Okay, the Iowa caucuses are coming soon… What do you think is going to happen? Do you really believe, as polls are suggesting, that Ron Paul is the frontrunner? I don’t. In fact, I’m inclined not to believe any poll that shows him even in the top three.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see… So what are your thoughts?
UPDATE: Sister Toldjah is not worried about the Paul/Santorum surges in Iowa… find out why.
Blogs For Victory 
Ron Paul could very well win the GOP Iowa Caucus, but given the coalition that makes up the majority of his support: Democrats and Independents, it’s likely the last state he’ll win. I can’t imagine him winning any state where only Republicans can vote in the GOP primary.
Paul may win BUT WE’LL NEVER KNOW.
My head exploded when they blamed it on “Occupy.”
Just how stupid do they know Republicans are, anyway?
My head exploded…..
So THAT explains the picture……
LOL — it does, doesn’t it?
I thought he had his pants down
You thought that was hair coming out the sides of my head?!?
Newt badly needs to win Iowa and probably will not. The message that Newt carries far too much baggage to win in the general election is sticking like glue and leeching support away from him. Romney will likely come in third himself, further damaging the Romney brand, which suffers from a lack of enthusiasm from his supporters and a true dislike from the rest of the conservatives who don’t buy his “No really I actually AM a conservative at heart” sales line.
Worst of all for the GOP contenders: this is going to be an incredibly expensive primary race. By the time the general election rolls around, Obama will be sitting on over a half-billion dollars and the Republicans are going to be suffering from election fatigue and will have a nominee that at least a third of their own base absolutely despises (no matter WHO the nominee is).
Hilarious.
Jack, I assume, since you find the current state of the GOP “hillarious”, that you must be an Obama supporter — or a GOP hater — or both. Assuming it’s the former, there must be some things that Obama has said, done, or at least attempted to do that you’d like to see a continuation of. Care to share?
Why sure, J.R.
He ended the war in Iraq. Killed Osama bin Laden. Joined with NATO (though in a non-combat position, providing only air support) to bring down Qaddafi. Is attempting to dismantle the disastrous Bush tax cuts. Credit card reform. Bringing back banking regulations. Health care reform (though imperfect, better than what we had). Saved the American auto industry.
Lord, there are so many. If you’re really interested, you can look them up at http://obamaachievements.org/list. But it will mostly consist of stuff that you and your ilk would hardly label “accomplishments.” Just as I viewed the previous President as the biggest disaster ever to plague the White House, I’m sure you hold a similar view of Barack. So….I can’t wait to see who you nominate to bring him down.
Right now, I find the contenders to be (and rightly so) absolutely hilarious. You guys REALLY think that Newt Gingrich can take down Obama? You think nominating ANOTHER old, pasty, white-haired fat guy is the way to go?
All I can say is: Bring it on.
Jack,
I see you’re from Chicago, or is that just a tag line? However, if you are from Chicago, it’s no surprise that you would support Obama. Illinois is not really known for effective and honest politics.
Saved the auto industry??? Really? Ford didn’t need saving, and currently GM still owes the tax payers over hundred million dollars, and the Chevy Volt is a disaster, with sales far behind projections.
Ended the war in Iraq?? The Iranians thank you for that, but I will mention that the end of 2011 was also Bush’s time line.
I will give him credit for killing UBL, but it’s pretty well known that Panetta ordered that.
GW Bush was able to generate record federal revenues in 2006-2008 with the current “disastrous” tax rates. But aside from that, I would be interested in hearing how you think raising the top rate will turn the economy around.
And healthcare – please tell us all how adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic industry will bring costs down. That is if you have actually thought that through, which would surprise me.
Other than that, what happened to your Bears???
I will give him credit for killing UBL, but it’s pretty well known that Panetta ordered that.
They had to drag BHOzo off the golf course just so he’d be in the photo in the situation room when it all went down.
“Jack” zeroes in on the core of Leftist allegiance——identity politics. He lists a litany of alleged successes of Barry’s, all of which really qualify as “successes” only if you subscribe to the notion that ignoring the Constitution, dumping the nation into unsustainable debt, and vastly increasing the size and scope and power of the federal government should be considered “successes”.
More and more of us recognize these antics as abysmal failures, unless the goal is to drive the nation into such a miserable economic hole that it can be considered to be “fundamentally transformed”.
But then, after spewing the Leftist party line about how super-duper great Barry is, he shows us how shallow and superficial his true political foundation is, concentrating on age, race, appearance and physical condition as his criteria for dismissing a candidate.
Don’t expect “Jack” to ever come up with a coherent political philosophy to explain his passion for Barry and the Left. He’ll just skate along the surface, defining politics by American Idol standards and staking out his political position based on silly, foolish, superficial nonsense.
In other words, he is not only typical of the Pseudo-Lefty trolls we see here, he is undoubtedly one of them, under a different name.
The inside accounts of the attack on OBL show a typically weak, indecisive, dithering Obama shuffling back and forth between those who insisted—DEMANDED—that the strike take place, and his Leftist minder who was equally insistent that it not.
The smart guys made the decision and let Barry sit in the room, sulking and slouching in his chair, just for the photo up.
mehoff from chi town
corruption, murder, and the marxist muslim POS
you must be verry proud of your cess pool.
still have the pink leotards?
Pink leotards? Inside joke?
Free Republic had a pretty good analysis yesterday of the relevant numbers in Iowa.
You guys catch today’s story about Gingrich’s campaign admitting that their Virginia ballot petition was tossed out due to fraud by one of it’s “paid volunteers”?
Must be them ACORN guys, huh?
High. Larious.
At least “Jack” isn’t sad, so sad, weepy creepy grieving sad. The new meme must be giddy joy, which is a nice change from unctuous hand-wringing posturing of grief.
Sometimes Iowa can reveal an early trend, but often not. The real action starts week after next when the campaigns move into my back yard in New Hampshire.
There will be a very high turnout of democrat voters at the caucuses to support Ron Paul. The polls all indicate that the vast majority of Paul’s support in Iowa comes from democrats. If Paul wins in Iowa with more than 25% of the vote it will mean that at least 20% of the caucus turnout were democrats. This would mean the end of Iowa as the first in the nation caucus. They would not be allowed that position again.
My belief is that in individual caucuses where there is a large Ron Paul turnout then support for Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, and Newt will coalesce around one of the candidates, likely Santorum or Newt and you will see three of those candidates in the 5 to 6% range and the other in the 30% range at those particular caucuses.
Current prediction: Ron Paul 26%, Newt 20%, Romney 18%, Santorum 18%, Perry 9%, Bachmann 6%, Palin and others 2%, Huntsman 1%
Doug,
You’ll have a lot of happy campers on this blog if Santorum does that well. I hope you’re right.
all this Iowa stuff is BS
Fla is the HAMMER and is in Jan
Go Santorum
Is Florida an open primary state?
Years ago when I was a resident of Florida only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican primaries and registered Democrats could vote in the Democratic primaries. All others could not vote until the general election. Someone still in Florida please correct me if I am wrong.
db
you are correct
Rick Santorum is my choice! He will have my prayers to move past the field.
GO SANTORUM!!!!!!!!!!
Neil:
Hate to break it to you, but Santorum won’t get double digits in a single primary state. Not one.
