+1 subby *golf clap*

What, the "Daikatana" candidate didn't win? I heard he was supposed to be awesome.

His office is down the street from my house, but that probably doesn't mean crap since I voted Kinky for gov!

©

Well, Paul still hasn't tapped into much of that money yet. Going into New Hampshire, he'll be in a position there with a much stronger get-out-the-vote grassroots network. He's also spent more time and money already in NH than he has in IA. He's had 3x as many donors per capita in NH than IA.

Yes, it was 5th, but he was only 3% away from 3rd. In plenty of counties he came in 2rd or 3rd.

Also, for any thinking voter a relatively low (but still higher than recent expectations) result in an early caucus shouldn't affect their personal decision of who to vote for. There's still a large chunk of undecided voters, and there is no clear frontrunner. We've got Huckabee, McCain, Romney, and Giuliani all focusing on specific states. Romney's the only one who's been seriously knocked out by this. Huckabee's state just happened to come first.

Churchill2004

Also, for any thinking voter

Sadly, I fear you've alienated a whole LOT of people with this.

Hey, he beat the 9/11 guy. I can't believe Thompson got as many votes as McCain.

Submitter: Ron Paul comes in fifth, or as Ron Paul supporters call it, second

Churchill2004: Yes, it was 5th, but he was only 3% away from 3rd. In plenty of counties he came in 2rd or 3rd.

:-)

And, of course, the best response to all the polls going in is...

F**K YOU FRANK!

Oh, this is so sad. The Paul-humpers are so deluded.

Ryan2065: :-)

The only thing that would make that post better would be a

/submitter

at the bottom.

Talk about a called shot!

Yeah, except for the voting and stuff, he's doing fantastic!

DarthBrooks: Yeah, except for the voting and stuff, he's doing fantastic!

Why is it every other candidate is given the benefit of the doubt that they can do better in the states they're focusing on? Giuliani did significantly worse than Ron Paul tonight, but it is still treated as a top-tier candidate because he has largely ignored IA to focus elsewhere. McCain and Romney are assumed to be capable of winning NH. Ron Paul spent little money and even less time in IA, largely focusing instead on NH. He still hasn't even touched that $20 million, enough to fund a national ad campaign before February 5th.

Yesdog Paul-humpers WOW! You're squandering your creative talents here on FARK, guy!

Yesdog: Oh, this is so sad. The Paul-humpers are so deluded.

OK fine. Who then would be a good candidate to vote for who simply won't continue the stuff that Bush II has been doing? Someone who won't keep willingly spending us into oblivious? Someone who will be an IMPROVEMENT over what we have had for the past 16 years.

The perfect candidate doesn't exist, but Dr. Paul is certainly the best option out there right now IMHO?

Ryan2065: Submitter: Ron Paul comes in fifth, or as Ron Paul supporters call it, second

Churchill2004: Yes, it was 5th, but he was only 3% away from 3rd. In plenty of counties he came in 2rd or 3rd.

:-)

I bow in homage, sir. Impressively done. Any suggestions on the PowerBall?

Churchill2004: Why is it every other candidate is given the benefit of the doubt that they can do better in the states they're focusing on?

No, it's not just Dr. Paul.

Giuliani is toast already - he just doesn't realize it.

If Clinton and Romney come in second in their respective NH votes, they are DONE.

Ron Paul supporters are like those sad sacks you see in casinos who double up and double up when they've lost stacks of loot. If he can *just* win NH and if he can *just* win Michigan and South Carolina - - which devolves to "if he can just NOT come in 8th place in NH he's a winner!"

Read up on Kubler-Ross: this is the "bargaining" stage.

Churchill2004: DarthBrooks: Yeah, except for the voting and stuff, he's doing fantastic!

Why is it every other candidate is given the benefit of the doubt that they can do better in the states they're focusing on?

We all agree. Seriously. Especially former President Ross Perot.

Important to nurture the martyrdom complex early.

wejash: I bow in homage, sir. Impressively done. Any suggestions on the PowerBall?

Heh, I'm not the submitter but he really did call that one.

Churchill2004: Why is it every other candidate is given the benefit of the doubt that they can do better in the states they're focusing on? Giuliani did significantly worse than Ron Paul tonight, but it is still treated as a top-tier candidate because he has largely ignored IA to focus elsewhere.

Fame. Recognition. Previous history. The very reason Ron Paul is considered to be a fringe candidate making a symbolic run based on radical ideas is because before the Republican debates, nobody knew who the f*ck Ron Paul was. He was the obscure of the obscure. This is why. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's actually a fringe candidate making a symbolic run based on radical ideas.

