I hope he wins outright in Iowa, and then wins again in Nevada, and possibly Texas after Perry drops out. If the 2 choices come down to a split between Romney and Paul, a brokered convention will be impossible to avoid.

To me, the GOP is like minor league hockey: it's not about the game; it's about the fights.

Others will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.

After this, the article might as well be written in poop on the walls of a rubber room somewhere.

I CANNOT wait for Ron Paul to win Iowa. Fox News talking heads are going to explode.

The followers of RON PAUL are as bad as Cubs fans. They really do bvelieve that this year is the year, every time. This is the time that he won't gather large piles of money from them and then get single digits in the primaries. This year people will see that he's not a crackpot,

In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September.

keylock71: The liberal mainstream media...

I'm sorry. I can't take anyone, who uses this ridiculous phrase, seriously.

Also, liberals in the GOP?

[afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com image 390x232]

George W. Bush was a liberal and that's why his policies failed. It must be true, I heard it on right wing radio.

/seriously I have heard that a few times

It would be absolutely sickening to watch, but I'm willing to bet that if Ron Paul wins the majority of delegates, the GOP establishment actually finds a way to override the voters, go in at the eleventh hour, declare the entire primary a farce, and hold a coronation for whomever they hand-pick. They will use some excuse similar to how the electoral college isn't a direct election. They'll perhaps go after the Paul delegates with bribes or threats, or just unilaterally declare the whole thing nonexistent. They aren't a corporation. They are a private club that can legally nominate whomever they want. Of course, this would mean the end of the GOP.

Has anyone mentioned that Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate wacko who only seems sane compared to the other psychos he's running against?

My guess is that is what destroys Paul.

Make no mistake about it, the constant refrain "He's unelectable" will destroy RON PAUL

Tommy Moo: It would be absolutely sickening to watch, but I'm willing to bet that if Ron Paul wins the majority of delegates, the GOP establishment actually finds a way to override the voters, go in at the eleventh hour, declare the entire primary a farce, and hold a coronation for whomever they hand-pick. They will use some excuse similar to how the electoral college isn't a direct election. They'll perhaps go after the Paul delegates with bribes or threats, or just unilaterally declare the whole thing nonexistent. They aren't a corporation. They are a private club that can legally nominate whomever they want. Of course, this would mean the end of the GOP.


They would be dumb to do it, because if they tried to pull some shady crap like that Ron Paul would run 3rd Party which would automatically give Obama another 4 years. I think its the reason why they haven't attacked him more then they have. They are scared to death he will run 3rd party.

Philip Francis Queeg: In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September July.

fixed, now with more schadenfreude

Everything a "conservative" perceives as bad in the world is blamed on liberalism or communism or socialism, also those 3 words mean exactly the same thing.

BilltheThrill: Has anyone mentioned that Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate wacko who only seems sane compared to the other psychos he's running against?

My guess is that is what destroys Paul.

You are like the rest of liberals who get all scared when you hear state rights and instantly start pulling slavery out of your ass. Yes, each state would have its own right to write its own laws, but only laws that are found LEGAL BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (you know, the one thing Ron Paul always talks about?)

While many Republicans dismissed Buchanan's New Hampshire win as irrelevant, arguing his support was too narrow to ever win the nomination, the neoconservative wing of the GOP darkly warned of a Buchanan menace. "People are panicked," Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard told Newsweek. "If they're not, it's only because they don't know what's going on."

The liberal mainstream media dutifully filled out Kristol's picture of "what's going on." Newsweek put an ominously lit picture of Buchanan on the cover under the words "Preaching Fear." The article stretched itself into contortions to paint Buchanan as a white racist. (Buchanan was campaigning in South Carolina, which still flew the Confederate flag over its capitol.)


Yeah, that was the reason everyone called Buchanan a racist: it was a joint liberal/conservative smear based on him campaigning in SC. It had nothing to do with him saying a bunch of racist shiat or anything.

Every time I read an article by a RP fanboy, I'm always struck by how bugfark insane they are. Every single time. He really is the nutjob candidate, isn't he?

Philip Francis Queeg: The followers of RON PAUL are as bad as Cubs fans. They really do bvelieve that this year is the year, every time. This is the time that he won't gather large piles of money from them and then get single digits in the primaries. This year people will see that he's not a crackpot,

In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September.