Believe me, nobody would be happier than me if he got the nomination. Okay, maybe David Axelrod would be happier. But few others.
Keep the faith!
mehoff from chicago
ESPn?
chicago?
or
Kanadians?
raw Video: ‘Chaos’ at Mall of America as Hundreds of Young People Create Mass Riot.
Ochimpy’s civilian army.
You can hear “Jack”‘s high-pitched titter of hilarious glee all the way from wherever he is pretending is Chicago. Such a nice change from the previous Lefty meme of unrelenting sadness.
Hint, “Jack”—-the new name would carry a tad more weight if it were not claiming to be from the most corrupt and radically Leftist city in the nation. Being from Chicago, even just as a fake identity, just puts you in the midst of a mindless mob of thugs and Marxist ideologues, hardly a position from which to try to claim credibility.
Santorum won’t get double digits in a single primary state. Not one.
Today’s CNN poll has Santorum at 16% in Iowa. Yours could be one of the most quickly disproved predictions ever on this blog.
Where is Iowa anyway? And why should I care? 🙂
Where in the hell have you been?
Certainly not in Iowa! Lol! But I mostly answered your question in the Dec 18 post about Climate Change by Spook.
On the subject, however, it seems to me that Iowa is only important to the extent that a candidate’s performance doesn’t meet expectations. Thus, by definition, it is unpredictable. The only thing positive you can say about it is that the odds are better than Vegas — or any given Indian casino. Oh wait, that’s probably to un-PC… I meant Native American Bead Exchange Post. There, that’s better.
Iowa
Huckabee won in 2008, so they can’t mean too much
I heard you died. Guess not, heh.
spook
I heard you died
he got married and tried to (self moderated) him self to death….LOL
maybe the honeymoon is over.
Actually, I came alive! I feel like I shed 20 years, which probably explains why my wife married me. Shhhhhh… don’t tell.
rico
you still married?
or did she let you off the porch long enough to play here again? 🙂
who cares? why should you?
cave in tora bora? or locked in the shed?
one reason = Ochimpy
You’re not likely to hear me defend “Ochimpy”. At least not often, and certainly not vigorously.
Jack,
Have you ever heard the expression:
Small minds discuss people
Average minds discuss issues
Great minds discuss ideas
Guess what category you are in?
Guess what category you are in?
I vote for the circling in the bowl category.
Cluster: “Great minds discuss ideas”
How would you know? 🙂
Ooh, Rico comes out of the shed swinging…….
camon Rico stay of the good guy’s side.
of ….with
With all due respect, neocon, though you came up with a snappy retort from time to time, I recall that your record vis-a-vis coming up with an original idea, or having an interesting take on an old idea, or even discussing an idea (other than the the most simple) with some degree of decorum, or even intellect, is pretty dismal. But that’s your schtick. And I love you in spite of it — though not Biblically.
Oh, rico, we have moved so far beyond juvenile “I know what you are but what am I?” cattiness here—–except for those who choose to be in that category. Puh-leeze—-do try to rise above it.
Amazona: “Oh, rico, we have moved so far beyond juvenile.”
I apologize. The only thing I can say in my defense is: it wasn’t immediately apparent. Perhaps I need further study. Either way, I’ll be sure to get back to you.
meow
rico
But that’s your schtick. And I love you in spite of it
you’ve turned gay?
(not that there is anything wrong with that – seinfeld)
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson to retire
December 28, 2011
Big blow to Democratic hopes in holding the senate
AMF
GOOD RIDDANCE
He ben nelson) also said on the call that the “tea party must be stopped.”
NO ben, you commie donkRATS are the ones who must be stopped.
ESAD ben
OK…time to get serious.
I am wayyyy behind the curve on this, so bear with me. I simply did not realize that in most of the primaries, the choices of OUR candidates can be made, and evidently are often made, by The Other Side.
That is, in states with open primaries, anyone can vote for the GOP candidate he or she wants to win. Anyone. No party affiliation needed.
In most, if not all, others, party affiliation can be declared at the moment and then be rescinded, which has the same effect of letting other people tell us who our candidate will be.
So the question is, why do we think Dems will pick, for us, the best person for the job, much less the person most likely to beat Obama?
It’s a completely stupid system, and beyond belief that anyone could have decided this is a good idea.
I’ve been hoping for a brokered convention, but it has finally sunk in that a brokered convention is the only way the Republican candidate can actually be chosen by Republicans.
I am now thinking that the polls regarding the so-called winners in any caucus are totally meaningless, probably reflecting nothing more than a Dem version of Rush’s Operation Chaos, and that the most dangerous thing for conservatives is allowing any candidate to get enough support in the primaries to be given the nomination.
I think the best thing we can do is make sure that the primary votes are so widely distributed that a brokered convention is necessary, which would mean that at least the GOP candidate would be chosen by actual Republicans—at least some of whom will be conservative, and the rest looking over their shoulders to see how much pressure conservatives will be putting on them.
Some vulgarities are not allowed on the blog. You guys know this and still try to slip them in. This will result in having your posts deleted. //Moderator
“Jack” seems to think that sneering and sniping will cloak his refusal to admit that the current caucus and primary systems allow a huge amount of interference from parties whose real agenda is the failure of the Republican Party.
Yep, “Jack” is a typical PL troll, dependent on emotion and name-calling and seriously deficient on ideas or relevant responses to legitimate posts.
By “actual Republicans” I assume you mean “good-ol-boy Republicans” or maybe “Koch hand-picked-elite Republicans.”
Gotta say I LOVE your “Dem version of Rush’s Operation Chaos” reference – comedy gold. Why not “Dem version of Gingrich’s Virginian Voter Fraud” or maybe “Dem version of RomneyCare.” Wait, you did say that one…
:o)
freakzo, are you going to address what I said or just carry on the PL tradition of substituting snark for actual political discourse.
Is it true, or not, that Dems can choose the GOP candidate by voting, in large enough numbers, in GOP caucuses and primaries?
Or are you too giggly about the new PL meme of overwhelming joy and hilarity?
It’s true and not true, impossible and plausible, depending on the state – depends on closed or open primary.
Iowa is closed. Caveat: (I)ndependents can change to (R) on voting day. But there’s no stats showing Paul haters will vote Paul just to annoy (R)s. A lot of independents like Paul, and every politician says they try to reach out to indies. Hard core (R)s like you don’t want your candidates to even hint at anything centrist, so no wonder (I)s run from (R)s.
Rush actually called for Republicans to disrupt Democratic primaries by doing what you say, which you don’t condemn until you suspect Democrats might do the same thing.
No one said ” Paul haters will vote Paul just to annoy (R)s.” No one here can possibly be considered a “..hard core (R)”—don’t you EVER pay attention?
Who says I approved of “Operation Chaos”?
What a typical PL screed—–based either on lies or a jumble of distortions resulting from passing through your filters of hostility and bias.
As a welcome back to rico, I am going to repost questions from him I just found on an old thread…
Okay Amazona, just limiting the discussion to the things you explicitly or implicitly mentioned in just your above post, where do you stand on:
(1) macro evolution; Do you mean the random eruption of life which then managed to “evolve” into many wildly different species? Don’t believe it.
(2) micro evolution If by this you mean that species evolve, within the definition of that species, over time, I think it makes sense and has even been proven. If I have the two definitions reversed, just reverse the responses.