Of course we all know how important this vote is by how it has predicted the general election results in the past...

Wiki (pops)

This is a MSM sideshow. Don't buy into it. It means nothing.
RESIST

I voted Ron Paul for President in 1988. (really)

Because once, I was deluded about American politics too.

bitteroldman: Of course we all know how important this vote is by how it has predicted the general election results in the past...

But if Paul pulled down 24% and came in 2nd that would me he's the messiah?

Right?

So, who am I to believe, the Paultards who told me he'd come in a 3rd and that'd be a sign of things to come, or those that say his shiatty placing in Iowa is meaningless?

Crosshair: OK fine. Who then would be a good candidate to vote for who simply won't continue the stuff that Bush II has been doing? Someone who won't keep willingly spending us into oblivious? Someone who will be an IMPROVEMENT over what we have had for the past 16 years.

subby I'm-a want you...

subby I'm-a neeeeeed you...

+1

/c'mon, someone had to save the "he could come in 2nd" that suddenly became "unlikely" 12 hours later prediction, anyone?

whiskeyinthejar: Crosshair: OK fine. Who then would be a good candidate to vote for who simply won't continue the stuff that Bush II has been doing? Someone who won't keep willingly spending us into oblivious? Someone who will be an IMPROVEMENT over what we have had for the past 16 years.

You're doing it wrong. The Paultards refuse to believe there is life beyond the GOP. So the universe simply doesn't include Obama.

whiskeyinthejar: Crosshair: OK fine. Who then would be a good candidate to vote for who simply won't continue the stuff that Bush II has been doing? Someone who won't keep willingly spending us into oblivious? Someone who will be an IMPROVEMENT over what we have had for the past 16 years.

Able to stop The Inevitable Hillary Clinton in a single bound!

wejash: whiskeyinthejar: Crosshair: OK fine. Who then would be a good candidate to vote for who simply won't continue the stuff that Bush II has been doing? Someone who won't keep willingly spending us into oblivious? Someone who will be an IMPROVEMENT over what we have had for the past 16 years.

You're doing it wrong. The Paultards refuse to believe there is life beyond the GOP. So the universe simply doesn't include Obama.

Of course it includes Obama. It's just the real universe, where Obama doesn't envision ending American neoimperialism, doesn't see cutting the size and burden of government. Hell, he can't even commit to pushing for marijuana legalization.

This is our savior from the twin behemoths of overburdening government and perpetual war?

submitter: Ron Paul comes in fifth, or as Ron Paul supporters call it, second

Defeatist

whiskeyinthejar

OK, I seriously just spit soda all over my keyboard, thus why it has taken so long to reply to you because I had to clean it up. Obama is the best thing you can come up with? He is dead as a presidential candidate because of one issue: Gun rights.

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

* Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
* Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
* Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

There are a SIGNIFICANT number of people like me who are single issue voters on the 2nd Amendment. If someone is running and they aren't pro-2nd (Or at least against more restrictions.) They are going to have a VERY hard time convincing me that I should vote for them.

His positions on the 2nd may work in Chicago, but they are political suicide on the national level. Just look at 1994, Bill Clinton himself said that the (useless and unconstitutional) AWB cost Dems 20 seats in congress.

Obama slit his own throat back in 1998 by supporting such measures. His party affiliation does not matter here. His other positions are more Same Old, Same Old with no real sign of reigning in government spending or bringing an end to the endless military quagmires that we are engaged in.

His webpage has lots of grand verbal fluff that we have all been promised before by other candidates, but very little in defining exactly how he plans to accomplish those things. His website doesn't even mention gun rights as far as I can find.

His position on Social Security borders on a pipe dream. Social Security as it currently exists is living on borrowed time. It must be seriously changed and some people are not going to be happy. He is telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. Every other major candidate but RP is saying the same. Downplaying the serious issues with both Medicare and Medicaid.

Crosshair: He is dead as a presidential candidate because of one issue: Gun rights.

Listen, while all that might be well and good, it's kind of hard to really think your opinions aren't sort of one dimensional, um.. Crosshair.

I mean, your f*cking login is Crosshair.

I think your post might sort of fall on deaf ears.

AbortionsAreAwesome: I kind of like Edwards.

And that goes for you too.

CtrlAltDelete: Listen, while all that might be well and good, it's kind of hard to really think your opinions aren't sort of one dimensional, um..

