I think we're all overdosing on Gingrich already.

CanisNoir: while Newt is staying positive

No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Sounds like Ron Paul is running for the Lemon party.

Join the Lemon Party and fight for America.

CanisNoir: Paul is not really saying anything new about Gingrich, so this will ultimately come down to a test to see whether or not negative campaigning truly does help. Paul is going negative while Newt is staying positive. Paul does, however, have a huge advantage in ground organization in Iowa though.

I like to think of negative campaigning as "digging up the pettiest shiat we can find and take things completely out of context in order to dupe retarded voters".

In this instance, simply having a Frontline / Dateline / Dickline / Whatever 20 min biographical segment on Newt should be enough to sink him, but of course telling his life story is liberal media bias and negative campaigning by Obama, because calling truth truth is just too much for the GOP to stand for.

rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

The link described in the picture below is NSFW. Just covering my bases for when some retard actually goes there and cries about it.

Gunther: rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

Compared to Newt? Manson is a stable individual.

WTFdoesitmatter: The link described in the picture below is NSFW. Just covering my bases for when some retard actually goes there and cries about it.

[oi44.tinypic.com image 612x792]

+∞ Internets to you.

That's a mean troll.

LeoffDaGrate: Gunther: rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

Compared to Newt? Manson is a stable individual.

Charles Manson...

LeoffDaGrate: Gunther: rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

Compared to Newt? Manson is a stable individual.

Point.

What's left to expose? Everyone outside the dittoheads has known Newt is a lying sanctimonious gelatinous pantload for 17 years. Someone nailed it explaining his appeal when they said "Newt Gingrich is what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like."

Gunther: rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

Well, when compaired to the rest of the GOP candidates, he comes in just behind Romney and Huntsman. Granted, its a scale of 1 to Potato, but still.

WTFdoesitmatter: The link described in the picture below is NSFW. Just covering my bases for when some retard actually goes there and cries about it.

[oi44.tinypic.com image 612x792]

If a person is too stupid to know what platforms the Lemon Party pledges to follow and cannot duck that fantastik flying missile, then I have no pity for them. They can shout their fears and confusions in nature's source, I don't care.
/windex

stoli n coke: What's left to expose? Everyone outside the dittoheads has known Newt is a lying sanctimonious gelatinous pantload for 17 years. Someone nailed it explaining his appeal when they said "Newt Gingrich is what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like."

I think that was maybe Joe Klein or Krugman. But at any rate, the left should now try to sink Paul for trying to sink Gingrich. I used to think Gingrich was a bigger threat in the general than Romney, but it looks like his own party can't stand his ass, which won't matter as much in the general since THEY MUST unite behind him, but no indie will vote for him.

Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich really are the polar opposites of the GOP today.

In 2008 the fight between Hillary and Obama really pumped up the base, but then Hillary and Obama had practically zero disagreements on policy. This isn't true of Newt and Paul. If it came down to these two, we could really see some soul searching in the GOP about the future of the party.

The fastest way to expose Gingrich is to become married to a congressman.

sprawl15: The fastest way to expose Gingrich is to become married to a congressman. offer him a blow job

FTFY

Would Ron Paul be up for stripping/undoing the effects of the NDAA and barring legislation like SOPA?

Because that would sort of put his level of corrupt corporate cronyism a bit lower than most of the other candidates on both sides.

After he realized what century he was in, that is.

WTFdoesitmatter: The link described in the picture below is NSFW. Just covering my bases for when some retard actually goes there and cries about it.

[oi44.tinypic.com image 612x792]

Eye bleach No. Fat Gingrich's rolls of fat midsection has a special nasty scar from wearing a secret million dollar money belt, just walking around money.

He's thinking of having a colostomy bag installed. He could sell souvenirs.

Paul says this as if nobody is aware of what Gingrich has been doing. When will we see the issue of Paul's racist newsletter come up? I believe that if the media brings that up Paul will be sunk. But then again, Robert "KKK" Byrd spent a lifetime in office so I could be wrong.
The problem with Paul as I see it is that even if he gets elected he will be fighting two sides and be an ineffectual President.

tomcatadam: Would Ron Paul be up for stripping/undoing the effects of the NDAA and barring legislation like SOPA?

Because that would sort of put his level of corrupt corporate cronyism a bit lower than most of the other candidates on both sides.

Since RAND PAUL was one of the most vocal critics of the NDAA, I imagine RON PAUL would have a similar position. SOPA, on the other hand...the elderly still don't understand that YouTube doesn't have editors that release all the videos.

sprawl15: Since RAND PAUL was one of the most vocal critics of the NDAA,

It's quite scary that Rand's statements on the matter were the most succinct and accurate of all US politicians thus far.

