anything other than the triumph of style.

                1. I’d call that success considering how shit-awful they are…

                2. As far as the question of style over substance, how the fuck do you explain the Obama presidency as anything other than the triumph of style.

                  That he was running against McCain?

                  1. Also, he used the same deception politicians usually do. My point wasn’t that style is ineffective, it’s that it only serves a limited purpose and that the primary motive is still the same in most cases, i.e. deception.

                    1. all warfare is based on deception – sun tsu

                      and politics is … warfare (kind of )

        2. If he says the things Ron Paul says about Iran and drugs? No.

          Saying those more eloquently might actually hurt him.

          1. not if he explains that the VAST majority of drug law arrests are made under state law.

            iow, he can’t end the drug war, but under a RP regime, the FEDERAL drug war engine would be severely dismantled

            he can explain that won’t affect a state and its state and local cops’ ability to fight drug houses, etc.

            except from a funding aspect.

            1. You think GOP voters in South Carolina and Florida would be OK with the feds ending drug enforcement in Cali if that state legalizes drugs?

              I don’t.

              1. Especially since the vast majority of the funding for state sanctioned drug war activities is provided by the fed gov.

                Even if states continue the drug war, they would have to severely limit it without federal funding.

              2. really? their judges could give their dopers a choice… jail or a free ticket to california.

                don’t laugh. when i worked hawaii, we had a fair # of felony warrant subjects (mostly property crime crap) and i consistently heard the same story – that many of them were told if they quietly left for hawaii, california wouldn’t pursue extradition.

                california won by getting a drain on their resources criminal scumbag out of their state

                we lost

          2. Now you’re just getting goofy.

            “Might actually hurt him” implies that he has some number of supporters now who don’t actually understand his positions on those topics, and who thus would abandon him if they did.

            I suspect — no, I’m really frikking positive — that’s not the case.

            In other words, our hypothetical golden-voiced Ron Paul has nowhere to go but up.

            1. “Might actually hurt him” implies that he has some number of supporters people voting for him now who don’t actually understand his positions on those topics, and who thus would abandon him if they did.

              FTFY. It would probably be a small effect, but like I said “might”.

              1. Fair enough.

                I still think the gains from better oratory would outweigh any costs.

                Ron Paul would benefit, for instance, simply by adding some brightness to his rhetoric. Too often he sounds like me — just sitting around bitching about shit — rather than rhapsodizing about why his principles would bring us a glorious tomorrow etc. etc.

              2. It would probably be a small effect, but like I said “might”.


                Two of Paul’s problems this cycle are:

                1) He slips into a cranky professor role too frequently, and no one wants to be lectured to.

                2) He comes across as blaming America for all the worlds problems, including terrorist attacks.

                Those could be remedied, to a great extent, by knowing when to STFU. For example, when he’s asked about Iran getting a nuke say something like of course I’m against it, but I think that going to war would cause more problems and ultimately fail. Pakistan has had nukes for decades and hasn’t given them to AQ and they have had a long term relationship with the taliban and al queda, so I don’t see any reason to believe that Iran would give their premiere weapon to terrorists. Don’t need to rehash the CIA coup in the 50s or talk about blowback or anything else.

                1. Sometimes I think Paul has been embedded in the liberty world for so long, he can take his basic premises for granted, and they wind up left unenunciated.

                  A lot of times in these debates and even stump speeches, it’s like he’s sort of jumping into his argument at second base when he really needs to be starting back at home plate to effectively deliver the point.

                  There are plenty of examples, but one that springs to mind is that he’ll often reference “force” in passing (e.g., while discussing government-run health care). I don’t think that’s sufficient. It flies over most people’s heads, I think, because left unexplained is the basic concept of government being force in the first place. That basic framing is intuitive to Paul; it’s not intuitive to Joe Blow.

                  So he’s using a lot of verbal shorthand that’s instinctive to us libertarians, but which I don’t think automatically clicks for the typical viewer.

                  I mean, yes, he does have some boilerplate lines about “natural rights” and “endowed by our creator, by our humanity,” etc., but I think that’s still insufficient. The next Ron Paul really needs to craft the 60-second soundbite that drives home the “your fist stops at my nose” stuff that lies at the heart of all this.

                  Otherwise, most people interpret his ideas as just that — as this arbitrary assortment of “ideas” and “policies,” some of which they might happen to “like” and some not. He’s got to be able to show how they are all integrated and unified from the single, simple principle of individual liberty and sovereignty.

                  1. (And why that “single, simple principle of individual liberty and sovereignty” is moral and right.)

      4. Whereas, success in the Democratic party requires going completely off the libertarian ranch.

        Contra Mr Anderson, there is a dime’s worth of difference between the parties from a libertarian POV. Maybe even a quarter.

        1. word.

          and i can’t imagine all the nimrods amongst libertarians who supported obama and thought he would improve the civil rights situation aren’t having a “click moment” right about now.

          1. While I voted for Bob Barr, I did think BO would improve things from a foreign policy and civil rights standpoint. How could he be worse, I thought.

            I thought wrong.

            1. While I voted for Bob Barr, I did think BO would improve things from a foreign policy and civil rights standpoint. How could he be worse, I thought.

              I thought wrong.


            2. this is why i can respect you, tulpa. unlike some, you can actually say “i was wrong”

              for the average ideologue, they believe the entire edifice of existence will crash down on their head if they ever make such an admission

          2. I didn’t vote for Obama but thought he would be better civil rights.

            Couldn’t get any worse.

    2. The dems want less (of some) wars [and more of others] and the repubs want less (of some) social programs [and more of others].


    3. Neither of the major parties is a good fit for anyone, but they’re a good compromise for most.

  32. How would you know whether Paul came in 3rd, 2nd, or even 1st since half the votes (from Clark County) haven’t even been released yet, as of 4 pm Sunday?

    We live in a sham democracy.