It may be a one dimensional opinion, but it is one that has cost the Dems dearly in the past. It has fallen on the democrats deaf ears for years and has continued to hurt them.

The AWB (A poorly thought out gun control bill) in 1994 cost the Dems control of both the House and Senate for 12 years. Bill Clinton himself said, "The fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress." Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer. The Dems stayed out of power until 2006 after the AWB had expired.

Al Gore's dismal gun rights record likely cost him in 2000. (Florida especially is largely pro-gun) The same happened with Kerry in 2004 despite his best efforts. Kerry failed to realize that the vast majority of gun owners in the US are not hunters and the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting. So his hunting photo-ops were for nothing.

You will note that many of the candidates for 2008, especially the dems, are avoiding the gun issue like the plague. It is because they realize that gun control looses them elections and they hope to avoid the issue until they are in office.

However with the internet it is getting harder and harder for them to hide their past voting activities and it is coming back to bite them. Just like how Obama's record on gun rights is costing him.

Crosshair: people like me who are single issue voters on the 2nd Amendment.

If this is true, and you honestly believe there is no issue more important than your desire to buy any gun you want, then please do the country a favour and stay away from politics, and especially away from the polling booth on election day. Single-issue voters do no good to the political process.

I'll bet it was the land lines that did him in again.

"He came in second, Goddamn it."

/all about those WWE endorsements

And-1: Crosshair: people like me who are single issue voters on the 2nd Amendment.

If this is true, and you honestly believe there is no issue more important than your desire to buy any gun you want, then please do the country a favour and stay away from politics, and especially away from the polling booth on election day. Single-issue voters do no good to the political process.

I disagree. If everyone decided they were going to defend one part of the Bill of Rights with everything they had we would be in a lot better shape than we are now. People make up their minds who to vote for in a lot crazier ways than by defending the Bill of Rights. Like whomever believes in the same invisible man in the sky as them.

robsul82: /c'mon, someone had to save the "he could come in 2nd" that suddenly became "unlikely" 12 hours later prediction, anyone?

Submitter here (woohoo, another greenlight!) Yes, that headline's inspiration came from that very quote.

"My prediction- Paul will come in a close third in Iowa. Possibly second..." (link)

I don't know why, but Ron Paul supporters twist figures more than any other group I've seen. For example, from that same thread: "Polls are nothing more than educated guesses. Fund raising statistics are MUCH more concrete."

Holy shiat, the John Mayer "RON PAUL KNOWS THE CONSTITUTION, MAN!" video is posted on ronpaul2008.com as a serious endorsement. Hilarious.

Ron Paul came in first in effect!

Bah! Ron Paul the Howard Dean of the Republicans. Special kind of crazy.

Crosshair: You will note that many of the candidates for 2008, especially the dems, are avoiding the gun issue like the plague. It is because they realize that gun control looses them elections and they hope to avoid the issue until they are in office.

Well the, as I call them, sane people don't oppose some gun control. I'd rather anyone that wanted a gun were required to take a book and gun shooting course so they're less dangerous to themselves than the criminal they're fearful of facing unarmed. Of course, most morons with guns today are just as dangerous to themselves as the crook. Want to change my opinion? Require courses before people can buy firearms. It's a weapon, not a toy. Not only that, but it's a weapon that people often freeze with. Why do you think the military has to train people to shoot at silhouettes? You think they're just training marksmanship? It's hard for most people to shoot someone else, to the point of cause freezes.

Be a responsible gun owner. Get trained. Oh and one more thing: DON'T FARKING THINK YOU'RE RAMBO OR TJ HOOKER. I've known plenty of shooters and the smartest ones stick to the basics: 3 rounds center mass. You're probably not a cop, nor are you likely to be Annie Oakley or Doc Holiday. Survive and go on from there. Don't try getting fancy. Don't try "wounding" the target. If you're threatened just put 3 rounds in the chest with a gun you can handle. It doesn't pay to own a .50 caliber gun you can barely fire for defense. Be smart: survive.

dudemanbro: People make up their minds who to vote for in a lot crazier ways than by defending the Bill of Rights. Like whomever believes in the same invisible man in the sky as them.

LOL, well, that is certainly true.

But I do believe there are big issues - like war, the economy, nuclear proliferation, the environment, healthcare, and more - that I would put above a lot of single issues like guns. If we don't get those right, my ability to own an AK won't make much difference.

And the constitution has already been buttfarked, and will continue to get raped no matter who is in office. SCOTUS has made sure of that, and we don't elect them.

As a Liberal Christian, who has voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Nader, & Kerry, I welcome Ron Paul to the primaries.

