This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

As The GOP Primary Race Goes Into Production, Here Are The Facts

Tyler Durden's picture


With two days left until the GOP primary circus is fully underway, here, courtesy of Reuters, are the key facts to keep in mind as all that endless talk finally shifts to action. From Reuters: "Voters kick off the 2012 nominating process to pick the Republican Party's challenger to Democratic President Barack Obama with the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, followed by primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina on Jan. 10 and Jan. 21. The three contests are some of the most watched events in the election process. Here are a few facts about them."



  • Iowa has been first in the nominating process since 1972 when Iowa Democrats changed the date to meet new rules intended to encourage participation. Jimmy Carter first drew attention to the caucuses in 1976 when he performed unexpectedly well and went on to take the White House.
  • The saying there are only "three tickets out of Iowa" comes from the fact that since 1972 almost no candidate has won their party nomination without coming in third place or better in Iowa. In 2008, Republican nominee John McCain took 4th.
  • On average only about 6 percent of eligible voters participate in the Iowa caucuses, which bring them together for hours to cast ballots after a surrogate or volunteer from each campaign is given a chance to try to sway their vote. In 2008, that jumped to 16.1 percent but was still much lower than the 53.6 percent who voted in the New Hampshire primaries of direct balloting, according to George Mason University's United States Elections Project.
  • The Hawkeye State has chosen Democratic candidates for the White House in five of the last six presidential elections, but political observers say independents could swing the vote. Registered Democrats number about 645,500 to 613,500 Republicans, and almost 718,000 voters were not with a party, according to December data from the Iowa secretary of state.
  • In an election focused on the economy, Iowa's 6 percent unemployment rate in October, compared to the national rate of 8.6 percent, is among the lowest in the country.
  • The state's Hispanic population almost doubled in the past decade to make up about 5 percent of Iowans. About 91 percent of the population was white in 2010, the last U.S. Census shows.


  • Before the Iowa caucuses grabbed national attention in the 1970s, the New Hampshire primary was the first test for presidential hopefuls. It is known for political upsets starting with Dwight Eisenhower's 1952 win over long-time Republican Senator Robert Taft before winning the presidency.
  • New Hampshire primary winners have had mixed success when it comes to getting their party's nomination. John McCain won the Republican primary in 2000 but eventually lost the bid to George W. Bush. In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary but the party nod went to Obama.
  • Performances in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries have not been consistent. Since 1984, only two candidates have won both.
  • The "Live Free or Die" state is not as liberal as some of its New England neighbors. A study released in December by Third Way, a Washington think tank that promotes centrist policies, found the number of registered Democratic voters had fallen 14.6 percent while that of Republicans had declined 13.5 percent.
  • Richard Nixon, the Republican president from 1969 to 1973, holds the record for winning the most New Hampshire primaries: three.


  • The South Carolina Republican primary was set early in the primary calendar in 1980 by Ronald Reagan's campaign coordinator Lee Atwater to give Reagan a boost and southern conservatives more weight in the nominating process.
  • The race has since become known as a firewall for establishment frontrunners against insurgent candidates who perform surprisingly well in the earlier contests.
  • Since 1980, every winner of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary has gone on to win the party nomination.
  • The Palmetto State has gone for Republican candidates in 9 out of the last ten presidential elections.
  • Religion resonates with South Carolina voters. A little over 60 percent of South Carolina residents were identified as evangelical or mainline Protestant Christian, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey in 2008 found.
  • With 10.5 percent of its population unemployed, South Carolina has one of the nation's worst unemployment rates.
  • South Carolina is among the country's fastest growing states, fueled in part by a burgeoning Hispanic population. In 2010, 5.1 percent of state residents were Hispanic, up from 2.4 percent in 2000, according to the last U.S. Census. African-Americans made up about 28 percent of residents and whites, 66 percent.

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:00 | 2025031 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture
Rick Santorum bothers Cyclone fans

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:16 | 2025166 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

Three RP interviews this morning ... you tubes are up over at DailyPaul ...



Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:52 | 2025217 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Come on Cooter, you have been around long enough to know that if voting mattered, it would be illegal. Just the same, I will vote for Paul, regardless of the bullshit party label.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:59 | 2025225 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

Did you watch all three interviews (~40 minutes total)?



Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:07 | 2025242 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Don't really watch much idiot box.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:26 | 2025267 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

That is unfortunate.

What I think is happening is that the role of media to influence people is imploding. Social media is largely replacing the MSM with regards to influence opinion. ZH is a great example of this ... how many readers here source opinions and facts from ZH and its threads than from Bloomberg, MSNBC, etc. At the federal level, RP is kind of an index one can track for this sort of thing.

While many people get upset at how the MSM treats RP, and they are getting very combative with their coverage, I think it is actually counter productive now. That is to say, the MSM is looking increasingly discredited trying to spin RPs slow, stead rise and actually boosting RP in the process.

This is absolutely fascinating to watch.

EDIT: Wanted to add that this ABC article on the NDAA is a perfect example of what I mean:

Look at the comments. Virtually no one likes this. The rage is palpable. It remains to be seen how this plays out.



Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:00 | 2025325 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Always worth repeating for the fake American elections:

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this - who will count the votes, and how."
Joseph Stalin, quoted in 'Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary' (1992), by Boris Bazhanov

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:01 | 2025548 trav7777
trav7777's picture

lol...watchin Cantor on 60 Minutes...triber with a nice GS wife.  Gee, what are the odds?

Then they follow up with the SAT-for-hire guy who scored lower than I did. 

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 02:43 | 2026018 Rhone_Ranger
Rhone_Ranger's picture

There will be no vote until the results are known!

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:11 | 2025453 mrgneiss
mrgneiss's picture

OT as well but I think we should alter the acronym "MSM" to better reveal its true nature and add "corporate" to it, as in the corporate media or coporate mainstream media, obvious to us, but we need to wake up the sheeple........

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:59 | 2025638 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

I like "establishment" media myself but corporate is fine too.  Celente calls them "presstitutes" which I think is pretty funny.  If it weren't for his family members watching his show Chris Matthews viewership would be less than "100"!

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 18:06 | 2027121 akak
akak's picture

I always refer to the corporate-controlled media as .... "the corporate-controlled media".

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:22 | 2025675 Freddie
Freddie's picture

TV is for morons who enable and enpower the oligarchs and your overlords.  If you switch on TV then you are enabling you serfdom.  Leep watching moron.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 00:34 | 2025900 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

He said while listening to conservative talk radio...


Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:02 | 2027000 CIABS
CIABS's picture

freddie:  obviously it's possible to avoid television and still be a moron.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 04:12 | 2026066 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Thanks for that Cooter. Well said.

We no longer call it the msm rather, we call it the socialist propaganda machine. Let it be hence further known that THIS, is the new reference name for the former dinosaur lying ass dis-information cheap attacks yellow journalism msm.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:14 | 2025254 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Chris Wallace was his usual smug-Tavistock-shill self....he brought up ridiculous lines of thought and could barely mask his disdain for the good doctor.  Thank God I only watch about 5 minutes of TV a week!  Anymore, and I would be bald...

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:12 | 2025772 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

And of that 5 minutes you watch Chris Wallace?  Dude, tampon commercials are more informative.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:11 | 2025346 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

thanks for the links, cooter

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:03 | 2025551 donis
donis's picture

kick ass ron paul t shirts

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 00:14 | 2025867 gangland
gangland's picture

african american democrat is voting for ron paul



Mon, 01/02/2012 - 10:25 | 2026344 homme
homme's picture

If there was ever a walking talking piece of shit on this planet, it's that goat-boinking Chris Wallace. I'll never forget nor forgive that mo-fo for asking Dr. Paul if he believed we should be taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda.. Thanks for the links.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 13:55 | 2026796 Pegasus Muse
Pegasus Muse's picture

A lot of truth in this story. "Old  Butch" is a cunning old bird. 
Old  Butch
John was in the fertilized egg business.

He had several hundred young layers (hens), called  'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went  into the soup pot and was replaced.

This  took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.

Each  bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now, he  could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency  report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine  specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's  bell hadn't rung at  all!

When he  went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were  busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his  beak, so it couldn't ring.

He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next  one.