  33. I have puppy bowl reruns on for the kids. I can’t believe the kind of stuff going unflagged when the cute ones are doing it. The whole thing is obviously more fixed than Bob Barker’s pets.

    1. Yeah there were a few times I swear damn dogs ran a touchdown in the opposite direction that they had been going.

      My wife thinks I’m insane because I want to count those as safeties.

  34. Let’s hope this ends the cult campaign of Ron Paul. We don’t need the next Herbert Hoover. We need the next Ronald Reagan. Someone who loves America, not its enemies. Someone who understands there’s a role for both government and business in managing the country. Someone who is a true conservative, not a left-wing conspiracy theorist.

    1. Wow, you have no idea where you are, do you?

      1. I think it was a bit of performance art, and you just got punked (are the kids still saying “punked”?)

        1. That was my guess as well

          1. I think “served” and at least two variants of “owned” are also acceptable.

            Also fishing metaphors.

        2. It was either someone hopelessly lost or a troll. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

      2. Libertarians need to get over their weird hate-America knee-jerkism and realize that you can’t have liberty without a strong foreign policy and a strong government to protect it. Reagan understood this.

        This is not to mention the insane Hooverite economic policies of the gold standard and free trade. Gutting the government and eliminating taxes doesn’t work, Reagan knew that as well.

        1. Thanks for clearing that up.

        2. you can’t have liberty without a strong foreign policy and a strong government to protect it.

          Citation needed.

          1. Goddammit, Binky.

            How the fuck can you question the incontrovertible FACT that unless we attack Iran and their army that can’t do shit, leaving Americans the fuck alone in their own homes so that they can live as THEY see fit without government interference so long as we aren’t harming any unconsenting party would be fucking impossible?

        3. One of FDR’s crowning achievements was to paint Hoover as some free markets guy, after having campaigned agaisnt Hoover’s tax-and-spend big-government social-engineering and command-and-control-of-the-economy policies.

          It’s pretty impressive – like successfully convincing people that Hitler was a Zionist.

          Tragicomically, Roosevelt followed a Hooverite policy on steroids, and oddly enough Hoover’s depression continued as long as he, and his successor Truman kept those policies going.

          1. Being able to change your position on the turn of a dime is the hallmark of team players. Without it, politics as we know it would be impossible.

            It’s how we get Team BLUE players supporting Afghanistan, and Team RED players decrying the TSA, when Team RED invented the TSA and the Team BLUE president ran on a platform of ending Afghanistan.

            Remember, we were always at war with Eurasia.

            1. Being able to change your position on the turn of a dime is the hallmark of team players.

              WE are the only ones who can protect you from the forces of fascism. The alliance of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler can only be fought by those with sound principles, and that is certainly not our weak sister Democrats.

              Three cheers to the Stalin-Hitler pack with whom we have a true dialectic synergy to make progress through out the world against corporate plutocrats!

              Death to Hitler and all the forces of regression!

              With FDR and Stalin at the helm, fascism and the criminal syndicate corporations that keep the reactionaries afloat will soon be crushed!

              Wooh, this day has been exhausting!

          2. Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the government dole. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible.”[58] Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of “leading the country down the path of socialism”.[59]

            Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[60] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, “practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”

        4. Libertarians hate America now? I guess it really IS the new Liberalism.

          1. North Korea is just the worst country on earth that starves its people and holds all of South Korea and Japan hostage.

            But in foreign affairs Libertarians love them. You guys are fucking unbelievable.

            1. I don’t fucking want Best Korea to spread democracy.

        5. Tyler you’re a dimwit! Reagan understood this.

  35. So Mittens wins while drawing fewer votes that 4 years ago (again); and Paul takes third while getting way more votes that 4 years ago (again); and Newcular Titties manages to sneak into second place.

    Who in Nevada votes for Newcular Titties anyway? He doesn’t seem to have any natural constituency that would be out in the mountain west.

    The latest reports are that Newt’s sugar daddy has seen the light and will support Romney in the future. So can Newt even survive to Super Tuesday, when the campaign trails heads back to the old south?

    1. I’m thinking mittens takes 70% of the Virginia vote – showing that the Not-Romney vote hates liberty more than Romney.

    2. Las Vegas was founded on titties.

      1. I’m surprised it took an hour and a half for this answer to pop up.

    3. I’d imagine Nevada has a larger virulently anti-Mormon segment among its evangelicals than say, Iowa or Florida. That’s probably where Gingrich’s vote came from.

  36. Paul needs more than dudes with yard signs

    Well duh! Trouble is, most Ron Paul supporters don’t want to get off their butts and do anything. Waving signs is fun, hitting every door in the precinct it hard work. So they’ll wave signs and then bitch about a conspiracy that stole the election.

    Of course, every other candidate has the same problem. Ninety nine gung ho cheerleaders for every one worker. Trouble is that liberty lovers are so few we can’t afford to sit back and let others do the work.

    1. people are content to circle jerk each other at it’s easier than DOING something for liberty

      heck, some here are proud that they don’t vote and work to get out of jury duty

      1. And others are proud to take money stolen from taxpayers in order to enforce unjust and immoral laws.

        1. Oh sorry, that’s the legislatures fault those laws are created, you bear no personal responsibility for enforcing them.

