It's a species of huntsman spider, wich are pretty harmless things, and a specialist spider hunting wasp. The spider never stood a chance.

It's not dead at the end, but merely paralysed. It will be buried in a small burrow dug by the wasp and sut in with the eggs of the wasp laid on it's body. When the eggs hatch they'll have a nice fresh meal of spider to get them going. It will be eaten alive in the burrow.

The wasp doesn't kill the spider because although paralysed it's bodys defenses will still repel infection, meaning it'll stay fresher longer.

Nice.

^Fairbs

I do not get my information from Youtube, it's great for entertainment - not so much for accurate Information.

Here are some relevant points I found from a Washington Post article dated April 6, 2012 entitled "Why Ron Paul rallies never translate into votes".

Ron Paul recently held a rally at UCLA, and between 6,000 and 10,000 people attended. The rally itself was a complete success. Yet while Ron Paul has consistently attracted larger, more enthusiastic crowds than his GOP competitors, those events always fail to translate into victories at the ballot box. Ron Paul has never won a presidential primary or caucus.

The media bias argument is nonsense. The media could never hate Ron Paul with the pure passion and ferocity that they despise Rick Santorum. The liberal media loathes social conservatives. They love Republicans who bash other conservatives. This is how John McCain in 2008 and Jon Huntsman in 2012 became the darlings of the liberal media. The media will end up despising whomever the GOP nominee is, and Ron Paul has suffered much less abuse than Newt Gingrich. Every day there are calls for Gingrich, and now even Santorum, to drop out. Dr. Paul does not face those calls.

As for election fraud, the GOP should just agree to give the Virgin Islands and Maine to Ron Paul in exchange for a vow of silence from the movement. The Paul movement uses complaints as their oxygen. All the voter fraud in the world cannot explain Florida, Illinois, and many other big states where Dr. Paul was rejected by more than 90% of the voters.

For those Paul supporters who are still unable to understand these repeated, huge rejections at the polls, the answer can be found right in front of their faces. The Ron Paul movement consists of too many supporters who are completely certifiable. They run up and down the hallways of GOP conventions screaming about revolutions. Decorum is replaced with degradation and debasement.

They shout down speakers they disagree with. They have zero interest in freedom and liberty for anybody except those who agree with them. Decent human beings would just accept this under the rule of "live and let live." The verbal carpet-bombers in the Ron Paul movement consist of some intolerant zealots who will harass, bully, and intimidate anybody just for thinking differently. The same hypocrites who are against undeclared wars engage in undeclared wars against their fellow Americans just for not worshipping Ron Paul. It makes the David Koresh movement look moderate.

Tell a Ron Paul supporter you disagree with his candidate. The responses will be:
1) You just do not understand. You're an idiot.
2) You are an uninformed tool of the political machine.
3) You don't care about the Constitution, freedom or liberty.
4) You are corrupt, bought and paid for, a shill for the status quo or some other powerful, mythical, nefarious entity.

These lines of thought are pure bile. The idea that a person can be decent, well educated, intelligent, have a sophisticated gift of analysis, be a clear thinker, and reject Ron Paul is totally incomprehensible to his supporters.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/29/ron-paul-seeks-to-unmask-youtube-user-who-uploaded-offensive-huntsman-ad/

Which part of The Constitution allows you to hunt down people who post things on the internet?

>> ^renatojj:

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I have no problem with smaller communities deciding local issues. But certain things are universal and allowing states to decide them is simply wrong. If you were a minority in the south in the 60s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think it was a good idea to "let the states decide".

>> ^renatojj:
I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Allowing a woman to control her reproductive cycle and to have access to safe medical procedures is absolutely a fundamental human right.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. FWIW, on a personal level, I hate the idea of abortion as contraception. However, that is not my decision to make, I don't have to carry a child to term and then deal with the consequences. I find it ironic that I have to convince a libertarian that creating a law controlling what a woman does to her own body is a bad thing.

>> ^renatojj:
Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.


And what if every state bans it? What about the case where a woman dies in a hospital because a doctor can't perform a surgery that saves the life of the mother over the child? Should she get out of the operating room and get on a bus then?