(3) how the mechanisms differ between (1) and (2); One is random and highly suspect, meaning that all species can be traced back to a single organism, and the other is based on the belief that different species were created in some form and then evolved as needed.
(4) the geologic record that suggests earth is about 3.5 billion years old (as opposed to 10K years); Going with Old Earth vs Young Earth on this one
(5) the Big Bang theory; A very funny TV show but a wildly improbable theory of the origin of life
(6) global warming; Yes, in that the “globe” does warm, often, whether looked at in terms of eons or merely seasons. No, in that mankind is responsible for alleged warming of the Earth over a long period of time.
(7) anthropometric global warming; See above—long answers impeded by new splint on broken and dislocated finger
(8) renewable energy/energy efficiency? Pick an energy. I am a huge fan of biodiesel, think it and other renewable energy sources are well worth looking into and have a lot of promise, think ethanol a scam, and think the market will support good energy sources when they are found and developed. Don’t understand failure to utilize passive solar energy. Don’t think the government should be involved, with the exception of some tax breaks for certain technologies after they have reached a level of proof, and then only for a short period of time.
Interesting reply, Amazona. With regard to item 3, when you say “different species were created in some form and then evolved as needed”, are you saying that God needs to “tweak” his creation? Mind you, that would be my answer. More or less anyway. Specifically, I believe that creation is an on-going process, and one very difficult not to attribute to some sort of intelligent entity, force, God, or however you want to refer to it. Even Richard Dawkins, perhaps the premier apologist for the “random”, or “unintelligent” view of evolution ultimately has to resort to a metaphysical premise: the laws of the universe, (whatever they are) were established at the moment of the Big Bang. I share that belief. Where he and I differ is on whether the laws were established by chance or by design. He prefers the former, I the latter. Objectively though, there is no way to decide. That, to me, is where the notion of “free will” first enters. To me the sheer beauty of the plan, in all its complex simplicity, compels in me a powerful belief in an intentional, and thus intelligent, design. That belief is so powerful that I can accept no explanations that only amount to easy work-arounds. Thus, to me, evolution is His mechanism, and it is perfect (however imperfectly it might be understood by humankind in every detail). To suggest that there is a distinction in kind (rather than degree) between macro and micro evolution — i.e., that God needs to “tweak” his creation from time to time — requires a belief that God’s original plan was imperfect. And if His plan is imperfect, God is imperfect. And that’s an intolerable situation.
Regarding (5), the Big Bang theory is not a theory of the origin of life. Neither is evolution, for that matter.
Regarding (8), would you allow the possibility that some help is required between when “good energy sources” are found and when they are fully developed? Would it matter if every other country in the world (except Somalia, Mozambique, and a few others incapable of making the distinction) made that distinction? While we’re on the subject, do you really think the rapid advances in solar PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and especially nuclear energy, could have been made without government subsidies?
blah blah blah blah blah, so many words to say so little, other than leaping at the chance to expound on The Brilliance That Is Ricorun.
It is interesting, however, to see you come to the bizarre conclusion that “… God (needed) to “tweak” his (sic) creation… ” What an odd spin you like to put on things.
As you have no idea of why God decided to create ANYTHING, you are certainly not in a position to declare that “.. God (needed) to “tweak”…” anything. For all you, or any of us, knows, the “tweaking” was the reason for the creation.
You go right ahead and tell God He screwed up…you have the arrogance to do so.
In the meantime, let’s discuss politics, shall we? And preferably politics which center on the best blueprint for governing the nation, not the PL version which is tabloid-level obsession with identity politics, such as age, skin color, weight, scandal, etc., heavily laden with whatever the current meme may be—-evidently for now it is glee and hilarity, a change from overwhelming sadness and mourning.
Ricorun, I assume you must be a former poster. I can see why no one seems to be happy to see you return.
The one item that no one has been able to adequately explain to me is part of #5 — Big Bang theory or whatever you want to call it is how so much can come from nothingness. A “Creator” makes more sense as far as that theory goes.
But, db, a Creator does not fit in with the belief of some that there is no higher authority than they. Admitting to the existence of a Creator would be chipping away at the egocentrism of those people.
However, I have observed that there seems to be an inherent need in humans to believe in some Higher Power. Those who deny it on a spiritual level tend to seek it in political elites, in whom they invest their faith—ergo, the faith-based belief system that is the Left.
“The one item that no one has been able to adequately explain to me is part of #5 — Big Bang theory or whatever you want to call it is how so much can come from nothingness. A “Creator” makes more sense as far as that theory goes.” – DB
There is never a claim that so much came from nothing. In the most common models, the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures. At some stage things lost their isotropic nature.
There is always a quagmire for explaining the very beginnings.
Unless we can explain what the Creator was doing before He created created things we are in the same dilemma.
“Unless we can explain what the Creator was doing before He created created things we are in the same dilemma.”
Nonsense
with the exception of some tax breaks for certain technologies after they have reached a level of proof, and then only for a short period of time.
You mean you think 20-25 years of up-front subsidies for wind power is long enough?
JR, rico is the Cliff Clavin of the blog. My guess is that his honeymoon ended when his bride had enough of his bloviating and packed him off to the blog to expound, at excruciating length, on his self-assumed brilliance.
If he sticks around you will find him to be much like bardolf, eager to dart in to shove a stick through the spokes of any idea being seriously discussed but unwilling to lay out a political position, explain it, stand by it, and defend it.
As for my comment on tax breaks, I did not include up-front subsidies at all, for a reason. This might be a good time to note that when I make comments like this, I am talking about federal government, which I think ought to stay out of the energy business as much as possible. States can do what they like, and if they find tax breaks and/or subsidies to be what they want to do, they can make their own rules.
JR, rico is the Cliff Clavin of the blog.
Thanks, Amazona — forewarned is forearmed. Life is too short to waste time on such individuals.
Amy, what was it you were saying the other day about hurling insults being a personality disorder?
Amy, what was it you were saying the other day about hurling insults being a personality disorder?
The difference is that she does it with a tad more panache than you do.
Another difference is that insults make up only a small part of my posts.
I post, for the most part, about sound political principles or about opinions based on those principles. Yeah, I am kind of hard on political lightweights who come here only to hurl insults, but draw a line between that and simply ranting on and on in insulting terms.
Interestingly enough, I note that many Libs find the description “Liberal” to be an insult, or as it was recently called, a “pejorative”.
If you have gotten the vapors over me describing someone as a “Cliff Clavin” then you are far too fragile and sensitive for political blogs. Perhaps there is a “Hello Kitty” website that will not distress you.
In the meantime, I suggest you revisit your recent meltdown which consisted of nothing BUT a spewing of insults directed at several conservative posters. That was a personality disorder writ large.
Come up with a post that offers more than an unwelcome peek into a disturbed and hostile mind and THEN whine about insults.
Yes, isn’t it ironic that the person who explains to us that hurling insults is a personality disorder is so good at hurling insults. It’s one of Amy’s more charming traits.
And isn’t it typical of the wattle to completely ignore the fact of his inability/refusal to engage in actual political dialogue in favor of a personal attack?
Business as usual for the wattle.