          1. waaaah!

            and fwiw, i am not PROUD to enforce drug laws. they are just a tiny (less than 2%… close to 1% in 2011) part of my job.

            i went to over 500 details last year. drug arrests? 1.

            and it was a dealer, not a user

            he ended up getting a deferred sentence, because like most first time offenders, it’s not a big deal.

            unlike the people here who do NOTHING to advance the cause of liberty except circle jerk each other, i can go home and know that what i do makes an overwhelming positive difference in the communities i work in

            those i work for (the people in my community) agree, if the commendations and citations (including for heroism) are any indicator, and imo they are.

            you, like most cynics who know the value of nothing , harp on the WOD.

            the WOD is such a tiny part of my job, and like i said, most drug cases i assist on are where a PHARMACIST or a doctor is the complainant. does that mean all the good work a doctor does is thrown out because he calls the cops on those that forge prescriptions?

            the WOD is a miserable failure, but you are right. it IS the fault of the legislature, not cops.

            if you can go home each day knowing the community you are in is a better place because of your actions, then you would be proud too

            when i manage to catch a shithead stalker freak, like the other day – that helps my community

            ditto for the burglars, car thieves, etc.

            when you can help ease the pain of a woman who just lost her 3 yr old daughter and do a complete enough investigation so the ME issues a NJA and the woman’s fear of having her child taken from her home and autopsied is relieved, you’ve done a good thing

            just the other day, we were in training and a cop from a neighboring agency came in late because prior to the class he had jumped on a man who had doused himself with gasoline and attempted to immolate himself.

            i am sure when that man sobered up and got out of the hospital , he will be thankful too

            that incident didn’t even get a blurb in the local paper.

            you can sit there in the security of your likely inconsequential life and criticize those who make a difference, but we will proudly continue to serve whether or not the radical fringe bigorati thank us or not

            we get enough satisfaction from the real people in the community who thank us.

            1. i went to over 500 details last year. drug arrests? 1.

              But your presence or the threat thereof probably had a chilling effect on drug use, even without arrests. How many people pitched dimebags into sewers upon seeing your fearsome visage?

              1. i did have one guy upon my arriving, WALK up to me and hand over some pot.

                i was sitting just down the street, waiting for a return on the license plate to see if it was stolen etc. (for ofc. safety) before i approached. he gets out of car and walks towards me with his hands held in front of him.

                he hands me some MJ and says “you woulda found it anyways” so he thought it better to turn it over

                so, i gave him a verbal warning and wrote the case that way, with the MJ “for disposal”.

                my sgt. approved it. proof positive, at lesat in our agency, that MJ is almost de facto decrim’d anyway, at least for small amounts.

                i am sure in some agencies, their policy would mandate they write the guy a ticket, but not mine

                the one case with the dealer, he had a warrant (i found out by running the plate) and when i approached, he literally had a dozen paper bags with PRICES written on them, a ledger note in his pocket, and each bag had MJ corresponding to the dollar amounts

                anyway, it was possession with intent to sell (and he admitted he was selling it) but pros. bumped it down to possession and he got probation, as is par for the course.

                i did assist on a few script fraud cases, like i said – those are called in by doctors/pharmacists. almost always Oxy these days. although far less common since Oxycontins switched to OP formulation (gel if smooshed). most have moved on to heroin now, and we are getting WAY WYA WAY more OD’s.

                i have done CPR three times IN ONE YEAR for OD’s. but they are starting to drop off. probably the really stupid ones died, and the others realized heroin is not oxy, and you have to be more careful with veins.

                good times

              2. But your presence or the threat thereof probably had a chilling effect on drug use, even without arrests. How many people pitched dimebags into sewers upon seeing your fearsome visage?

                DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME

            2. unlike the people here who do NOTHING to advance the cause of liberty except circle jerk each other, i can go home and know that what i do makes an overwhelming positive difference in the communities i work in




              If you and every member of you gang ate a bullet tonight, no one would notice the difference.

              1. fortunately, most people know otherwise.

                how many felons did YOU catch last month?

              2. ^Asshole^

                1. That was not for dunphy but the other guy. Fucking threads.

                  1. i feel you. as much as i wouldn’t want some of these lunatics in my police car. i wish i could have them for a ridealong for a week

                    it would open their eyes to what REALLY happens out there.

                    how we really DO help people. how people walk up to me on the street sometimes and thank me. some i have never met. others, for stuff i did for them days, months, years earlier.

                    it’s not because i am wicked awesome (i am but.. ) 🙂 it’s just because so often we are put in positions where we can and do really make a positive difference in people’s lives

                    whteher it’s a death investigation, where you help people cope, and in the last case, help her avoid autopsy etc. or you help some lower middle class family get their shit back after they were burglarized or whatever.

                    it really IS satisfying. i fucking LOVE my job

                    1. dunphy|2.5.12 @ 5:46PM|#


                      and fwiw, i am not PROUD to enforce drug laws. they are just a tiny (less than 2%… close to 1% in 2011) part of my job.

                      i went to over 500 details last year. drug arrests? 1.

                      and it was a dealer, not a user

                      he ended up getting a deferred sentence, because like most first time offenders, it’s not a big deal.

                      unlike the people here who do NOTHING to advance the cause of liberty except circle jerk each other, i can go home and know that what i do makes an overwhelming positive difference in the communities i work in

                      You sure you want to stand by that bullshit, statistically impossible, claim, Dunphy? You realize the case you mentioned yesterday concerning the dead infant made the local news. It wont be difficult to pull up from the King County Jail Register whom you have arrested in the previous few weeks. I bet we are going to find some drug arrest aren’t we?

                    2. go ahead and knock yourself out. i don’t lie

                    3. oh, and btw, the fact that you think it statistically impossible shows how little you know about police work

                    4. oh, btw, dipshit just for the record. read what i wrote .. i said i had one drug arrest LAST YEAR.

                      so, you need to look at the jail register for 2011.

                      reading comprehension. it’s what’s for dinner

                    5. Anyone with any commonsense knows you are lying piece of shit, Dunphy. Extrapolating from the current registry before we even start with the nitty gritty, drug charges are a substantial percentage of the people sitting in jail. Quite substantial. Does one officer in Seattle do all the non drug related cases? Even a homicide cop is going to find himself arresting people with shit in their possession in a much higher than a one in five hundred incidents for one due to the unfortunate nature of territorial disputes.

                      You care to clear this matter up and stop insulting everyone’s intelligence with this bullshit before we waste each other’s time?

