What's wrong with Huntsman? And I would argue that Santorum is at least as religious as Bachmann.>> ^bobknight33:

The Grand Old Party aka the Republican Party
Rick Perry -- Once Democrat - Turncoat
Newt Gingrich -- Left leaning with way to much baggage
Mitt Romney -- Romneycare- Left leaning
Ron Paul -- Stickler for the Constitution- even to a fault (Foreign Affairs)doesn't waiver,
Rick Santorum -- Good,Conservative but needs to place well in Iowa
John Huntsman -- The Foreign Affairs Champ of the bunch -
Michele Bachmann -- Like Ron Paul but carries too much religious Baggage
As a conservative it appears the Paul and Santorum are the best choice.

The Grand Old Party aka the Republican Party

Rick Perry -- Once Democrat - Turncoat
Newt Gingrich -- Left leaning with way to much baggage
Mitt Romney -- Romneycare- Left leaning
Ron Paul -- Stickler for the Constitution- even to a fault (Foreign Affairs)doesn't waiver,
Rick Santorum -- Good,Conservative but needs to place well in Iowa
John Huntsman -- The Foreign Affairs Champ of the bunch -
Michele Bachmann -- Like Ron Paul but carries too much religious Baggage

As a conservative it appears the Paul and Santorum are the best choice.

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.

Of course you're going to blame "capitalists" for socialism's downfall, what choice do you have? Norway? Great example! The were smart enough to stay OUT of the EU. However, in 30 years, when the oil runs low...

As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.

The quote is quite apt. A king decides who may and who may not prosper in his kingdom. A US President daring to decide the same? TYRANNY.

And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!


Everything I've written about marx is accurate. Please point to some real-world examples of free, prosperous marxist nations.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.
As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.
And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!
>> ^quantumushroom:
Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.
Then we get this from His Earness:
“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."
Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong
Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?
Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012

Hey QM, who is your favorite nominee so far to go against Obama? What makes them your favorite?>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Actually the failures in "socialist Europe" are down to capitalists fucking things up. OTOH places like Norway which has essentially nationalised it's oil industry are actually doing well.

As for your Obama quote, I don't actually think you have read it correctly because it doesn't even remotely support your position, not that you've ever let reality intrude on your juvenile little rants.

And Marx? You remind me of Zapp Brannigan: we don't know anything about them, so we can only assume they stand for everything we don't stand for!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Not overly interested in whether my comrades here think I sufficiently understand marx, he's the left's savior, not mine. Not only was marx a lousy human being and horrible in his personal handling of money, he thought the profit motive could be stripped from the system and it would work just as well.
Then we get this from His Earness:
“You don’t have some inherent right just to–-you know, get a certain amount of profit."
Words more befitting the late, ungreat kim ill-dong
Is 3.5 years of this idiot's failures not enough for ya? You need 4 more? Hey, Siftberals, take a peek at socialist Europe, broke as a joke and falling apart. THIS is the crap you want for the US?
Anyone-But-His-Earness 2012

I think the whole notion that Iowa gets invalidated if Paul wins is bogus.

That said, Paul is not a threat at all to Obama in the general. He has too many fringe views on domestic and foreign policy. Even aside from my pet peeve (civil rights), most Americans, despite their lip service otherwise, are for big federal government programs, departments, and institutions that Paul would abolish or severely cut.

It would also be easy to portray Paul as a lame duck president on day one, one that would have problems rallying his own caucus in congress to enact his policies.>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.
I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.
But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.
I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

Agree completely. Fox is saying that IF he wins Iowa then it's basically null and void because Paul has no chance of winning the nomination. They are NOT saying that in general the Iowa caucus is meaningless, which is what TYT implies.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Christ, I feel a little sick just typing this, but I think Fox might be right on this one.
/cleans puke off keyboard
I'm not saying they are morally correct, simply that their appraisal of the situation is probably accurate. I don't think anyone really believes Paul will get the nomination. He is simply too far from what most Republicans want (esp on drugs and foreign policy).
It's a shame he's such a nutjob, because some of his policies are interesting.
edit: Actually, I take it back. Having watched the outcome, Cenk makes some really good points.

>> ^artician:

>> ^quantumushroom:
taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.

Have your read Marx? I just want to know if you understand what that means, or if you're just talking out of your ass.


QM thinks Karl Marx was the one who honked a horn instead of talking.

Your video, TYT - Fox News: "If Ron Paul Wins Iowa It Doesn't Count.", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.

I would be greatly surprised if any significant number of Obama supporters would be pulling for Ron Paul because they think he'd be an easy opponent.

I feel like Paul and Romney are the only candidates that can pose a threat. Paul has a loyal anti-war following that crosses party lines and Romney is probably far more popular among independents than any of the other Republicans and maybe even Obama. The biggest hurdle for either of these guys is to win over their own party. Actually, I think Huntsman would have a good chance in the general election as well. He just can't seem to get anyone to pay attention to him now.

But the point is, Paul is not the "easy win" for Obama. Bachmann is. Cain probably would have been. Santorum is, too.

I'd vote for Paul next year as well, if he's there. Especially if we get Gary Johnson on the card with him. Normally I don't care that much about the VP, but at Paul's age we need a good backup plan.

>> ^quantumushroom:

taxocrats are hoping Paul will get the nomination (he won't) so the marxist could run easy, deceptive ads about what a kook Paul is.
I'd vote for Kook Paul over the marxist.


Have your read Marx? I just want to know if you understand what that means, or if you're just talking out of your ass.

WHAT? He wants to further deregulate Wall Street and cut their tax rates in half? Don't drink the Ron Paul kool aid, @marinara. With all the great videos on you post on economics, you should understand how much damage Freidmanite economics has done to the world economy. Ron Paul is not the cure, he's part of the disease. >> ^marinara:

ron paul is the ONLY (republican or democrat) candidate to be sympathetic to occupy wall st.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'same sex marriage, Iowa, gay, resolution 6' to 'Iowa, gay marriage, resolution 6, zach wahls' - edited by bareboards2

>> ^MilkmanDan:

If all of the Mitt Romney challengers implode like this, might the Republican party and mainstream media stop forgetting about RON PAUL, ffs?

All Paul needs to do is win Iowa or New Hampshire, and the media will change their tune about him pretty quickly.

Ugh. *I'm* from Perry, Iowa, at least originally. And it's ass-backwards shit like this that makes me glad I don't live there any more.