Who knows what will happen in Iowa but it appears the dems and indes may put Ron “looney-bird” Paul over the top. It will destroy Iowa as any type of bell-weather state on any political front. I really hope the Santorum surge continues but being the realist I tend to be: I think that Iowa will be Rick’s strongest finish. As much as I would like to see Santorum (although I do not like his immigration stand) I think Romney will be the eventual nominee and I will suppor him. Looking at all the polls, etc..over the last few months (although anything can change) he appears most likely to win blue states, get the GOP nod, and defeat Obama! I just hope if he is the nominee that the entire conservative base gets behind him.
Yeah, let all us conservatives get behind Mitt Romneycare. Would be great for Romney to get elected so he can ‘fix’ Obamneycare so that it would run better….you know keep all the good parts, like the mandate he likes so much, and get rid of the bad parts.
Romney could really give Obamneycare permanent life, my guess is that he would make it optional for all states, allow them to get waivers, thus avoiding state rights issues. Then he would tie all them waivers to something so onerus that no state would take the waiver.
Romney is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he thinks it is okay for a government to force people to purchase something, and not something little, but something that could be 16% or more of their income. He is a despot and conservatives believe in liberty not despotism.
doug, do you disbelieve Romney when he repeatedly states he would work to repeal Obamacare?
Do you dispute his explanations that there is a huge difference between a state system and a federal one?
Do you understand the difference?
Amazona,
First, I do understand the difference between the state system and federal system of healthcare and how it relates to the tenth amendment. What I don’t understand is how the conservative defenders of Mitt Romney(care) think that it is okay for states to do it, just not the federal government. I don’t believe a Republican candidate for any office should have one iota of belief in their system that they think a state government can force you to purchase grape soda, or force you to purchase a handgun for that matter. I don’t believe a Republican candidate for any office should have one iota of belief in their system that they think a state government can force you to purchase health insurance….is this not clear? Anyone who does should NEVER have mine, yours or any American’s vote….in my opinion.
Secondly, his argument that there is a huge difference between a state and federal system of healthcare is just a red herring to hide the fact that he is a F’ing despot who thinks it’s okay for a government to force it’s constituents to personally purchase something they don’t want to……the idea that it is a state issue vs. federal issue doesn’t matter, he was a governor of a state and did that.
Thirdly, I DO NOT believe Romney when he says he will work to appeal Obamacare. I DO believe him when he says he will grant waivers to each state. That is exactly what I would do as president if I wanted to insure that Obamacare would survive. If Obama would just grant each state waivers, then the strongest judicial argument against Obamacare (the 10th amendment) would be tossed. Then I would tie so much federal funding goodies to it so that no state would accept the waivers……exactly what Romney will do.
What I don’t understand is how the conservative defenders of Mitt Romney(care) think that it is okay for states to do it, just not the federal government.
Well, if it is not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited by any part of the Constitution, then the people of any state may vote for whatever they want in that state.
It is an essential component of state sovereignty, which is an essential component of the foundational concept of the United States.
Mitt Romney was not elected King of Massachusetts, but merely its governor, and as such swore an oath to serve the residents and citizens of that state. The voters of Massachusetts wanted state-run health care, they voted for it, and it just so happens that Romney agreed with them.
But he has repeatedly stated that he does not think it is constitutional for the federal government to do the same thing.
I don’t care if, deep in his heart, he thinks it is the best thing since someone put nuts in chocolate—if he understands that it is not a delegated duty of the federal government, and is therefore forbidden to the federal government, and if he abides by that belief, that’s enough for me.
Amazona, again we are not on the same page.
I do not understand anyone who thinks it is okay to force people to purchase a product. I can only say that if that person was around in the time of the Revolution, that person would be a loyalist to the empire, and would not be one that would sign the Declaration of Independence.
In today’s world, I could see that person as the head of North Korea or Iran, but not as the head of any governmental body in the U.S.
In my view, anyone who votes for that type of person, might as well consider themselves on par with the tories, North Korea or Iran.
You may very well believe that the government, whether state or federal, forcing us to purchase a privately owned product is not a violation of the 1st amendment….that is fine (I think the only precedent so far along this line is that there is no 1st amendment constutional right for an individual to purchase a product), but still it is an unAmerican (as in completely like to our enemies current and past) abuse of power.
Doug,
I am hoping you meant the 10th Amendment and not the 1st.
Anyway, States are sovereign and one of the many “Checks & Balances” designed into the founding documents was the ability to “vote with your feet.” Taxation here in NC is growing by leaps and bounds under our new Governor and as soon as the market will provide me with a solid return on the property I purchased here–I may be moving to another State that suits me better.
Make any sense? And at the current rates–I may take a loss on the property because I can always make it up on the back side.
Get a grip, doug, and dial down your hysterical rhetoric about someone who believes in state sovereignty being “…par with the tories, North Korea or Iran.”
The thing about a democratic republic is that sometimes laws get passed which many people do not like—but if they fit within the framework of the Constitution they are allowed.
Your response sounds way too much like the half-cocked Lib responses which are based in inaccurate readings of what was said, or on distortions created by being filtered through personal biases and emotion.
I never said I agreed with or approved of Romneycare. I just pointed out that it was, and is, constitutional under our national Constitution, and the legal decision of the citizens of Massachusetts. I pointed out that it would not be constitutional on a national level, and that Romney agrees with this.
And for that I am now qualified to be the head of North Korea? Kinda spinning out of control there, aintcha, doug?
If I had lived in Massachusetts I would have voted against the plan, and I would have moved to another state when it was passed, because I find it wrong on many levels.
But if I had been in the baby US of A, I would have voted to ratify the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because I do believe in states’ rights. I would have fought for the independence of this new nation, for the idea of restrictions on central power which lay at the core of the Revolution, and for the rights of people to make their own decisions at the state and local level.
Your seething hatred of Romney and your strident overreaction to anything you can spin as a defense of him makes you sound exactly like GMB.
I understand your 10th amendment arguments that a state can be allowed to do what they want —– however they are limited by other federal constitutional limits. The first amendment, the fifth amendment, lots of them.
A state can’t just force you to buy $100 in lollipops every year and require you to give them out at Halloween, that would be a violation of the 5th admendment. However, if the state deemed that it was in the best interest of the public that everyone receive lollipops on Halloween, then they would satisfy the 5th amendment and could then force you to do just that. However, forcing someone of a particular religion to do that against their religion would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Then again, if the state first declared that they wouldn’t give them out on Halloween, but rather on the “last day of October” then it would not be a violation of the first amendment.
Thus is the status of our Constitutional judicial system and the reason why Massachusetts has thus far been able to get away with what they have done. Any state can manipulate any law to make it constitutional, when in fact if they had done so back in 1830, they would have been laughed out of the supreme court.
I’m just hoping Democrats aren’t falling for any of this circus. No frontrunner Republican has a banana’s chance in Chimpytown of winning against Obama. 2012 will look like 1984 in the rear view mirror. The incumbent will win, and by Valentine’s Day no one will remember who the opponents were.
What REALLY matters is getting a 60 vote majority in the Senate.
I don’t think democrats are that bright. They fell for Obama, which validates the expression – if you don’t stand for anything, you’ll fall for everything, so let’s leave the intellectually challenged democrats out of the conversation, ok?