      2. some here are proud that they don’t vote

        Damn right! Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy. Fuck that.

      3. heck, some here are proud that they don’t vote and work to get out of jury duty

        Those are blows for liberty you blithering jackwagon!

        Why do you think government officials keep promoting propaganda campaigns like “Vote or Die?” Voting doesn’t curb their power – it short-circuits disobediance.

        1. keerist. spare me.

          you don’t vote, you have no cause to complain about those that get elected

          and you don’t serve jury duty when you get a chance, you have no cause to complain about the decisions made by juries or our fucked up legal system

          like most critics, you just criticize from afar but never DO anything to effect positive change.

          apparently, circle jerking the like minded is all those people have

          1. like most critics, you just criticize from afar but never DO anything to effect positive change.

            You are such a liar, dunphy. 🙂

            You have no clue what things I’ve done. I can confidently state that the world is a freer place because of what things I’ve done.

            You? Since you worked as an infiltrator helping put drug smugglers into jail, you’ve helped make the U.S. a far less free, prosperous or safe place. You certainly are in no position to lecture anyone about advancing freedom so long as you ply your vile, immoral trade.

            Now, there is a simple way you *can* help make the country freer.


            Walk away.

            Find honest work.

            If you want to wear a uniform, you could get a job in the security department of the Silverdale Mall.

            Or you could become a private investigator.

            Start a business selling paper clips.

            Do something positive with your life. You admit that you’ve done terrible things. You’ve arrested people that you didn’t think deserved to be arrested. You don’t have to do these terrible things. Quit being a cop and rejoin civilized society. You’ll sleep better at night and people won’t start with a twinge of fear when they first catch sight of you.

            Hope that helps.

            1. lol.

              i’ll give it a 6 . it’s got a good rhythm to it. it’s almost poetic in that way. and it’s persuasive, as long as you throw away all those pesky critical thinking and logic skillz

              1. I’m glad you like it. I acutally was using your method of argumentation as a guide. I figured when I called you a liar you’d pick up on that. 😉

                It’s good that you pick up on you arrogance and sophistry when other people engage in it. It means that you might someday grow out of it.

                Hope that helps.

                1. i support my arguments with stats. over and over . the ignorati ignore them, but they are there

                2. It’s good that you pick up on you arrogance and sophistry when other people engage in it. It means that you might someday grow out of it.


            2. Is there a name for the phenomenon of anonymous commenters demanding that they be given the benefit of the doubt about their personal life, while simultaneously assuming the worst about other commenters?

              I so want this to be Tulpa’z Law.

              1. i dub it ‘Tulpa’z Law”. let it be so

              2. Tulpy, I don’t demand the benefit of doubt. Dunphy is, as usual, making assertions that are pathetically wrong, on a par of his claim yesterday that wrote most major libertarian philosophers out of the ranks of “serious” libertarians.

                1. i didn’ t write them out.

                  you aint them.

                2. i didn’ t write them out.

                  you aint them.

            3. Dunphy don’t bother arguing with this fucktard he will just call you ‘ignorant’ or something else that makes him sounds intelligent to himself today.

              People with a functioning brain can see that the libertarian cause is much better off if we have decent cops on the beat like dunphy and going all ‘walking off walking tall’ would accomplish nothing except 1) hand over the PD’s completely to assholes 2) make civil libertarians look retarded and 3) make sentimental morons like tarran feel really, really good about themselves.

              1. LOL I’m being called a fucktard by someone who believes that everytime an american bomb kills someone, it’s super awesome, because everybody is either an enemy or a friend, and friends should welcome being immolated for the cause.

                Yes cyto, I’m a fucktard for describing someone who spews Osama bin Laden’s arguments justifying mass murder as being an ignorant superstitious savage. 🙂

                1. Thanks for proving my point fucktard.

          2. you don’t vote, you have no cause to complain about those that get elected

            You have it precisely backwards. If you vote you are consenting to the scheme, thus you have no cause to complain. Innocent bystanders have every right to complain.

        2. Voting doesn’t curb their power – it short-circuits disobediance.

          I see what you’re saying. So long as this damned society continues functioning there’s no chance for anarchy.

          Ancaps need much more misery and random violence to plague the streets before they can implement their ideals.

          1. Ancaps need much more misery and random violence to plague the streets before they can implement their ideals.

            Sigh, tulpa. You are, once again, utterly wrong.

            The choice isn’t between violence and voting. As Bryan Caplan demonstrated in the Myth of the Rational Voter, nothing good comes from voting. People who figure out that the ballot box has nothing to offer them put their time and energy into more worthwhile pursuits.

            The more people figure out that the state is *not* the solution to their problems and hence stop wasting their time and energy on effecting political change, the better.

            1. The more people figure out that the state is *not* the solution to their problems and hence stop wasting their time and energy on effecting political change, the better.

              This type of equivocation is what dunphy is talking about.

              No political change and no societal collapse means statist quasidemocracy forever.

              The state’s behavior may not be the solution, but it is part of the problem. Ignoring state behavior — which is what “principled non voting” ultimately is — does not make things better.

              1. The Somali government had no system of voting – yet people started ignoring it, and it went away.

                Ditto the Soviet Union.

                The East German government died when the cops stopped enforcing its orders (hintitty, hint, hint, dunphy). Somehow the society didn’t descend into violence.

                1. The Somali government had no system of voting – yet people started ignoring it, and it went away.

                  So now Somalia IS an example of anarchy incarnate? That’s quite a logical turn of events for you ancap folks. And in any case, it was a violent aftermath that I think qualifies as a societal collapse. Of course, all that happened was the development of a bunch of little warlord fiefdoms which are essentially governments that the international community has a vested interest in not recognizing.

                  The Russians and eastern Germans replaced those govts (which set the dates of their respective demises, btw — they didn’t collapse) with other governments. They didn’t replace it with anarchy, which is your goal.