Whodat: Paul says this as if nobody is aware of what Gingrich has been doing. When will we see the issue of Paul's racist newsletter come up? I believe that if the media brings that up Paul will be sunk.

Because if there is anything the Republicans won't tolerate, it's racism.

/It is kind of amusing seeing Republicans trying to find an excuse other than "He won't let us attack Iran! Waaah!"

tomcatadam: sprawl15: Since RAND PAUL was one of the most vocal critics of the NDAA,

It's quite scary that Rand's statements on the matter were the most succinct and accurate of all US politicians thus far.

I certainly don't agree with him or his father on every issue. On the other hand, I admire the both of them for not being whores. Or at least whoring consistently and transparently.

As goofy as Ron Paul is he's one of the only politicians I think I'd actually trust to do what he thinks is right for the country. That's not always a good thing but if we had a government filled entirely with people with their hearts in the right place, regardless of political angle, maybe we wouldn't be so thoroughly screwed. Congress could at least have some honest debates.

Kuoxasar: tomcatadam: sprawl15: Since RAND PAUL was one of the most vocal critics of the NDAA,

It's quite scary that Rand's statements on the matter were the most succinct and accurate of all US politicians thus far.

I certainly don't agree with him or his father on every issue. On the other hand, I admire the both of them for not being whores. Or at least whoring consistently and transparently.

They seem to have about the same capacity for being extremely good at finding problems and explaining why they are problems. It's just a shame that neither could find a decent solution even if you rubbed one gently on their chests.

Kuoxasar: As goofy as Ron Paul is he's one of the only politicians I think I'd actually trust to do what he thinks is right for the country. That's not always a good thing but if we had a government filled entirely with people with their hearts in the right place, regardless of political angle, maybe we wouldn't be so thoroughly screwed. Congress could at least have some honest debates.

He's still a shill, he's just less of one.
But all the crap going on right now should be absolutely perfect advertising fodder. He should be able to hit the ground running, fast and hard, and relentlessly attack both the Republicans and the Democrats (or rather, presidential opponents; Obama and the Goof Troops) with attacks that actually hold some weight.

If Ron Paul does nothing more in his life than destroy any future political aspirations Newt has, he will have done the world a great service and should be celebrated by future historians.

FuturePastNow: If Ron Paul does nothing more in his life than destroy any future political aspirations Newt has, he will have done the world a great service and should be celebrated by future historians.

Not if that means Romney gets elected.

FuturePastNow: If Ron Paul does nothing more in his life than destroy any future political aspirations Newt has, he will have done the world a great service and should be celebrated by future historians.

QFT

As an addendum to my earlier post, an insightful article from The Village Voice: Rightbloggers Close Ranks Against Ron Paul, The Wrong Kind of Small-Government Conservative (new window).

Snarfangel: As an addendum to my earlier post, an insightful article from The Village Voice: Rightbloggers Close Ranks Against Ron Paul, The Wrong Kind of Small-Government Conservative (new window).

That's because Paul's an actual conservative and not a rank-and-file prosperity gospel fundamentalist.

Well, at least compared/according to them.

sprawl15: Kuoxasar: tomcatadam: sprawl15: Since RAND PAUL was one of the most vocal critics of the NDAA,

It's quite scary that Rand's statements on the matter were the most succinct and accurate of all US politicians thus far.

I certainly don't agree with him or his father on every issue. On the other hand, I admire the both of them for not being whores. Or at least whoring consistently and transparently.

They seem to have about the same capacity for being extremely good at finding problems and explaining why they are problems. It's just a shame that neither could find a decent solution even if you rubbed one gently on their chests.

That's what always has me torn on Ron Paul. He's one of the only politicians I can trust to be completely earnest in his positions and he's one of the few candidates running who has a worldview not based entirely on trying to pretend that it is still 1980 and all of Reagan's critiques still apply. He is very adept at identifying real issues (i.e. Unrestrained expansionary Fed policy during a boom period caused the housing bubble and that power projection in the Middle East leads to backlash) but his solutions are usually so extreme that the cure is worse than the disease (abolish the Fed and close all foreign bases).

....but his solutions are usually so extreme that the cure is worse than the disease (abolish the Fed and close all foreign bases)

I believe Paul is advocating legalizing other currencies, firstly, not outright abolishing the Fed. Lasting change takes time to institute, in Paul's view.

The closure rate of foreign bases may be in question, however.

idiotwithabeer: I believe Paul is advocating legalizing other currencies, firstly, not outright abolishing the Fed.