John was  so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Saint Lawrence County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize," but they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as  well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of  the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and  screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully this fall, the bells are not always audible.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:54 | 2025839 Treason Season
Treason Season's picture
Foreign Troops On American Soil  ! Incredible Ron Paul TV Ad!
Mon, 01/02/2012 - 03:45 | 2026052 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture



Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:00 | 2025033 AC_Doctor
AC_Doctor's picture

The facts are that no candidate with the exception of Ron Paul can manage the upcoming collapse.  Obambi has the internet kill switch, FEMA camps, SOPA, and NDAA to turn America into a police state.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:25 | 2025086 trav7777
trav7777's picture

how's RP gonna manage it, by going to the "gold standard"?  LOL...won't make a bit of difference

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:29 | 2025092 PrDtR
PrDtR's picture

By removing un-necessary laws and NOT LOCKING US UP!

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:30 | 2025095 john39
john39's picture

and for all anyone knows, that is exactly the what the central bank owners want anyway.  good luck with the politicians, its all a show.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:40 | 2025107 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Yup. The central banks would love to be able to have some solid footing again, even with a barbaic relic acting as first order control loop. (They would not keep it around if it did not have a purpose)

Their problem is that these jokes for politicians screw up or nullify any decent intention the central banks might have. Which is fun and games 'till the river gets this high.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:35 | 2025101 ozziindaus
ozziindaus's picture

That's one of the few policies I can't agree with RP on. Gold standard will really make serfs out of us since so few people actually own it (1%, maybe 2%). Talk about controlling the money supply.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:42 | 2025114 wisefool
wisefool's picture

He is not going to advocate an official gold standard. He is not going to get rid of taxation. He is going to advocate sound money and simplified taxation.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:49 | 2025123 john39
john39's picture

obummer said he was going to end all the wars and close gitmo.  full disclosure, i didn't vote for either clown in the last go around, but the point is, its all rhetoric until they are sworn in...  until then, who the hell knows.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:01 | 2025138 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Oh heck yeah. And Obama said raising the debt ceiling is "Collosal Failure in Leadership" when Bush did it.

I think we gotta take our chances with Ron Paul. As contributors have been saying recently "The can really is getting to big to kick"

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:19 | 2025173 john39
john39's picture

I agree that on the surface of things, Ron Paul seems very solid, and has some really great proposals.  His positions have been consistent for a long time.  But, I also can't help but feel the chess pieces moving around the board, silently and without most being aware.  Something is off here, just can't quite put my finger on it yet.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:01 | 2025221 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Ron Paul is just a relief valve to vent the frustration of those who should be starting militias and preparing for rebellion. Alas, even Ron Paul supporters are too stupid to realize the elections are rigged. We don't have a failure of leadership. We have a failure of the people to understand who needs to lead and who needs to be shot.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:11 | 2025249 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

I'm NOT "too stupid to realize elections are rigged".  But the alternative is really not a viable option right now.  We suffer under a much uglier, stronger, more equipped, and more brutal "standing army" than did our predecessors.  

Besides....most bloody revolutions don't end well.  We aren't talking about fighting off a foreign army....we would be fighting those that are "encamped within our gates"....our very own government.   

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:14 | 2025659's picture

Supporting Ron Paul and preparing for the worst are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, when supporting Ron Paul one meets many like minded people who will be an asset to one's social circle should the lights go out.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:06 | 2025335 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I will put a finger on this:

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

I'm sure you can guess which finger. . .

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:33 | 2025391 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Yes.  He's ALL for smaller government...just small enough to get under your bedroom door.

>>>"Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."<<<

He very much subcribes to the BS of Christian Reconstructionists.

So much for being a Libertarian.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:13 | 2025458 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

see, this is my main complaint with all this Paul-family cheerleading - he's a career Republican, his son is an elected Republican, and they BOTH stand on the side of the Christian Right-Wing of that party - their stance on the Liberty of Females to make decisions about their own body, without interference, is NOT supported by any of the Libertarian party platforms I could find.

and, I will add, these incremental "bills" are ALWAYS a foot in the door to lost sovereignty, people need to pay attention if they decide to vote. 