Speaking of democrats, I see that 87 year old Frank Lautenberg is going to run again for his seat in NY, which is laughable. The democrats have zero new blood in that party. Outside of Obama (who is unqualified for the job), who do the democrats have to run for POTUS? The wife of a former President?
2012 Presidential Matchups
Election 2012: Romney 45%, Obama 39%
Even though Romney is not my choice as of yet–just posting for your amusement.
But of course because it is a Rasmussen Report it must be false or paid for by the Evil Koch Empire.
BTW, Dick Cheney’s & Karl Rove’s Death Star is now almost complete. Scheduled completion is Dec 21st, 2012.
LOLzer there bozo, people like you were saying the same thing about carter in 76. How did that turn out for ya?
Donkeyrats have to defend 23 senate seats in 2012 and 6 of those are retiring. Just keep up the good thoughts there donkeys.
Thats entertainment,
??? Carter did fine in 76. Turned out fine, too, until Reagan/Bush worked out a little agreement with Iran.
I thought we were doomed until Reagan raised capital gains taxes to match ordinary income like Obama should do.
Iment 1980 and you know it. Don’t be a bozo.
Yeah, the only reason Carter was our worst president (till Barry) is because of something some Republicans did.
Who knew?
BTW, freakzo, what do YOU think the capital gains tax should be?
freakzo, let me give you some facts to which you may respond, so you don’t have to scurry around Lefty sites to find out what you are supposed to think:
For example when a corporation earns $100 profit, the government takes $35 in corporate taxes, leaving $65 distributed to investors taxed at 20%. The government takes another $13 (20% of $65) in capital gains taxes, leaving investors with $52 and government with $48 out of the original $100 profit. Thus, an effective tax rate on capital gains of 48%. (Note: Since dividend are also subject to double taxation, but are taxed at ordinary income tax rates, the effective tax rates on dividends can approach 60%!)
The most counterproductive and unfair characteristic of the tax on capital gains is that it taxes inflation, because capital gains are not adjusted for inflation. The example above does not even include the fact that capital gains taxes include taxes on inflation, and, therefore, actually tax investors at even higher real tax rates – at times more than 100%!
For example, if an investment of $1000 rises in value to $1100, while prices generally have risen 10%, there is no real (after inflation) increase in value. However, an investor who sold this asset for $1100 would still have to pay taxes on the inflationary gain of $100. At the current top statutory rate of 20%, this investor would pay $20 in capital gains taxes on an investment that produced no real gain. The result, in this case, is a tax rate of infinity!
The policy of failing to adjust capital gains for inflation raises effective capital gains tax rates to levels substantially exceeding statutory rates and often surpassing 100 percent.
These high effective tax rates force investors to retain assets, increasing the “lock-in” effect. Moreover, the policy hurts economic growth by inhibiting new investments, because under current law inflation is a risk investors must bear.
The tax on inflation most severely punishes the elderly, low-income, middle-income, and less successful investors, because these people are less able to adjust the timing of their investment decisions than investors with higher incomes.
Keep in mind that the article was written in 2001, so the tax rate quoted is not the current tax rate. I figured you would zero in on this and not the core of the article, so now you can concentrate on addressing the fact that capital gains is not only a double tax, it actually exceeds income tax.
Amazona
If you work hard at a job and make 100,000 dollars income in a year you get taxed at a certain rate. If you buy a piece of land for 100,000 work hard for a year to improve the land, sell the land for 200,000 you have made a 100,000 based on hard work. What is the difference from the government’s POV?
I pay taxes on my income, if I use part of the remaining income to buy a car I pay a sales tax. When I plate the car there is another tax. When I buy gasoline for the car there is another tax. The key is that the taxes are for different functions of the government.
The government provides some services to corporations themselves and separate services to investors. If the government provides grants for budding petroleum engineers it has benefited an oil company. If the government provides research which leads to the internet it has benefited the investors in the oil company.
Are you suggesting different kinds of capital gains tax, based on how and why the profit was made?
What do you think the cg tax should be?
Why?
Do you think it is too high? Too low?
What do you think the impact of raising it would be?
Of lowering it, or eliminating it?
Amazona
I can’t how the government can differentiate between your land profit of 100,000 based on work and a potential neighbor who bought land at a fortunate time and sold the land for a 100,000 profit without any work whatsoever.
I assume that investors do work for the money they make and so it should be treated as income and not gambling winnings. The government doesn’t decide how HARD you work for your money. They just decide if it’s based on some work. Again, a business can pay employees with a salary and stock options, but they should both be treated like kinds of income.
The more complicated the tax schemes are the more unfair they become. IMO the mortgage write-off is partly responsible for the housing crisis and should be abandoned just like credit card debt write-off. This would have the effect of getting the government out of the real estate market.
I don’t smoke, but it seems cig taxes are too high. If one could understand the actual cost of smoking on the taxpayers one could try to assess the correct amounts. Of course there are trade offs between smokers increased use of e.g. medicare (more illness) and decreased use of social security (more death). The reason cig taxes are so high is the facist mentality that smokers are polluters and hence bad people who should pay for their sins. It can’t be that hard to figure out the cost benefit analysis of what smoking costs the taxpayers and tax appropriately. I’m not an actuary with access to the information, but I’m sure the info is available. The impact of raising the cig tax would be more money for govt to a point when either people started getting them illegally or quitting.
On the same topic, I would legalize most drugs and tax them as well based on their costs. This would have the advantage of decreasing the huge and useless incarceration rate for drug crime.
Ammazoner – interesting point I hadn’t considered. If I get a “cost of living” adjustment to my paycheck, I shouldn’t have to pay income taxes on the raise, since it’s not really additional income.
But since inflation went up 10%, the dollar I use to pay my taxes went down 10% in value, so to pay the same tax this year as last, I have to pay 10% more.
Ain’t fiat money grand.
dolf, you completely missed the point that the feds should not be in the business of making value judgments on how much effort has gone into gaining a profit to determine how much of that profit they can feel entitled to take.
You completely missed the point that investment is investment, and taxing investment is simply a bad idea.
Not sure how you got off into the weeds on cigarettes—I asked you about capital gains taxes.
Not sure how you got off into the weeds on cigarettes—I asked you about capital gains taxes.
I suspect he misread your post around 8:30 last night in which you referred to “cg” taxes — probably thought it was “cig” taxes.
Oh. Thanks. Not sure why a list of comments and questions about the Capital Gains tax then shortened to cg tax would generate a conviction that I had suddenly done an abrupt and arbitrary subject change, but…..
After a few posts my finger hurts so I take shortcuts every now and then.
Come on, Newt, let’s go!!!
Don’t let ’em grind ya down!!!
Rassmussen has Darth Mittens up by 6 points over barky. Nothing to see here folks.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
Rassmussen has Darth Mittens up by 6 points over barky… …..probably got a boost from the ootsie-cutsie pweshuss wittow nicknames that are, evidently, supposed to be witty.
A supposition that is only half-right.
Ama
In Fla I believe you have to register to which party affiliation you will be voting for in the primary 2-3 weeks before the actual vote (closed) and are REQUIRED to show a photo (oh the horror) ID at the time of registration.
Much less likely for those switching parties to pick the “enemy’s” candidate.