He wants the former to be the transition state for the latter. He wants to have simultaneous currencies because he believes the dollar will collapse against a gold backed currency, practically returning our economy to a gold standard.

Gunther: LeoffDaGrate: Gunther: rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

Compared to Newt? Manson is a stable individual.

Point.

Newt hasn't carved a swastika into his forehead yet, but give him time.

I still think there's bad blood between them over Paul's 1996 election to the House. Newt wanted to piss in Ron's Cheerios but Ron cock-punched him first.

He wants the former to be the transition state for the latter. He wants to have simultaneous currencies because he believes the dollar will collapse against a gold backed currency, practically returning our economy to a gold standard.

The Gold standard seems to be one option of course. I read a blurb (not from Paul) about coining money relative to GDP or some such related thing, which in effect "backs" the system with the amount of goods and services in the economy. My details are sketchy at best sorry (it's past my bedtime, drat the night shifts!)

From Paul, I think he's mentioned just legalizing competing currencies (remember the Liberty Dollar?), and keeping tabs on what happens.

Whodat: Paul says this as if nobody is aware of what Gingrich has beLink (new window)en doing. When will we see the issue of Paul's racist newsletter come up? I believe that if the media brings that up Paul will be sunk. But then again, Robert "KKK" Byrd spent a lifetime in office so I could be wrong.
The problem with Paul as I see it is that even if he gets elected he will be fighting two sides and be an ineffectual President.

Byrd is famous for being against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Paul protested against the 1964 Civil Rights Act in 2004.


"the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

tomcatadam: Snarfangel: As an addendum to my earlier post, an insightful article from The Village Voice: Rightbloggers Close Ranks Against Ron Paul, The Wrong Kind of Small-Government Conservative (new window).

That's because Paul's an actual conservative and not a rank-and-file prosperity gospel fundamentalist.

Well, at least compared/according to them.

Ron Paul would normally have at least some dominionist cred, except that pretty much everyone else running (other than John Huntsman--who has about as much of a chance as Frosty the Snowman in Death Valley) and Mitt Romney (who is probably Too Damned Mormon to get the nomination) might as well be out of the cast of "Jesus Camp".

(Which is to say: Hardline dominionist, NARasite, and at least practical knowledge of "name it and claim it" and speaking in tongues/"being slain in the spirit"/waving around "swords of the lord" is pretty much a requirement. Even Santorum and Gingrich--who used to be pretty much the Old Opus-Dei-Catholic Guard--have been sucking up to Lou Engle (who is about as hardcore NARasite Jesus Camper as it gets) this election.)

Fark.

HighOnCraic: Whodat: Paul says this as if nobody is aware of what Gingrich has beLink (new window)en doing. When will we see the issue of Paul's racist newsletter come up? I believe that if the media brings that up Paul will be sunk. But then again, Robert "KKK" Byrd spent a lifetime in office so I could be wrong.
The problem with Paul as I see it is that even if he gets elected he will be fighting two sides and be an ineffectual President.

Byrd is famous for being against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Paul protested against the 1964 Civil Rights Act in 2004.


"the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

You have to admire his courage. When pressed, Rand Paul backed down on his belief that racial discrimination in public accommodations is a constitutional right. I don't think Ron Paul has ever wavered on the matter.

Ron Paul:

If you really want that to work, catch him exposing himself to wife number 4.

MisterRonbo: ApeShaft: LeoffDaGrate: Gunther: rebelyell2006: No, Newt is staying batshiat insane.

Whereas RON PAUL is the picture of mental health.

Compared to Newt? Manson is a stable individual.

Charles Manson...

Perhaps he meant Paul supporter Jules Manson. Look him up, a real charmer

Not just a supporter, but the libertarian candidate for city council in Carson, CA.

But Manson was a libertarian, and Ron Paul says that libertarians are incapable of racism. Therefore, we can safely confuse that calling Obama the n-word and demanding the assassination for him and his "monkey children" isn't racist in the slightest. After all, if demanding the assassination of Obama's "monkey children" was racist, then that means that libertarians are capable of racism, and that Ron Paul's is wrong. And since Ron Paul is never wrong, we can safely conclude that the phrase isn't racist.

It's like when Ron Paul voted against the Rosa Parks medal for using tax payer dollars, even though the bill specifically said that the medal would be self-funded through the sale of replicas by an agency that receives zero tax dollars from the government. Yet even though the bill specifically said this, and even after I pointed to the specific lines in question, the Paultards on fark continued to insist that Ron Paul was right and the bill was wrong.

Because if the medal didn't rely on tax dollars, it would mean that Ron Paul didn't know what he was talking about, which they refused to accept. Therefore the text of the bill must be lying. That was the only logical explanation.