                  Plus, the Russian govt of today is pretty awful even as govts go, and Germany’s govt is of the same order of magnitude of evil as the US’s.

                  1. They didn’t replace it with anarchy, which is your goal.

                    Dude, sonic shockwave of those moving goalposts blew my eardrums out.

                    You just said that without voting for change, a government will continue to exist. I merely showed you examples that falsify that assertion.

                    One aside – I should point out that in all three of those cases the collapse of those governments left people broadly better off.

                    Anarchism, on the other hand, requires a set of cultural preconditions that certainly didn’t exist in eastern Europe, Russia or Somalia. The cultural preconditions will not come out of the ballot box. It won’t come from politicking. It will come, rather, from social changes, from new technologies & customs and world-views.

                    1. One aside – I should point out that in all three of those cases the collapse of those governments left people broadly better off.

                      AHAHAHA yeah the Somalis have been doing great. It’s great to have you anarchos finally being semi-honest about your Somali disaster. Didn’t work there, doesn’t work anywhere.

                    2. No, cyto, the Somali’s were doing better than they were before:

                      When most people think of Somalia they think of chaos and deterioration. Some may even think of violence and mayhem. No one, however, thinks of progress when they hear about Somalia, let alone of the possibility that anarchy has been good for its development. Maybe they should.

                      Indicators of Somali welfare remain low in absolute terms, but compared to their status under government show a marked advance. Under statelessness life expectancy in Somalia has grown, access to health facilities has increased, infant mortality has dropped, civil liberties have
                      expanded, and extreme poverty (less than $1 PPP/day) has plummeted. In many parts of the country even security has improved. In these areas citizens are safer than they’ve been in three decades (UNDP 2001). Somalia is far from prosperous, but it has made considerable strides since its government collapsed 15 years ago.

                      Peter Leeson: Better Off Stateless

                      You might mock the increases in health, life expectancy, and mothers surviving child birth. The Somalis do not.

                    3. I mock them because the good parts of Somalia-Puntland and Somaliland-actually do have governance. The rest of Somalia is a shithole although the efforts of the TFG and allied forces are alleviating that somewhat. Kenyans are still doing better still and they, alas, have a government. You’re starting to sound very White Indentish.

                    4. Once again, cyto, you are kind of missing my point:

                      Which is that when people withdraw their consent states collapse with no voting required, and when people do withdraw their consent, the collapse generally leaves people better off than they were before the collapse.

                      We will never know how rapidly and in what directions Somali society would have developed had they been left to their own devices. The cross-fire in the war between the U.S. and Al Queda culminating with the U.S. paying Ethiopia to invade put paid to that quite dramatically.

                      Nor can we meaningfully compare a post Marxist Somalia to Kenya without taking into account where they started.

                      All we can do is look at where the trends were within the country during the Kritarchic period. And, with the exception of literacy and school attendance, all the numbers were headed in happier, more prosperous directions.

                    5. nobody can rationally be an anarchist. it’s about as sensible as being a phrenologist.

                      clinging to anarchism is almost as ludicrous as clinging to marxism

                2. here’s fucking hint.

                  the vast majority of our laws are reasonable

                  yes, the drug laws tend to suck, but these aren;t fundamental human rights issues like east germany had a problem with

                  again, i defer to PJ Orourke on this

                  this is not east germany

        3. Voting doesn’t curb their power – it short-circuits disobediance.

          Whereas not voting does what exactly? How does that help change the system? Oh wait I forgot that’s not the point the point is to indulge puritan platitudes and sentiments. That’s it.

        4. Has not voting ever changed anything? Ever?

          1. It’s changed plenty:

            There was no voting involved in ending the Soviet Union, the Romanian dictatorship, polio…

            The rise of online shopping and banking had no votes involved.

            Nobody voted on the invention and design of the personal computer.

            You should thank your lucky stars that most of the changes that give you a comfortable life were never put up to a vote.

            1. Thankfully Americans voted for a sort-of-but-not-really-better-than-everyone-else freemarketish set of politicos that weren’t as evil as they could have been that allowed the development of those wonderful inventions.

              And ‘not voting’ didn’t change dick all in Romania or the USSR. In Romania, a firing squad caused the change and in the USSR, other revolution. Pointing to that as ‘not voting’ is as superficial reasoning as I’ve come to expect from you tarran.

              1. In Romania, a firing squad caused the change

                LOL, you are so ignorant! The firing squad grabbed the dictator after he lost power! Dude was fleeing in a helicopter! He lost power when he gave a speech, and instead of cheering, the masses jeered him! Again, no voting needed; the majority of people withdrew their consent, and the house of cards tumbled.

      4. people are content to circle jerk each other at…

        I must take offense with your flippant assessment of chat room repartee as a “circle jerk.” Important Things are being discussed here. We, the social media elite, are solving the world’s problems, one chat at a time.

        1. sorry. i defer to the superior intellect.

          please carry on.

    2. Gingrich had a nearly invisible campaign and he still beat RP. Knocking on doors isn’t the issue here.

    3. People don’t like to be disturbed by strangers knocking on their doors. That is a recipe for Paulites becoming the next Jehovah Witnesses. Iow, commonly thought of as an annoying joke.

  37. Isn’t this article a little early? All the votes haven’t been counted yet. The predictions in this article could very well be wrong.

    1. I think Santorum is still in it as well. And Pat Paulson.

  38. Nazi organizers are out of practice.

    1. “Thanks for your help, Maxee!”

  39. I welcome all of you who were not invited to a Super Bowl Party (Not your fault! No judgmental feces-throwing here!) to my virtual Super Bowl Party! Virtual Dominican handmade cigars! Theoretical microbrews! Faux chicken wings importaed from a mythical Rust Belt city! Hookers worthy of a “sarcasmic” link! Guys sitting in the corner with smart phones, complaining to their virtual friends about Ron Paul’s misunderstood campaign, hinting darkly at conspiracy theories, the “establishment,” and evil Boomers. Real fake chili con carne! Predictions! (Pats 35, Giants 17).