>> ^renatojj:

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.
Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

The "Christian" excuse doesn't cut it. It is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to suspend your faculties. Obama is a christian and he accepts evolution. Hell, Huntsman is a mormon and he doesn't have a problem with it. How would you feel if he said he didn't believe in gravity?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

I'm not going to get into an AGW debate here. I will simply say that I have yet to meet a global warming skeptic who actually understands the science. Hell, I don't understand the science, but I tend to believe the people who actually researched it over the oil companies.

>> ^renatojj:
Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.
Don't get me wrong, governments need limits on their powers too. There must be balance, but given the choice I would rather the power reside with the elected representatives than the private sector.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting their cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

It's not really about the money. In the grand scheme of things $500 is nothing and I'm pretty sure RP can live without it. It's the principle of the thing. Keeping the money sends a message (rightly or wrongly) of tacit approval. If he doesn't want to give them back the money, fine, give it to an anti-hate charity or something. Anything to make the point that you do not agree with these weak and frightened bigots.

>> ^renatojj:
Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.
What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Nope, but you can outlaw actions. As for your lesbian bar example, I would say they are just as wrong for kicking me out for being a man as I would be for kicking them out for being a lesbian.

The freedom to put up a "no blacks, jews or irish" sign is not a freedom I want to protect.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, he wants to do the opposite of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom is an active position. RP wants government to get out of the way. Historically, that never works out for the little guy.

edit: btw, props to you for defending your position rationally and eloquently. Nice to be able to debate this without name-calling or screaming matches, and if I've said anything you take as ad hominem, that was not my intention.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

LOL - Ron Paul twitter slaps Huntsman.
@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.


Heheheh that's pretty awesome!

LOL - Ron Paul twitter slaps Huntsman.

@JonHuntsman we found your one Iowa voter, he's in Linn precinct 5 you might want to call him and say thanks.

Santorum and Huntsman are the only two candidates who haven't been in the lead. I'm not sure why Santorum is surging, I guess because he's not any of the other candidates. It's kind of funny to see the media knock the candidates down like a whack-a-mole while the voters just keep switching. Pick a candidate and stick with it!

For as long as Huntsman was here in Utah and then his actual time as governor, he was a very good middle of the road Republican. I'd be happy to take him back as governor. His Lt. governor that took over had tea party affiliations and with no one around to oppose him, he decided to act on his impulses. Of course, he has seen bad numbers in the polls so he has pulled back. I think he forgot that he replaced Jon Huntsman without a vote and he isn't a middle of the road candidate, like I said he has Tea Party ties (like our Senator Mike Lee, who's an idiot).

Just so you know Jon Huntsman is what is known by regular attending church goers as a "Jack Mormon", basically someone that doesn't go to church all the time. I can't blame him as the services are anywhere from FOUR to SIX HOURS long! Basically, your whole day is gone and used up by the time you're done. The last poll I saw showed that the majority of Mormons were in fact "Jack Mormons". So that might explain part of his appeal here in Utah (especially in Salt Lake which happens to be very democratic in its leanings), is that he isn't a holier-than-thou type of person, which Mitt Romney emanated sometimes.
------------

As for Ron Paul... Ron Paul lost any chance from me voting for him when I found out he had relations with the John Birch Society. It sure as hell makes sense why all of his policies are so radical.

>> ^gwiz665:

That bill is far more damning than any newsletters ever were.
Maybe John Huntsman is a good alternative.


I could actually see myself getting behind Huntsman, he seems to be quite reasonable. But there's no way he could win the nomination of the rabid rightwing, for precisely the same reason.

That bill is far more damning than any newsletters ever were.

Maybe John Huntsman is a good alternative.

front page of huffingtonpost right now:

number of news:

santorum: 8
romney: 5
bachmann: 4
perry: 3
paul: 2
huntsman: 1

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.

Huntsman stands out from the crowd as the only candidate that has respect for science. Wouldn't his ad time be better spent pointing out what he stands for instead of what he stands against, especially considering that the media completely ignores the guy? If you are running as a 2% protest candidate, then protest! I don't feel too bad for Paul, who runs attack ads too, I just think Huntsman should go for a long term strategy. Ron Paul was a protest candidate last election and has become a mainstream frontrunner in just four years. You should be taking notes, Huntsman!

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.