Florida moved up its primary date to Jan. 31 today, breaking national party rules and setting off a domino effect that likely means the beginning of the GOP presidential nominating process will be in early January 2012.
PS
Fla with close to 19 MILLION population will be the REAL factor not two piss ant states.
the game has changed.
OT
HUGO CHAVEZ WONDERS IF USA GAVE HIM CANCER…
If we did, can I add to the list?
YUP
December 29, 2011
Aren’t we all sick of the ‘Iowa show?’
Mercer Tyson
I don’t know about you, but I am sick of the “Iowa” show. A lousy 6 electoral votes and they get all this attention.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/arent_we_all_sick_of_the_iowa_show.html#ixzz1hxalG8Ih
Aint it so
ant and the grasshopper…….
**** MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not EasyBeing Green’. Occupy the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We Shall Overcome. Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper’s sake, while he damns the ants.
President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.
Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti‑Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the GovernmentGreen Czar and given to thegrasshopper. The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.
The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.
MORAL OF THIS VERSION:Be careful how you vote in 2012.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/the_ant_and_the_grasshopper_–_an_allegory_for_the_country.html#ixzz1hxcp1lYM
Neo,
And I thought the moral of the modern grasshopper & ant story was also the answer to “Who is John Galt?” It was the ant.
“The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.”
So who is it that we are supposed to vote for that will prevent this? Who is this savior in a world of darkness?
Is it the guy that said this?
“They pick corn in Iowa, they actually pick Presidents here in New Hampshire.” J Huntsman.
huntsman is wrong
this year the brass ring will be Fla in Jan
Sam Colt, John Browning, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, Ruger — just to name a few.
it was a satirical version of a fable.
I would say we are headed there SOON under Ochimpy or hitlery.
less SOON under newt or mittens
and maybe not under Santorum or Bachmann with both houses.
at this time I am leaning for Santorum
Good analysis
I agree, Florida is a lot more important that Iowa and New Hampshire combined. Don’t think my gal Michelle has anything left and should drop out and endorse Santorum. Lets see how Santorum does in the first three primaries.
I really do not expect anyone to drop out until after Florida with consideration of the new rules in affect where it is no longer winner take all. If it starts to look like a brokered convention~keep plugging along but get ready for a big push / speech / whatever could sway the delegates at the convention.
I don’t understand the whining on this blog about candidates who try to win following the actual rules of the game unlike the rules they would like because their candidate is behind.
When Gore lost to Bush there was endless whining about Gore winning the popular vote, but that’s not how the contest is decided. In the same way, Iowa has an open primary so if Ron Paul tries to appeal to Democrats and Independents (who will be needed in the general) that is how the game is played. What I see is so much hand wringing about unelectable, nut job … so Iowa doesn’t count if Paul wins.
How does the GOP elite dismissal of Paul (or the B4V whining about Iowa being an open primary) make it any better than the Democrats? If Romney is anointed and goes on to lose to Obama how has the GOP not shown itself to be the equal of the Dems? Bozo has a point that if the Gingrich campaign in Virginia is comparable to ACORN why is it any better than the Dems?
Lets see here. I can not believe I am going to defend Darth Newton again.
10k valid signatures are required in Virgina. Virginia Election Comission recomends at least 15k signatures to get the requirement. Now heres the difference. A candidate that submits 15k signatyres does not have to worry about those signatures being checked. A candidate that submits less than 15k signatures does.
Where is the “fairness” in that?
It really does not matter though. The GOP will never allow Paul to be the nominee. The man is batshit crazy and keeps getting crazier.
If Paul is trying to appeal to donkyrats to help get him nominated, maybe he should jump ship and join them.
Reagan Democrats mean anything to you? The president isn’t president of only the GOP, he is president of everyone.
Again, the 15K rule is the rule. If people don’t like the rule, they should change it before the process begins. If you don’t like the butterfly ballot, you don’t wait until after the election to complain.
Anyway, it’s Romney in a cakewalk at this point. But, it isn’t the MSM that decided Romney for the GOP. It is the GOP elite that decided Romney. Maybe he is the electable one, we’ll see in November.
The president isn’t president of only the GOP, he is president of everyone.
“We WON”
define your enemies
if they bring a knife you bring a GUN
get in their faces
bark HUSSEIN obama
YEAH sure bakdork
I don’t think these donkyrats that support paul have any resemblence to the reagan Donks, So the answer is no.
I thought you were big on the “fairness” issue?
“The president isn’t president of only the GOP, he is president of everyone.” That only applys when a repub is POTUS and you know it. That line is always used to force a repub to go more leftwards never to make a donky go more rightwards.
Agreed that D.C. establishment, boehner, cantor, mccconnell, et al, want Romney Mitt as the nominee. Should he win he will little if any effect on changing government in a rightward directions.
baldork
Anyway, it’s Romney in a cakewalk at this point.
you must have been in your tora bora mancave…….
neocon1 December 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm #
Iowa
Huckabee won in 2008,
so they can’t mean too much
Yeah, the Complicit Agenda Media have remained objective in this whole process, showing equal treatment of all candidates, refusing to cover politically motivated gotchas, never promoting one over another.
Yeah, right……. You are so funny, sometimes, coming up with the goofiest ideas.
baldork
Uh HUH
Extreme leftist Democrat “Reverend” Al Sharpton exclaimed publicly that “George Bush was selected by the judges, not elected by the people!” And another typical extreme leftist Democrat, “Reverend” Jesse Jackson, made similar claims. After attending the U.S. Supreme Court hearing as an obvious act of intimidation and implied threat of race riots, Jackson threatened, “If this court rules against counting our vote, it will simply create a civil rights explosion. People will not surrender to this tyranny. We will fight back.”
http://www.fraudfactor.com/ffef2kcountways.html
Neoconehead
I’m not talking Iowa. Romney will destroy the field in New Hampshire.
GMB
Aside from the cliched potheads, I think Paul has strong support among those who think NAFTA etc. were bad for the US. Iowa Democrats are not Illinois or Florida Dems FYI.
I am big on the fairness issue. In fact Newt’s campaign cheated in Virginia. With all the bad mouthing of liberals I don’t see why B4V posters shouldn’t expect more of their candidates than of the opposition.
Amy
The disagreements with ‘the system could have been fixed long ago. Ron Paul is working within the system that people of Iowa prefer. If other states don’t like that, they are free to have their elections whenever they want.
As for Ron Paul’s position on Iran, he is correct and you are wrong. Pakistan is an Islamic country with the bomb which is somehow okay. Communist crazy countries like North Korea somehow managed to not start WW3. Israel acts as a deterrent … Iran is far away from being the repressive regime that one sees in Saudi Arabia.
Most of the fear mongering with respect to Iran is just that. What is striking is that the US invaded and overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran on behalf of the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The justification for the invasion was of course the concern about RUSSIAN COMMUNISM.
Fear mongering on top of fear mongering. It would be okay, except the costs of Homeland Security and policing the world have bankrupted the US.
baldork
Romney will destroy the field in New Hampshire.
BFD two piss ant states.
FLA = 19 MILLION people 27 electoral votes, closed primary Jan 26.
new game this year, jr varsity no longer rules.
baldork
The justification for the invasion was of course the concern about RUSSIAN COMMUNISM.
yeah the IRON curtain, , 10,000 russian nuclear weapons, the enslavement of half of europe, proxy wars all around the world was just BS hype for the Eeeeeevil oil companies.
stick the pole sitting and basket weaving, something you do know.