    Discuss! Or not!

    1. Is there a game today?

      1. Yes, and I have a partial score: Cowboys 7.

    2. My football season ended 2 months ago, our 2nd straight undefeated season.

      1. My football season was de facto over somewhere around the beginning of October. By mid October it was dead in the dirt.

        But the Pats are in my division, so I can’t in good conscience not root against them.

  40. Decide for yourself – Ron Paul the leader the world awaited.

  41. Libertarians have been predicting this increasing socialism for the last 40 (or more) years. We’re now living it. The next step? A nut blows something up and then socialism morphs into fascism. Hello Guiliani.

    1. Your comment is saggier than a Madonna bustier.

      1. I think you misspelled “scarier.”

        1. It doesn’t matter. Madonna just ended her megalomaniacal Halftime Show? with World Peace?. Problems solved.

  42. Today, Superbowl Sunday, is also the birthday of Muhammad, the muslim prophet.

    Who is Muhammad backing in the Superbowl?

      1. Ted S. from Alaska?

    1. Osi Umenyora is a Moooooslim, no?

    2. Looks like the Giants so far! Intentional grounding sucks, doesn’t it, Tom.

  43. Looks like somebody was stuffing the ballot boxes in Clark county. I wouldn’t put it past Newt or Mitt to do it, but Newt’s the one with a billionaire buddy in Las Vegas…


    1. This is what I meant by Paul worship, folks.


  44. you can sit there in the security of your likely inconsequential life and criticize those who make a difference, but we will proudly continue to serve whether or not the radical fringe bigorati thank us or not

    You poor, poor, thing.


    1. not at all. i love my job. i love the fact that most people respect and support what i do.

      granted, if i just wanted to be loved, i would have remained a firefighter. it just got kind of boring.

      it gives me pleasure to know that the seething ignorant bigorati here SEETHE every time they see these (non) excessive uses of force or that the public supports us.

      it gives me pleasure to feel YOUR pain.

      it’s also nice to see how evidence challenged and emotion laden the loony cop critics are.

      about as knowledgeable as the average leftist with his “free mumia” poster

      i get paid well, get great benefits, and get great satisfaction from my job

      do not pity me.

      1. I witnessed an accident today on a major thoroughfare here in Pgh while taking my morning constitutional, and after seeing that the occupants of the vehicle were OK, I started directing traffic through the one remaining lane around the involved vehicles which were both undriveable. Which is pretty friggin hard to do by yourself.

        After about 10 minutes, the police arrived and the first officer screamed at me saying I wasn’t qualified to do that. So apparently it would have been better to let traffic jam up for miles around.

        Anyway, he didn’t know it but I was concealed carrying at the time. I thought about our discussion and wondered how things would have played out if I was open carrying. Some of the visions of those scenarios were most unpleasant.

        1. Cops give dunphy a bad name (although dunphy isn’t a great name anyway tbh…)

          1. i lol’d

            and fwiw, the cop would get his ass chewed if he let a “civilian” direct traffic, because the liability is massive. as soon as the cop arrives, the liability falls on him IF tulpa got hurt.

            granted, he didn’t have to be an asshole about it, but our policy is prtty clear that it’s better to let traffic lock up, because if a civilian (especially w/o a traffic vest for visibility) gets hurt assisting us, we are FUCKED.

            proper FUCKED

            heck, i can get written up for directing traffic without the bright vest on

            1. You gotta love our over-litigated society!

              1. yup.

                our dispatch center has a policy that when a driver calls in and is following a bad guy (suspected DUI, guy just beat the shit out of some guy and jumped in his car and took off), robbery suspect, WHATEVER…

                our dispatchers by policy must tell him to pull over and stop followign the guy

                he is under no obligation to obey, they are NOT LEO’s and have no authority to direct him to do anything, but they do it for LIABILITY

                because they are afraid if they don’t and he gets hurt, we will be held liable since we had established the relationship during the phone convo

                it drives me FUCKING NUTS because so many times we could catch these guys but our dispatch center tells people this

                SOME people, thank god, ignore the dispatchers

                in cases of DUI, they make great witnesses. judges will try to attack US, and the jury accepts that. it’s our job

                but if the judge tries to attack joe average who went out of his way to call in the DUI, and stuck around to give a statement, they lose the jury

                ordinary people with cell phones (and cell phone video i might add) are a WONDERFUL tool in fighting crime

      2. Pretend that the vote legitimizes your function all you want; at the end of the day you are, by definition, nothing other than an extortionist, unless you would refuse to participate in the prosecution of a tax evader. That is the ultimate root of why you get flack, whether your detractors have yet articulated it to themselves in those terms or not. Whereas most people seek to earn respect, you simply demand it, and you should expect some to have a pretty negative reaction to that.

      3. i love the fact that most people respect and support what i do.

        I bet you do.

        1. Who wouldn’t want to be respected?

      4. You sound pathetic, dunphy. You truly do. I’d like to have some measure of sympathy for you, but fuck you. You don’t deserve it.

        1. i don’t WANT your sympathy. there is nothing to be sympathetic about. being a cop is a great job, and despite what the bigorati says, not only are we respected in our communities, but at least in my agency we are paid well and treated well and our rights are generally respected (and when they aren’t .. we sue. this is america, damnit)

          1. It’s definitely a lot better than the other jobs that welcome low IQ steroidal psychopaths into the ranks. Not that you’re a steroidal psychopath, dunphy, you just enable the steroidal psychopaths and pretend you don’t.

            Me and Ba?os did it on an escalator in the middle of JC Penney’s today too! She didn’t think I could finish in time before we had to jump off, but she was amazed at how fleet-nutted I can be.

