Dear mother of god.

These people are insane.

hahahahaha.. my "obsession".

Hey chuck, wander through the blog and count all my Ron Paul posts for the past, hell, year or so.

You won't need an abacus.

JUST IMAGINE... MY BALLS.. ON RON PAUL'S NOGGIN.

It's totally different, because we are America, damnit, and we've fucking well proved that we sacrifice and die for other people's freedom and always give back any land we take by force (except for cemetaries to bury our dead - thanks, Colon Powell).  No other country has even remotely approached our record, even when we fuck up.

Fuck you, Ron Paul.  Next Question.  (FYRP, NQ).

TL;DW.

@7: "There isn't anyone not insane who sincerely support him, is there?"

There are a few.  Most are either "I hate government" or artist/free-spirit types (the non-offensive, or at least less-offensive neo-hippies).

Sorry Dave, love ya bunches and always will. I know this ad is way over the top. Paul's supporters left out a bunch of caveats here also, like the part where Texas was killing their own citizens (not that some don't need killin'.)

There is a kernel of truth in this ad. A fairly large kernel too.

I have a bigger problem with people who won't admit the issues inherent in occupation because they insist being right means they can outlast those who disagree. I don't think we can afford--actually "pay for" afford--to see if they're right.

WMD's were the reason we went to Iraq.

Just sayin'

Leftwing la la land's favorite candidates:

Obama! Ron Paul! Stewart/Colbert!

I don't think there is anything wrong with ending a war, if possible, once you determine that your objectives can be acheived, or if they cannot be. In one case you finish the job, in the other, you end the engagement and withdraw. 

War is not pretty. I know this.

WMD's were the reason we went to Iraq.

Correction - WMDs were one of the reasons we went into Iraq.  While WMDs were a major reason we entered Iraq, they weren't the only reason - a fact that Dems/libs seem to have forgotten.

By the way, there were more links between Saddam and terrorism than originally thought too -

Saddam's Dangerous Friends

@55: "And no, I don't have the answer, because everything people do about it ends up worse than the problem."

Mass graves cover a multitude of sins.

>> I have a bigger problem with people who won't admit the issues inherent in occupation because they insist being right means they can outlast those who disagree.

You can't go from A to F.  You have to go through the other letters.

Bin Laden used GW1 and troops based there protecting the kingdom as an excuse to act in the way they always intended to act and had in fact acted for decades.

Perpetually aggrieved parties are.. what's the word?  Perpetually. Aggrieved.

ok it's two words.

What the crap?

Paul becoming the #2 guy in the primary is the only thing that would make folks unite behind Romney like Buchanan in 96 did w/ Dole

Perpetually aggrieved parties are.. what's the word?  Perpetually. Aggrieved.

 ok it's two words.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 27, 2011 08:50 PM (PjVdx)

The Club of Rome is paying you to write that, aren't they?  Of course they are.

Leftwing la la land's favorite candidates:

Obama! Ron Paul! Stewart/Colbert!

Posted by: whatever at December 27, 2011 08:43 PM (O7ksG)

dont forget Huntsman

>> The Club of Rome is paying you to write that, aren't they?

I get paid by the word.

Hence, it's two words motherfuckers.

I meant, mother fuckers.

>>>Perpetually aggrieved parties are.. what's the word? Perpetually. Aggrieved.

Yes, and fuck them. Talk about needing killin'.

But that's not really who I or the makers of this ad are talking about. Occupations do militarize those who might not otherwise join the ranks of the perpetually aggrieved, no question. In fact, it makes me puke to write it because it is such lefty cant.

I can look at that ad and be pissed about the sentiment it is trying to appeal to. And the tone of it is puerile, which is about the worst thing in my book as you can imagine it would be. But I cannot say it is dishonest.

I'm thrilled to see someone to the left of JFK contending for the top of the Republican ticket, thrilled I say.

JFK would be too far right for the Dems these days, ya know.

But I cannot say it is dishonest.

Yes, it is dishonest because the emotional trigger it uses is the assumption that America and China exist on the same moral plane.

IMAGINE you had been constantly aggressive toward the West for 13 centuries.

IMAGINE you had captured all of North Africa and a chunk of Europe and subjugated its people.

IMAGINE you grew week and taken the wrong side in a world war.

IMAGINE you were powerless and decenteralized for several decades.

IMAGINE you begin to organize, regroup and grow more powerful.

IMAGINE you begin attacking the West again just like you always used to.

IMAGINE you blame your attacks on a group taking back land the size of Vancouver Island that had belonged to them for centuries where your people are more prosperous, free and healthy then they had been in the history of the world.