Also they forget that even if the GOP field was bad enough for him to win the primaries, he would then actually have to run for president - they can't even defend his insane policies on online forums, so what is going to happen when his views are given more exposure to the rest of the electorate (even half the GOP would run a mile from him), instead of most of what he says being ignored as an also ran?

I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

ATOTony76: They would be dumb to do it, because if they tried to pull some shady crap like that Ron Paul would run 3rd Party which would automatically give Obama another 4 years. I think its the reason why they haven't attacked him more then they have. They are scared to death he will run 3rd party.

Don't ruin my dream scenario yet, please...it makes me happy. I envision Gingrich getting the nomination and running some super moron like Perry, Bachmann, or hell maybe even Santorum as VP. This proves too much for the "sane" members of the GOP and RON PAUL gets Johnson or Huntsman to run with him as a third party. RON PAUL CRUSHES Gingrich in the polls, Obama still wins, but Gingrich and the GOP are disgraced, and the party starts to realize that time for a sanity overhaul is in dire need. Then we actually start to see sane people we can vote for.

/I can dream...

BilltheThrill: Has anyone mentioned that Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate wacko who only seems sane compared to the other psychos he's running against?

My guess is that is what destroys Paul.

s2s2s2: Make no mistake about it, the constant refrain of "He's unelectable" from conservatives will destroy RON PAUL

STOP HITTING YOURSELF, GOP.

Seriously, why fall all over yourselves to break Reagan (PBUH)'s 11th Commandment with RONPAUL? Is it the pot thing? Is it the dislike of foreign adventurism? The pork? Does he not love Jesus like you do?

Plenty of liberals and progressives like him (I have a far-left friend on facebook who calls Paul "the only progressive in the 2012 race" unironically). I like him for several of his philosphies, but would never vote for him for president.

He's make an excellent advisor - like Dave Barry's Department of Louise.

// The officials would say: "Louise, we'd like to give the Syrians a couple million dollars to reward them for going almost a week without harboring a terrorist."
// and Louise would say: "No."
// Then they would say: "Louise, we want to..."
// And Louise would say: "No."
// all decisions must be made before 5:30pm, because Louise would be very strict about picking her kids up at daycare

OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

New to where? America? Earth? Liberal/progressive are demonized words for a few decades now, it makes it easier to convince people to vote against their best interests.

xria: Philip Francis Queeg: The followers of RON PAUL are as bad as Cubs fans. They really do bvelieve that this year is the year, every time. This is the time that he won't gather large piles of money from them and then get single digits in the primaries. This year people will see that he's not a crackpot,

In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September.

Also they forget that even if the GOP field was bad enough for him to win the primaries, he would then actually have to run for president - they can't even defend his insane policies on online forums, so what is going to happen when his views are given more exposure to the rest of the electorate (even half the GOP would run a mile from him), instead of most of what he says being ignored as an also ran?

I can only imagine how RON PAUL's views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would play in a debate with Obama.

OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

Oh, they've been using that for a long time. It's a good way of filtering out the pants-on-head retarded -- if you see certain words or phrases used a certain way, you know the writer or speaker can be safely ignored and/or laughed at.

OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

5:34 AM Pacific Standard Time.

ATOTony76: I CANNOT wait for Ron Paul to win Iowa. Fox News talking heads are going to explode.

Especially since Bill O'reilly said Ron Paul "has no chance at all at getting the nomination"

I'm a conservative but seeing Bill get it wrong always makes me giggle.

The neo-cons will be doing the crushing - duh. Paul's views are 180 degrees from the neo-con agenda:

1. He wants to END the war on drugs (big Pharm not happy)
2. He wants to actually CUT government spending - not just social programs for the poor/elderly (GOP/Dems not happy)
3. He doesn't think we should use the military as a tool for the rich to get more money (GOP freaking the fark out)

I'm no Paul defender or supporter, but he is the exact OPPOSITE relative to the host of other GOP clones in this race. They will eat him from within.

Philip Francis Queeg: The followers of RON PAUL are as bad as Cubs fans. They really do bvelieve that this year is the year, every time. This is the time that he won't gather large piles of money from them and then get single digits in the primaries. This year people will see that he's not a crackpot,

In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September.

The majority of Paultards I've met would vote for Pol Pot if he promised to make weed legal.

All his so called "libertarian" supporters are just rank and file Republicans who like to get high.

TIKIMAN87: Especially since Bill O'reilly said Ron Paul "has no chance at all at getting the nomination"

Correct me if I am wrong but even if Paul wins he can still not receive the nomination in the end?

OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

Sometime in the early 1980s. It was a marketing ploy by Lee Atwater.

OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

When Rush Limbaugh's radio show went national.

phaseolus: Philip Francis Queeg: In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September July.

fixed, now with more schadenfreude

I was going to go with mid-April, but you beat me to the joke. The best sign I ever saw at a sporting event was someone holding up a "Maybe next year" sign on the Cubs' opening day.

/csb

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

Sometime in the early 1980s. It was a marketing ploy by Lee Atwater.

Something of a southern Democratic slander of north east liberal Republicans like Dewy that jumped ship with the southern strategy.

What I find interesting is that civil rights split traditionally Republican liberals between the two parties. With those more socially liberal becoming Democrats and those more classically liberal becoming the libertarian wing of the Republcian party.

RINO?

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: OneTimed: I'm new here. When did the word "liberal" become the go-to pejorative used by retards?

Sometime in the early 1980s. It was a marketing ploy by Lee Atwater.

Be fair. They had to come up with something. After all, by then, it became uncool to publicly blame everything on blacks and Jews.

The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media. (Disclosure: Paul wrote the foreword to my 2009 book.)

Oh, this should be good, look up info on author:

A former reporter for Robert D. Novak,' Timothy P. Carney is the Examiner's senior political columnist. Carney is also the author of two books: 'Obamanomics' and 'The Big Ripoff.

What does a reporter *for* Robery Novak mean? Fact checker? Ghost writer? Oh, and I bet "Obamanomics" has one of those laughably silly long subtitles, lets see...

Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

This stuff writes itself.

ATOTony76: BilltheThrill: Has anyone mentioned that Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate wacko who only seems sane compared to the other psychos he's running against?

My guess is that is what destroys Paul.

You are like the rest of liberals who get all scared when you hear state rights and instantly start pulling slavery out of your ass. Yes, each state would have its own right to write its own laws, but only laws that are found LEGAL BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (you know, the one thing Ron Paul always talks about?)

Who mentioned slavery? This country cannot be governed effectively by 50 separate entities. It didn't work when it was a small agrarian society that ended at the Missouri River, and it sure as hell won't work today.

ATOTony76: You are like the rest of liberals who get all scared when you hear state rights

I'm about as far from liberal as you can get, but states' rights are misdirected brain poison. The problem is authoritarianism, not the source of the authoritarianism. The argument between states' and federal rights is like an argument over if the Federal government or the local government should stand in your living room and tell you what television is OK to watch. While we can debate which government agent would be best to stand over your shoulder, I have a slightly different idea: telling them to get the fark out of your house. The first thing that I would do with government, were I to have a magic wand, would be to amend the 9th Amendment to put individual rights on a higher level than states' rights.

ATOTony76: Yes, each state would have its own right to write its own laws, but only laws that are found LEGAL BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

What's the point of 50 variations of the same laws, other than to impede the individual? Look at gun laws in this country, you can be transporting a gun from one gun-friendly state to another, but if you don't do a pile of research before moving it, you may be in violation of all kinds of laws somewhere along your trip. To enable individual freedom, the simplest solution is to have a single set of gun laws apply nationally. You don't need to learn if your license to conceal carry is reciprocal with the three states you're driving through, or to what degree the firearm has to be stored. You just follow the one, simple law.

FeedTheCollapse: Paul won't lose due to some nefarious GOP scheme; he'll lose because his supporters don't want to actually do much of anything outside of arguing in Political forums.

Well, a big problem with Paul is that his ideas are very general; he has very few specific implementations for how he would go about doing anything he proposed. He wants to eliminate the Department of Energy. OK. Cool. How? What agency takes over our nuclear arsenal? Sure, we can give the nuke subs to the navy, the bombs/missiles to the Air Force, and I guess sell the power plants. But then who performs the regulatory functions the DoE performed? It can't be the military, that's a violation of Posse Comitatus.

stoli n coke: The majority of Paultards I've met would vote for Pol Pot if he promised to make weed legal.

Pol Pot tops the Pole pot poll, pols say.

Headso: TIKIMAN87: Especially since Bill O'reilly said Ron Paul "has no chance at all at getting the nomination"

Correct me if I am wrong but even if Paul wins he can still not receive the nomination in the end?

True, however people are starting to open their eyes and notice Ron Paul is the only person running that means what he believes what he says and is not a flip flopper. His voting record says it all.

How is it that Ron Paul is the only candidate getting virtually zero media covereage and now he's first in Iowa?