            1. We’re never doing that again, shmoopy. It’s hard for me to climax with my butt against a grooved metal surface. Next time we’re banging on a covered waterslide like normal people. OK baby?

              1. OK shmoopie. As long as I’m not atop. You know how I get and I might hit my head again.

                1. Yes I know how you are 🙂 ~~~~

                  It’s why I’m with you. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

            2. we have the MMPI. psycopaths are easily weeded out.

              they are also incredibly rare.

              this is just your bigotry yet again showing through

  45. it gives me pleasure to feel YOUR pain.

    I’m sure it does. You go out and shit all over our freedom every day.

    res ipsa loquitur

    1. i go out and defend freedom every day

      you wank from yer mama’s basement

      poor p brooks.

      go cry to yer mama.

      1. i go out and defend freedom every day


        you wank from yer mama’s basement

        How many books have you authored, Mr Dunphy? LOL

        go cry to yer mama.

        Why should he? Do you really think you hurt his feelings with your pathetic retorts?

        1. How many books have you authored, Mr Dunphy? LOL

          LOL indeed. You’re claiming that authoring your books has increased freedom?

          1. No, Mr Tulpa, Mr Brooks has authored several books contra dunphy’s allegation that he sits in his mother’s basement wanking.

            Do try to keep up.

            1. Hypergraphia is not a contraindication of sitting in your mama’s basement wanking. In fact it probably helps.

              I get the impression Mr Brooks is a bit older though.

              1. word.

                writing a book is cool.

                but lots of closeted, do nothing loons have written books.

                god knows academia is full of such people

  46. Allowing QBs to throw the ball away is such bullshit

    1. There are two points on the board that are wondering what you’re talking about.

    2. Why isn’t spiking the ball to stop the clock intentional grounding?

      1. I was wondering about that too.

      2. The QB is not under pressure.

      3. basically what curiousgeorge said.

        IG is to prevent QBs from being able to stand in the pocket and just throw the ball straight down to avoid a sack. Since spiking to stop the clock isn’t avoiding a sack, it doesn’t get penalized.

        However, I think being able to spike the ball to stop the clock is cheap and encourages poor clock management. I like the college rules where the clock starts running as soon as the officials spot the ball after an incomplete pass.

        But the NFL will never do that, since it would cut down on the “miraculous comebacks” at the end of the game where the final two minutes is stretched into 15-20 by the lavish opportunities to stop the clock.

  47. So, I was on a beer run in the first quarter. Any memorable ads I missed?

    1. Nah… It’s all pretentious crap.

      1. I’m coming through the thread at the moment, but TARRAN|2.5.12 @ 11:22PM|# was not me. Though I disagree, I remember laughing at at least one of them in the first quarter. Completely forget what though.

        1. I got a chuckle out of the Doritos commercial. Kind of ho-hum until the last 3 seconds, but I let out a belly laugh (and something a bit lower too).

          1. The commercial I’m talking about.

            They had a stupid commercial too with a woman covering herself in Doritos to attract a disinterested penis bearer. Right, that’s never been done before. ::rolls eyes::

            1. i am probably one of the few people here who could not care less about the super bowl

              granted, it’s better than soccer (barf), but it interests me not at all

    2. On the radio all I remember was a Coors Light ad with a band playing in marching band style.

    3. I’m not watching (building shit on the lathe instead). Has Bloomberg’s “resurrect gun control” commercial come on yet?

      1. Yeah, just a little bit before the halftime show – which isn’t terrible, probably the best in the last five years or so.

        1. Anything would be better than the shit Black Eyed Peas did last year. Surprisingly enough, Madonna was entertaining in a easy going certain way I didn’t expect coming from her. The Viking Vogue showed a silliness that played on the original videos pretentiousness. I liked seeing that. I didn’t have the sound on though. Turned it down so the guests could talk, and I’m not a fan of her music.

          1. I flipped over to PBS for a documentary on a slave ship rebellion in South Africa at halftime.

          1. petty is such a fucking great iconic american musician.

            love him

            although i can’t hear american girl without thinking of that scene from silence of the lambs

  48. Thanks for the comments guys.

    Pats aren’t looking so hot but we are still within striking distance.

    1. you’re welcome!

  49. Thanks for the comments guys.

    Pats aren’t looking so hot but we are still within striking distance.

    1. fuck you don’t patronize me!

      1. 10-9 Pats

        1. That’s our least favorite troll rectal, Garrett. Just ignore.

          1. Thanks. I am new around here.

            1. It’s best to ignore any handle that you don’t recognize. This place has become such a disaster over the last few years.

            2. Then let me explain the game:

              -Warty pretends he doesn’t read my every comment, and thinks every anon remark is mine.

              -The regulars who play troll for amusement don’t fess up, and Warty, sugarfree, Pro lib, GM, epi and a few that I can never remember play “it’s the girl’s fault”

              BTW, I’ve made one remark today and it’s linked to my Super bowl post.

              1. It was my comment, and it was a joke. There you go.

  50. Thanks for the comments guys.

    Pats aren’t looking so hot but we are still within striking distance.

    1. If this were the Nevada primary, you would have said the Patriots won at halftime.

  51. You guys are actually surprised at this outcome?

    1. They were fake!? Now I’m disillusioned.

      1. Only the ones that fell off.


    rush limbaugh going deep at the superbowl

  53. Its no surprise to anyone who was paying attention. Remember 2008 and the mormon vote. This article is misleading, he was not a distant third, he was close to 2nd. But where it matters and what has been the campaign strategy all along was to get delegates. Paul is projected to tie for 2nd place in the number of delegates.

  54. I knew Ron Paul supporters were racist terrorists. They “hijacked” a caucus intended for Jews!

    Then, a new development: last month, Clark County arranged for a special Saturday evening caucus for people unable to vote on Saturday morning because of religious observances.