Aside from the cliched potheads, I think Paul has strong support among those who think NAFTA etc. were bad for the US. Iowa Democrats are not Illinois or Florida Dems FYI.
Yeah ,ok. Umm on second thought No again. Reagan unlike Ron Paul didn’t have the stormfront vote locked up. I hear Mr Paul is getting , oh around 99% of thier vote.
Nice try though.
And yes Darth Newton is a cheater along with being a quitter.
GMB
Ron Paul is not a racist. That’s more propaganda and of course Iowa is the least racist state in the country. They voted for Obama.
Neoconehead
The overthrow of the Iranian govt had nothing to do with communism. It was a useful tool (you know about being a tool right?) to justify supporting an oil company.
Now that the communist monster isn’t quite the bogeyman to go get oil, the Islamic monster has become the new tool of fear. But, the attacks of 9/11 didn’t come people who followed Shia in Iran but from the Sunni in Saudi Arabia.
Ah yes, Dr. Paul was too busy practicing medicine and yakking to the public to even know what was being printed under his name.
For some reason, I am having a hard time believing that. Just like I don’t believe Mitt or Newt when they spout thier bull.
Now that the communist monster isn’t quite the bogeyman to go get oil, the Islamic monster has become the new tool of fear. But, the attacks of 9/11 didn’t come people who followed Shia in Iran but from the Sunni in Saudi Arabia.
you are one dumbed down useful idiot drone,no wonder you “teach” in a 3 rd rate jr college.
you are one dumbed down useful idiot drone,no wonder you “teach” in a 3rd rate jr college.- Neoconehead
I teach at a premier institution of higher learning.
Which of the following are false?
1. The U.S. invaded Iran and overthrew a democratically elected government?
2. The triggering action was the nationalization of British oil?
3. The pretext was to stop Soviet styled communism?
4. That Osama bin Laden etc. are Sunni and not Shia?
5. That NK, Pakistan and Israel have the bomb?
GMB
Ron Paul has already addressed repeatedly the newsletter controversy.
One thing I remember about Bush was his contention that having lower standards for minorities is itself a form of racism. The soft bigotry of low expectations. By that standard I would say Obama is the most racist candidate in the field.
Yes. Ron Paul has repeatedly denied he wrote those news letters. Thats why it has Ron Paul on the header.
Sorry here Bardolf. I will not cut him a break on this at all Bullshit is bullshit regardless of the politician. Those news letters carry his name and he did not have the time to read them?
Would not accept that answer from Mitt or Newt. Will not accept it from Paul.
Love the dolf spin on what has been said about open caucuses and primaries, and its contrast with the way I see it.
dolf seems to view disagreement with the system as “whining”—at least that is the impression I got after his second (but not last) use of the word in his short post.
I, on the other hand, simply see it as a weakness in the system, and suggest one way to circumvent it. And I would find it a weakness no matter who is ahead or behind.
(This Liberal projection of their own constant redefining of positions and principles based on political gain is really quite revealing.)
I don’t agree with a system which allows the opposition to pick our candidate. No whining, no hand-wringing, no Lefty-type melodrama. Just my analysis of the system and one idea of how to deal with it.
Sure, you can spin it as merely a way to “appeal to Dems and independents” but then you seem to have quite an affinity for Dr. Paul and might just be trying to make his poll ratings among those Dems and independents seem like just the good old American free choice system at work.
I also note the effort to portray lack of enthusiasm for Dr. Paul’s loonier positions as just “…GOP elite dismissal..”. Well, I am as far from any “GOP elite” group as one can get and while I think Dr. Paul has made some good points I also think he is a nut. That treatise on how OF COURSE Iran should have nukes, and his goofball statement that they will be constrained, as the Soviets were, by the same desire to survive, shows a willful ignorance of the very foundation of radical Islam which I find alarming.
Ama
RP will NEVER get the GOP nomination, what I am worried about is he is nutty enough to pull a ross perot (thanks ross for slic and hitlery) and give us 4 more years of marxist destruction and hundreds of $$millions$$ of lavish vacations by the current POS and his Mooch?
neoconhead
Ex New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson now libertarian- quits GOP Donald Trump quits GOP.
You worried about those bozos?
Ron Paul will not run as a 3rd party. Romney will lose, because he is Obamalite.
Ross Perot was right about NAFTA and didn’t play the spoiler. Bush was a big loser and after 12 years people of GOP and an economy where the working class wages were in the dumps, people put in Clinton.
When the GOP has offered Obamalite vs. Obama the winner will be Obama. I will blame the trailer park foreign policy quarterbacks who get their orders from newsmax or similar rags for the loss.
Of course, I have my survival seeds and am ready for springtime planting to begin.
“Of course, I have my survival seeds and am ready for springtime planting to begin.”
Wise move. Anyone that fears another barky term should do likewise. Being prepared never hurt anyone.
baldork
Ross Perot was right about NAFTA (yes he was) and didn’t play the spoiler.
HUH??????
WTF???????
KKKlinton 44,909,806 43% (lowest % EVER elected)
GB 39,104,550 37.5%
RPerot 19,743,821 18.91%
I will blame the
trailer parkinnercity plantation dwellers, looter and moochers of the 47% foreign policy quarterbacks who get their orders fromnewsmaxCNN or similar rags for the loss.fixed balDORK!
Ron Paul will not run as a 3rd party. Romney will lose, because he is Obamalite.
Not neccessarily. Voter enthusiasm with donkys is not very high. The amout of voting fraud the donkys can pull off next november probably will not be enough to counter the folks who will skip Romney or Newts name on the presidential ballot.
Has Mr. Paul came out and said he will not run 3rd party or independent? Not yet. Wait and see.
Neoconehead
You believe that people who voted for Perot would have otherwise voted and voted for Bush. My father voted for Perot and would have otherwise voted for Clinton or not at all. That’s anecdotal but there is no solid data to suggest a Bush victory if Perot hadn’t run.
This is a blog post, not a book, so I will edit info on Iran’s mentality of seeking martyrdom. It’s complex, so even editing can’t make it short.
From the Iranian Constitution:
“In the formation and equipping of the country’s defence forces, due attention must be paid to faith and ideology as the basic criteria. Accordingly, the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them” [8:60]).”
While many Muslims might take this to mean relatively peaceful means of “..extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world ..” there is also the movement to bring about the return of the 12th Imam, a movement gaining power in Iran.
Ahmadinejad’s bellicose speeches must be understood in light of his ambitions amidst the faultlines of Iranian domestic politics, but they may have ominous implications for the rest of us.
In a speech on November 16th, Ahmadinejad spoke of his belief in the return of the Twelfth Imam.
In Iran a group called the Hojjatieh believe that humans can stir up chaos to encourage him to return. Ayatollah Khomeini banned the group in the early 1980s because they rejected one of the primary commitments of the Iranian revolution: the concept of Vilayat-i Faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist). In other words, they opposed the notion of an Islamic republic because it would hinder the Twelfth Imam’s return on account of it being too just and peaceful. Today, in addition to the possibility of Ahmadinejad himself being a member (or a former member), the group has connections to Qom ultraconservative cleric Mesbah Yazdi whom Iranians frequently refer to as the “crazed one” and the “crocodile.” Four of the twenty-one new cabinet ministers are purportedly Hojjatieh members. Some reports state that cabinet ministers must sign a formal pledge of support for the Twelfth Imam.