TIKIMAN87: His voting record says it all.

And his pork record speaks louder than his voting record.

TIKIMAN87: True, however people are starting to open their eyes and notice Ron Paul is the only person running that means what he believes what he says and is not a flip flopper. His voting record says it all.

You mean hisrecord of voting against spending bills he has loaded up with earmarks for his district?

stoli n coke: Philip Francis Queeg: The followers of RON PAUL are as bad as Cubs fans. They really do bvelieve that this year is the year, every time. This is the time that he won't gather large piles of money from them and then get single digits in the primaries. This year people will see that he's not a crackpot,

In the end they'll be as disappointed as a Cubs fan in September.

The majority of Paultards I've met would vote for Pol Pot if he promised to make weed legal.

All his so called "libertarian" supporters are just rank and file Republicans who like to get high.

I'm a former voting Democrat thats now a Ron Paul supporter. Back in 2008 I actually donated to Denis Kucinich's campaign, I gave his campaign a couple $50 donations even though at the time I only had a temp. job at a factory and was barely making enough to get by.

Why was I doing this? Because here was a person that had conviction about his beliefs, that wasn't just blowing smoke up your ass. He realized that if you want to have a RATIONAL and SANE government, you start by having it first enforced the highest law of the land, that being the Constitution. He was rightly against all the foreign militarism, against our civil liberties being mangled by the Patriot Act, and against this senseless war on drugs that makes drug cartels rich and allows our government to waste vital resources enforcing their morality on the people.

Ron Paul supports all those things as well. He differs from Kucinich on matters of economics and the role government should play in our lives. I've actually come around to his line of thinking on economics, although I really never studied economics to begin with until the recession hit, but I still believe in civil liberties and against going to war for reasons other then defending oneself.

I really don't understand why anyone would have a sense of allegiance to any particular party, especially the ones we currently have. I do have an allegiance to my ideals, and I'll vote for who ever is the best champion of those ideals, it doesn't matter if they belong to the Democrat Party, the Republican party, the Green Party, the Toast with Butter Party, I don't really give $%#@ what label they apply to themselves. As long as they stand for what I believe, they have my vote.

Lionel Mandrake: HA! That's funny, subby. There are hardly any liberals in the Democratic Party let alone the GOP.

keylock71: The liberal mainstream media...

I'm sorry. I can't take anyone, who uses this ridiculous phrase, seriously.

Also, liberals in the GOP?

[afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com image 390x232]

No true liberal would vote like congressional liberals and no true liberal writes for the New York Times and the Guardian.

FeedTheCollapse: bacccc: They will eat him from within.

I always find it funny that people seem to think the GOP will be to blame for Paul's lack of support. To me, the obvious narrative is "Ron Paul's supporters think the only way to support their candidate is to send him lots of Money, shout 'RON PAUL!' and spam online polls." Paul won't lose due to some nefarious GOP scheme; he'll lose because his supporters don't want to actually do much of anything outside of arguing in Political forums.

He has support - just not from those who control the content on Fox News. That alone dooms him with the GOP. If you don't tow the company line, you are gone. Paul's as far from the GOP company line as there is now in this race to the bottom. He has no chance.

I'm no Paul supporter but I do support the fact that, unlike any of his piers, he doesn't change his views based on the current political climate.

WastedHero: As long as they stand for what I believe, they have my vote.

What a shiatty way to decide your vote. The NAMBLA party stands for what they believe no matter how unpopular they may be, and I'm not voting for them any time soon.

WastedHero: He realized that if you want to have a RATIONAL and SANE government, you start by having it first enforced the highest law of the land, that being the Constitution.

Strict constitutionalism is, ironically, one of the best ways to undermine the Constitution.

TIKIMAN87:
How is it that Ron Paul is the only candidate getting virtually zero media covereage and now he's first in Iowa?

They're using internet-centric polls? Ask people to actually go out physically to support him, and you'll likely see the same result you have every other year. That or he just looks better than the other nutcases. If he's gotten no media coverage, people might think he's somewhere near that Generic Republican fella. That'll turn around once they actually hear him talk a bit more.

Lionel Mandrake: HA! That's funny, subby. There are hardly any liberals in the Democratic Party let alone the GOP.

That's even funnier.

bacccc: I'm no Paul supporter but I do support the fact that, unlike any of his piers, he doesn't change his views based on the current political climate.

You should look up his position changes on DADT, global warming, and border security.