    Scheduled largely at the behest of billionaire donor Sheldon Adelson and held at a school named after him, the caucus was ultimately hijacked by Ron Paul supporters who, like others voting there, had to sign affidavits swearing they could not participate in the daytime caucus because of a religious conflict.

    “It was the rule that was brought forward by Clark County Republicans,” Tarkanian said. “Once again the state party didn’t have the say-all.”

    1. I just checked Wikipedia, and Amy Tarkanian, head of the Nevada GOP, is the daughter-in-law of some kind of sports person.

      1. The UNLV running rabble basketball coach. Is he still around? He always looked like he could use a good ironing.

        1. caucus?


          obviously RACIST!!

  55. We need to start seperating QB eras, like they do in baseball. For example, 1920-1950 would be the deadball era, where no one threw. Etc.

    1. Aren’t several of the Bears passing records from that era?

  56. I’d rather not have a beer the opening of which has been in a dog’s mouth, thanks. “wego” was probably licking his anus between calls.

    1. It’s Bud Light, so I doubt it makes a difference.

      1. We have a winner!

  57. Yes, that was over the top. But you can never have too much iFan tweaking.

  58. Heh. What’s to stop the defense from putting 50 guys on the field with 10 seconds left, to make sure the offense gets only one shot at the end zone?

    1. Nothing, but that’s not what happened.

      The 12th man was sprinting off the field when the ball was snapped.

      1. Yes, but in theory that would be a good strategy. Fill the field with Giants so Brady has no place to throw.

        1. Just take 25 guys and have them rush Brady, one of them snaps his knee…oh well.

    2. The only thing that could stop that is the equitable penalty rule that allows the referee to award a touchdown for palpably unfair acts.

  59. How nice that the Giants licked the Lombardi trophy all over before the presentation ceremony.

    1. Yeah, suck on it.

    2. Yeah, I was thinking that trophy has herpes now.

      1. I’ts probably safer than the Stanley Cup

  60. haha. Papa Johns has to give me free pizza and soda because the opening toss was heads.

  61. Was there some kind of sporting event going on?

    1. World Curling Championships in Reykjavik

      1. Another contest Ron Paul couldn’t win.

        1. Shit, don’t sleep on curling.

          That sport is aaaaalll skill.

  62. And on this week’s “Top Gear”, The idiot Hammond tries to convince us NASCAR is better than F1.

    1. PLUS the Stig’s chinese cousin.

    1. In hoc signo vinces.

  63. Some brothels in Germany are giving new meaning to the term ‘cathouse.’

    ‘”There are even animal brothels in Germany,” she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable.’

    1. Here, let me sum up the comments for you: “Gross, let’s ban it!”

      1. Did you know that cats have barbs on their penes?

        1. Did you know that meat is murder and bestiality is rape?

            1. “if meat is murder, are eggs rape?” – pj orourke

              1. Yes, according to vegans.

      2. I would have thought that comments would have been reversed as in, “We need to ban that because it’s disgusting” with their reflex to ban bad behavior showing before their moral revulsion.

        1. Haven’t you ever noticed that people don’t want to ban things that they personally enjoy?

        2. Therefore I submit that revulsion precedes the urge to ban.

    2. Fucking vindicated. Suck it, assholes.

  64. I love being in Boston when the Pats lose. Go Giants!

    1. It’s NEVER a good thing to be in Boston.

    2. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth around the water-cooler tomorrow.

      I don’t know much about American football, so I could be way off base here, but it seemed to me that the Patriot’s offence fucked up their penultimate drive with those incomplete long passes. I thought that being in the lead, a slow steady drive of safe, short passes that ate up the clock would have been the prudent strategy. That and the twelve men on the field on the first half, and a freaking safety?!? Literally an own goal!

      Yes, there will be some very cranky office workers here in Beantown tomorrow.

      1. Both teams made some bad mistakes. Overall it was a very even game and the plays and score reflected that.

  65. If elected President, I will personally perform every half time show.

  66. “fanatic”? I’m so tired of reading about Ron Paul supporters as being fanatic, crazy, drug users etc… I don’t do drugs, not concerned with conspiricies, 29 years old, active duty military officer (was in afghanistan), and like most Ron Paul supporters really just simple care about the constitution and liberty. His supporters must do something to be heard, since the media pretty much only talks about Romney and Gingrich knowing that most Americans are too lazy to do their own research. The bottom line is, NOTHING will change if anyone besides Ron Paul is elected.

  67. Ron Paul has a legitimate chance to win Minnesota and should finish with respectable numbers in Colorado & Missouri. If he doesn’t win the republican nomination, which I admit is unlikely, I truly hope he runs 3rd party. Some people say that will make Obama a shoe in but even if that is true, there’s really no difference between him and Romney anyways. I’ll vote on principle and with a clear conscience. RON PAUL 2012.

    1. Er, I’m really not afraid of Romney, who at least might do some positive thigns regarding the economy and regulations, but an Obama with nothing to lose in his second term scares the shit out of me, God knows what damage he can do. So if it were any other Dem president I’d say go ahead and sink the GOP, but not this year.

      1. Interesting point, but he will be balanced by a R congress, although I suppose it’s possible the Dems could make a mid-term comeback.

        I still think the long-term damage, “we elected the evul capitalist and it didn’t help” of Romney would be worse.

  68. Wait, the BBC shows Paul came in fourth. Oh wait…

  69. Nice try, “Reason.” A little more venal than your usual anti-RP diatribes but you have so little to pick on. If RP chose to go third party, you and your GOP fellow travelers would go down in flames big time. I will never vote for anyone but RP. And I have lots of company on that. To Quote Gandalf the Grey:
    Understand this: Things are now in motion that cannot be undone.

    Ron Paul 2012.

    How about a Romney/Paul ticket…Wow Romney could get so many votes..and Ron Paul could save this country from economic devastation!! I like this!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.