In fact, if I had to cast a vote today, it would probably be for Ron Paul.

/not a troll
//still undecided
///lives in Washington, A.C.
////by the time it gets to us, it doesn't matter

dudemanbro: I disagree. If everyone decided they were going to defend one part of the Bill of Rights with everything they had we would be in a lot better shape than we are now.

+1. That is exactly it. I also work on defending other parts of the constitution too though. :P I write letters, NOT emails, to my representatives, donate what money I can spare to to appropriate organizations, and do other things to defend the BOR. Not full time mind you, but I do pay attention to current events and my reps voting activities.

Most people like myself realize that the BOR is an all or nothing deal. If one can disregards one, they can disregard them all.

CtrlAltDelete:
Fame. Recognition. Previous history. The very reason Ron Paul is considered to be a fringe candidate making a symbolic run based on radical ideas is because before the Republican debates, nobody knew who the f*ck Ron Paul was. He was the obscure of the obscure. This is why. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's actually a fringe candidate making a symbolic run based on radical ideas.

Actually, I think it's because he's made similar attempts at office before and failed miserably. He's got a sort of William J Bryan aura of charismatic failure going on, except with more failure and less charisma.

//Well, and less influence on the direction of his party, as well, so I guess the main analogy I'm trying to draw is popularity among a very loud minority and general temperament.

wejash: You're doing it wrong. The Paultards refuse to believe there is life beyond the GOP. So the universe simply doesn't include Obama.

I knocked on doors in Dubuque for Paul over the past several days. If Paul doesn't win the nomination, I'll probably go with Obama (although if either McCain or Thompson stop being so hawkish, they might be tempting).

I heard Obama speak here. I agree with a lot of what he said, but I just wish he'd vote the way he talks more often.

He doesn't like Gitmo? Great. But he didn't support either of the two bills that might have shut it down. He doesn't like domestic wire tapping? Excellent. But voting against the Patriot Act would have been nice. He's against the war? Fantastic. Maybe he'll stop funding it one of these days (like the Republicans tried to do with Bill Clinton's Kosovo War).

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Really sane people don't want guns at all and realize that the 2nd Amendment applies to the National Guard, not individuals.

yeah. And they don't want people to say things they don't like since the first amendment only applies to the press.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: inglixthemad: Well the, as I call them, sane people don't oppose some gun control

Really sane people don't want guns at all and realize that the 2nd Amendment applies to the National Guard, not individuals.

No, it does not. The Second Amendment clearly says "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1) Only individuals have rights.
2) A capitalized People is indicative of the Roman use of the word: "The Senate and People of Rome".

If you want to know what that Amendment means, go read what the people who wrote it said about it; its perfectly clear that individuals are the ones protected, not the Militia.

Come on, can't we reach some kind of compromise?

The Paulistas were saying he would come in 3rd, and the anti-Paulistas that he is a fringe candidate and the Iowa results would show that.

The result is he got 5th, but with 10% compared to 13% for 3rd and 4th (i.e. 75% as many votes as McCain or Thompson). This seems to be pretty middle of the road between the two camps.

So each side was wrong, and the truth was in the middle. Is that ok?

Gun Nuts

Guess what? There aren't actually that many of you as a national percentage of people. A lot of you vote. Well guess what, Obama might be the guy that gets a lot of other people to vote. Like, younger adults who believe in someone for the first time. Like, a lot of black people. Like, someone who is inspired by a leader instead of repulsed by them.

Sorry, your stupid paranoid gun lust won't be a factor in this election. Maybe we'll amend the constitution too! Heehee!

p.s. please don't kill this one.

Crosshair: Most people like myself realize that the BOR is an all or nothing deal. If one can disregards one, they can disregard them all.

Yep.
My favorite is the 9th:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Heh. Bunch of troublemakers, those Framers.

Recall all Repuglikkkans:
Really sane people don't want guns at all and realize that the 2nd Amendment applies to the National Guard, not individuals.

If you want us to accept your assessment of other people's rationality, you might try getting a login that's the domestic equivalent of a Godwin, on top of being unable to decide which nonsensical joke to make.

//Also, the amendment doesn't say that unless you have really shiatty ability to parse grammar. It says "locally organized militia are important, so we're not gonna mess with individuals owning their own weaponry", not "we're not going to mess with people handling weaponry, but only if the weaponry is owned and controlled by the state".
//You also fail to understand what a militia is. Hint: it's not organized or controlled by any government above the voluntary neighborhood association level.