IMAGINE you blame your attacks on the fact your enemy has a small military force in a country that asked them to station a small military force in their country.

NOW IMAGINE that people are stupid enough to believe you.

Yes, it is dishonest because the emotional trigger it uses is the assumption that America and China exist on the same moral plane.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 27, 2011 09:01 PM (7EV/g)

Oh, but they are.  As are cupcakes, AIDS, corgi puppies, and paper cuts.

Posted by: BornLib at December 27, 2011 08:54 PM (zpNwC)

--

Although I agree with your statement, Jonah Goldberg would disagree - he says Romney is much more conservative than he used to be - as in Romney is not actually a RINO.  And I would agree.  He isn't a RINO - he's closer to being a moderate democRAT.  Which would put him somewhere left of JFK.  But, I don't think that's what Jonah was trying to say.

http://tinyurl.com/7d97dda

It's sad.  I don't usually disagree with Jonah, but in this case he is obviously wrong.  I really don't understand what's happened to the NR crew.  Maybe it's something in the water they're drinking.

Posted by: dagny at December 27, 2011 09:05 PM (R62Yx)

Where do I sign up?

Spongeworthy, I get what you're saying, that point is on effect or impact.  And yep, I love you too, and we're friends, and I can't wait to hoist another one with you.

It's just, I despise claims of "moral equivalence" where none exist.  These are not the same thing, this comparison in this video.

I love the bit near the end where the narrator's voice raises in pitch from overexcitement. Notice scraping, constricted tone melts seamlessly with Pauly Ronnut's wheezy monologue? Close your eyes and you can easily envision the narrator's neckbeard bristles standing up on end as his flabby body swells with Paulian fervor, albuterol at the ready.

After Rue Paul called Israel an apartheid state he is on my permanent shit-list. FY RP. NQ ..... I love that. And by the way. Obama is still a SCOAMF

There are no words to express my disgust for the dredges of Humanity that support that piece of filth RP. 

A LONG POST --- My observations going back a half yearÂ…

I have been getting regular emails for months from my conservative friend in Florida promoting Bachmann.  I looked into her, read about her, and listened to her.  I concluded that I could not tolerate both stupidity and that shrieking voice on a daily basis. – OUT

I liked Tim Pawlenty a lot, but poor planning left him with not enough money at a very early stage.  Why bother entering at all, if the coffers were that low? – OUT

Santorum said some things I liked, but the WAY he said them was annoying, and then his debate performances were both flat and whiney.  – OUT

I liked CainÂ’s education and history, but could not get used to the cadence of his speech, and he didnÂ’t strike me as “stable”.  – OUT

I liked Huntsman on day 1.  On day 2, I concluded he is a “wuss” based on how he didnÂ’t handle a bad problem within his own campaign.  And he has proven my “wuss” assessment and much, much more – OUT

After seeing Ron Paul for years as such an “underdog” for so long, and the MSM ignoring him, so did I.

Along comes Perry!  I watched his announcement speech, and said “yippee” this is my guy.

In the meantime, Romney was always in the background for me, not to be even considered, since he struck me as boring.

Also, in the meantime, Gingrich appeared not to be serious at first, so I ignored him.

THEN THE DEBATES!  Oh my, oh my, oh my! Newt hit the MSM big time; I begin to pay attention, but still root for Perry.  Romney is mediocre in the debates; Newt kicks butt, and Perry?  Well, it was obvious to me that he was in pain, and I praised him for his bravery in sticking it out.  I read his Energy Plan, and liked it.  I read his Economic Plan, and liked it.  I understood the reasons for the poor debate performancesÂ… (I canÂ’t even stand at my kitchen sink for longer than 5 minutes without getting severe back cramps).  I even understood the pickle he is in as governor with the immigrant problem.  My Texan brother has kept me up to date for years about how enormous the problem is to solve without the Feds stepping up.  Texas taxpayers donÂ’t want a bunch of illiterate “thugs” roaming the streets, so they grudgingly educate them.  So, I didnÂ’t get offended by the “heartless” comment.

Now, here we are.  There is no need to rehash all that has happened since the debates, but I get “bummed out” when I read here that “the writing is on the wall”. 

1)      Stupid Iowa voters will knock Perry and Gingrich down, and then itÂ’s over?

2)      The MSM is pushing Romney, so itÂ’s inevitable?

3)      The White House is “scared” of Romney! NOT!

4)      The Establishment GOP is making all the same mistakes all over again.  How stupid can they be?

5)      ObamaÂ’s numbers are upÂ… and many more hysterical rants, some of which are true.