Ahmadinejad’s speeches and actions cannot be understood exclusively in terms of a despotic figure who radicalizes politics for the sake of power. He has chosen to radicalize Iranian politics in a particular way, and one that issues a direct challenge to the underpinnings of the regime. This returns us to Ahmadinejad’s references to the return of the Twelfth Imam. The Hojjatieh’s belief in humans’ power to effect his return, which, to repeat, are unorthodox for Shi’ites, should be of grave concern for everyone. This belief should remind Westerners of a long tradition in the West of millenarians dating back to medieval times, and including even Marxian notions of “immiseration of the proletariat,” who believed their religious and ideological activism would inaugurate a new age for humanity. Medieval millenarians, famously documented by Norman Cohn in his The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, stirred up political chaos in the apocalyptic hope that it would effect the return of Christ. More recent expressions of this “metastatic faith” (to borrow a term from political philosopher Eric Voegelin) include the poison gas attack on the Tokyo subways by members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult and of course the 9/11 attacks that were part of al-Qaeda’s “divine” politics intended to destroy the “dar al-Harb” and pave the way for a worldwide Islamist empire. Political scientist Barry Cooper has documented the apocalyptic core of their “Salafist” violence. Groups like these believe their religious and ideological violence is “altruistic” because it purports to “cleanse” the world of the impure and infidel.
According to Shi’ite teaching, the Twelfth Imam will not require an introduction upon his return. His identity will be self-evident to all, or at least to those capable of recognizing him. One view states that he will rule through a deputy, or perhaps the deputy will precede the Imam’s return. Perhaps the deputy’s identity should also be evident to all who can see.
While Ahmadinejad has not drawn an explicit connection between his desire to see Israel wiped off the map and an activist belief in the Twelfth Imam’s return, the dots are there to be connected once one understands the tyrannical “logic” behind someone who, perhaps viewing himself as a self-proclaimed deputy for the Twelfth Imam, might wish to effect Mahdi’s return. The deputy would promote Iran’s nuclear capabilities for they are key to effecting chaos in the world. The deputy would also purge diplomats, dozens of deputy ministers and heads of government banks and businesses, and challenge the Iranian ruling clerical establishment. All these moves push the regime toward a “coup d’état” (according to one Iranian source) or at least a constitutional crisis. But a constitutional crisis would be a mere stepping stone for a president for whom the Twelfth Imam does not require an Islamic republic to return.
Western observers need to be able to understand the ideological and religious overtones of the current situation in Iran. Ahmadinejad’s peculiar references to the Twelfth Imam are no mere eccentricity to be taken lightly. Nor do they seem to be the rhetorical ploy of a politician manipulating the excitable masses (as some have interpreted Saddam Hussein’s embrace of Islamism in the later part of his rule). Minimally, Ahmadinejad’s speeches and actions portend a constitutional crisis for the Iranian regime. Maximally, there are times when one should take bombastic statements not as double-talk, but for what they are.
Having a popular presidential candidate who is ignorant of the underlying religious/political (for they are for all intents and purposes one and the same) goals of a virulently anti-American, anti-Western, dictator and who supports that nation’s quest for nuclear weapons, is unnerving. Watching Ron Paul go on and on about Iran’s need and right to gain the tools it needs to accomplish these goals is even more so, Hearing him dismiss the reality of Iranian religious agenda by claiming Iran would be restrained by fears of Mutually Assured Destruction is bizarre.
Ron Paul is a clueless imbecile when it comes to the biggest threat this nation faces in the near future.
But he DOES oppose NAFTA, which is an obsession of dolf’s. Gee, if he comes out against agricultural subsidies dolf wouldn’t care how insane his foreign policy might be.
Oooooh, the associate professor at a small mid-level state university is strutting his snobbishness again. “Trailer park” people, you know, being defined by their homes if not their zip code—how too too elitist of you.
(Coming from someone whose own zip code pretty much DEFINES ‘redneck’—but then, isn’t that why you chose it? After all, you need a pretty small pond if you want to look like a biggish fish.)
How about taking some Newsmax articles and debunking them? You know, just to show off, again, how utterly brilliant and intellectually superior you are.
‘Cause it takes a real genius to come up with the observation that if you change the words in a book it will mean something different.
I’ve got a great idea! dolf, why don’t you approach the staff of the R.U. to see if they will dedicate a column to your blog posts?
I’m sure that letting your students see your attitude toward certain economic and residential demographics would not diminish your on-campus reputation at all.
In fact, I’m pretty sure it would not.
And it might round out your profile, as it would certainly balance the intelligence you DO possess, which is clearly limited to mathematics.
Has Mr. Paul came out and said he will not run 3rd party or independent? Not yet. Wait and see. – GMB
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/iowa-gop-moving-votecount-to-undisclosed-location-108812.html
Would you promise not to run 3rd party if the GOP sabotaged your efforts?
Then again if I am going to be true to my thoughts here. Does it matter if Mr. Paul runs 3rd party or not. Loyalty really only flows in one direction in the republican party and tht direction is to the establishment.
Don’t belive me? Maybe you should ask Doug Hoffman, Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller.
Let be what will be.
GMB, didn’t you get the memo? freakzo has declared us all to be “hard-core Republicans”.
sorry by ANYBODY but O or hitlery
sock puppets included
LOVE LOST: ‘I just called Reggie. I miss him’…
paging larry sinclair and wright
mmmmm mmmm mmmmmm
Philly Councilwoman Will ‘Retire’ for One Day, Collect a $478K Pension, and Return on Monday
and the first Griftors continue their TEN MILLION $$$$$$$ vacation.
About Obama: “It’s about building relationships,” said Gerald Rafshoon, a television producer who was President Jimmy Carter’s communications director. “Some people are saying he’s a recluse. You don’t want that reputation. He needs to show that he likes people.”
Well, he likes Reggie….
I’ve known that for a long time. Except that I am a Hardcore fringe conservative. Oh well, whats in a name or label anymore?
Uh, I believe that is “DR.” Paul…….
In other news around the world. The U.N. Flag flys at half mast for , guess who?
Rico! Where the hell have ya been? Still have that cool convertible. Or was it a muscle car?
and deer on the lawn in the country?
rico has been locked in the basement by his new bride.
CNN and Wolf Blitzer Call for Presidential Transparency
Not the records of President Obama rather that of a candidate–Mitt Romney. You know, President “Transparency” Obama, who also made Judicial Watch’s “Most corrupt politicians” list for 5th consecutive year, 6th if you count the “dishonorable mention” of 2006, and Clinton are the only two Presidents that I recall spending over $2 million each to seal and hide their respective records.
As Wolf Blizter said “Transparency; you say you’re not going to release your … records … why would you [not] do that?” But the badgering over “transparency” continued by Blitzer, “What do you have to hide?”
http://bigjournalism.com/rfutrell/2011/12/29/cnn-and-wolf-blitzer-call-for-presidential-transparency/
A great post on this link: Forget the military industrial complex. It has been replaced with the oligarchy media complex.