Well, which is it?  Is it all of the above?  Are we capitulating this soon?  Are we deciding to accept the “inevitable”?  For me, some days, yes.  And, some days, Hell No!

My priority candidates: 1 – Perry, 2 – Gingrich, 3 – Romney.  My realistic assessment: Romney.  But, Romney with warts, leprosy, and a green complexion is FAR better than the prospect of Obama for 4 more years.

Well, this is my first time venting, and I will wait until another time to rant on about the reasons for my visceral reactions every time I see Obama!

We have very little interest in your stories about extreme nausea, explosive diarrhea and projectile vomiting that is triggered by the sight or sound of the JEF.

We all have the same reactions.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at December 27, 2011 10:24 PM (nEUpB)

Good, saves me a lot of time.  (Also, a NJ conservative).

Are the Ron Paul supporters suggesting that we Texans take up arms against the illegal armies of the Mexican drug cartels that have invaded our nation and our state?  They have invaded, set up camps, murdered American citizens, and continue to terrorize Americans.

Seems Ron Paulbots are promoting all out war against our invaders.  And here I thought Ron Paul was anti-war.

Actually, this explains a lot.

You see, the Ronulans have achieved a rarely seen state in politics.

Their heads are so far up their asses that they look normal walking down the street, but in reality their stetching of space-time to achieve such a non-Euclidean topology has rendered them completely insane.

Sad really, but that's what happens when you ignore reality too much in favor of ideology.

"awesome video, and so true."

It certainly is. I mean, imagine if America fought a global war against Japan and Germany which resulted in both nations losing a significant percentage of their populations and then having US troops stationed there for 60+ years. Why Germany and Japan would be rife with violence and instability thanks to US imperialism and totally incapable of establishing democracy. And can you imagine how many German and Japanese terrorists would be blowing themselves up in crowded New York subways and be completely justififed in doing so?

"It helps to remind me of why I support Paul"

Because you're a clueless historically illiterate chump with no understanding of the world about you.

the GOP is insane, they enable the progressive madness at every opportunity, time to try something different.

I'm trying to get into Ace of Spades thinking mode:

1) Islam is an 1,300 year old evil, regressive idelogy that represents a present threat to our liberty, security and way of life.

2) By deposing the tyrannical governments of Islamic countries we can turn them into fully functioning modern democracies in about a decade or so, no big problem.

It's like you just know you have to support any and all wars America involves itself in because you support the troops and you don't even notice that your own assessment of Islam shows that these wars are futile waste of money and lives.

Anyway, back to your "the Federal government is like the bestest thing ever and anyone who thinks they are a gang of crooks trying to rook you must love slavery and hate Jew bankers" echo chamber.

"that these wars are futile waste of money and lives."

War in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001:

Total U.S. Dead: 4,474 (Iraq) + 1842 (Afghansitan) = 6,316 Total or 574/yr. avg.

Total U.S. Dead from combat = 4,839 or 440/yr. avg.

Total U.S. Cost: $1.28 Trillion

I beleive that if you throw a generalized opinion out there, you should show us the facts your basing your opinion from. BTW, One of Obama's yearly deficits would have paid for 10 years of War in Iraq and Afghanistan. I disagree with you, it seems to me that we accomplished alot for a small price. But everyone is entitled to their opinion....I guess it all comes down to one's perspective.

"I disagree with you, it seems to me that we accomplished alot for a small price."

Accomplished what? Members of the Iraqi government are taking out arrest warrants on their fellow cabinet ministers for running death squads taking out other cabinet ministers. In Afghanstan the montrously corrupt, possibly druglord, President needs to step in under western pressure to stop government courts executing a woman for being raped. All that for $1,280,000,000. On top of the rest of the military budget and at the expense of over 6,000 American lives. Really?

A CIA mission to depose Saddam and replace him with a less psychotic and more pro-American dictator (shouldn't have been too hard to track down), that I could understand, but all that money for what you've got out of it. Social Security is a better investment. Solyndra was a better investment. I can't see what kind of fiscal conservatism can justify such a terrible cost to results ratio.

"Wow, apparently it is possible to operate a keyboard despite having your head lodged in your own colon.  Who knew?"

Wow, mature. It must take an amazing amount of cognitive dissonance to rationalise combining Islamophobia and utopian neconservative interventionism, but I suppose being amazingly narrow minded makes it a lot easier.

Seriously, have you actually not noticed just how much the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have diminished American global power? The Chinese really couldn't have better friends than you guys.

www.genset-china.com

happy  everyday