(though I believe the very nature of "voting" allows for ignoring facts, compromising principals, all to get your guy a "win")

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:37 | 2025506 fnord88
fnord88's picture

I agree his position on abortion is not one I support. But when the choice is between candidates who advocate killing hundreds of thusands of innocent people in stupid wars, or one who forbids women who choose to have sex from having an abortion, it's really a no brainer. Most people are not " ignoring facts, compromising princicples" etc, most people realize no candiate represents their views perfectly, so they vote for the one who is closest. Pure libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism, or anarchy with property rights. No candidate comes even close, so you seem to be suggesting the most moral thing to do is not vote, which is stupid and a form of fundamentalism. "My way or the highway" type bullshit. If you have ever been in a relationship, you should realise compromise is smarter than ideological purity. 

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 00:58 | 2025930 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

hmmm. . .

one who forbids women who choose to have sex from having an abortion

I sense a bit of, shall we say, fervour in your choice of words. .  a woman who chooses to have sex deserves to be denied an abortion p'haps?  because this pregnancy, unless of the immaculate varietal, involved a sperm donor, no?  who chose to have sex too?  with ZERO governmental constitutional amendments - or even mention!  fancy that.

as to your "not voting is stupid and a form of fundamentalism" - spare me.  NOT voting, and spending the resultant brain space & time on more life affirming tasks leading to greater self-sufficiency in being is a far more disciplined way to exist.

you deal with your compromises, and your inevitable government voter "disappointments" - I'll take care of myself thanks.



Mon, 01/02/2012 - 02:15 | 2026000 fnord88
fnord88's picture

No fervour. I am simply pointing out a fact: Civilians in other countries do not choose to be bombed. Pregnant women choose to have sex. In your world, civilians and unborn children die. In my neither do.

And if you choose not vote, then your bitching about politicians is just bitching. Why waste your time commenting when you could be doing all that life affirming stuff. 

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 04:04 | 2026062 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

Paul is a constitutionalist. He would leave abortion and all social issues up to the states. He would not put it this crudely, but: If the bulk of the states see fit to ban it, or to amend the national constitution to prohibit this odious practice of killing in the service of pleasure, that is their business.

If you're a naturalist, abortion should be even more odious to you that it is to religious people, who believe there's a foundation for rights above the whims of Teddy Kennedy, Ruth Ginsberg and Barack Obama. For naturalists, killing members of the species before we can gauge their ability to contribute to the long term survival of the species should be considered pure madness.

The flip side of someone maybe telling you that you can't kill any more unborn kids because you got your rocks off is this: Some states may revel in it, and all manner of other liberty and life affirming fun. They don't see abortion forever closing off all choices for a life that is already underway and will result in one of us if we can keep it from being carved up. They see it as a single grand choice, affirming freedom, which carries no other consequence for anyone else. California can put an aborted fetus in the mouth of the bear on their state flag, if they want, and have the bear corn-holing a tranny. It's called freedom. RP12.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 06:07 | 2026132 fnord88
fnord88's picture

Can the bear be smoking a joint?

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 06:12 | 2026134 i-dog
i-dog's picture


  "the long term survival of the species "

Are you serious? There are seven fucking billion of us!! We're not going to run out of homo sapiens anytime soon.....

200 years ago there were just 1 billion breeders spread around the planet. Now, we have 7 times the population and already passed peak oil, destroyed most of the forests, and the fresh water tables around the world have fallen up to 40 metres in the last 40 years.

It's time for religious nutters of all stripes to stop breeding like rabbits/locusts in the hope of outnumbering those who believe in using a different name for the same fucking god!!

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 23:03 | 2027627 buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

the point isn't raw numbers, it's the far right side of the bell curve.

And if you think Americans are or are not having babies because of muslim fedundity, you're detached. One kid is hard enough, you have 2, 3, 4 etc. because you love it, not because Muslims are breeding.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 23:07 | 2027638's picture

200 years ago there were just 1 billion breeders spread around the planet. Now, we have 7 times the population and already passed peak oil, destroyed most of the forests, and the fresh water tables around the world have fallen up to 40 metres in the last 40 years.


Two hundred years ago Malthus made virtually the same argument and was proven to be very, very wrong.

Tue, 01/03/2012 - 00:53 | 2027862 i-dog
i-dog's picture

... and, no doubt, in 200 more years - when 50 billion half-starved and thirsty humans are still fighting each other for resources and aggressively insisting that their neighbours should use the same name for the shared imaginary god as they do (and worship him/her/it on the same day of the week!) - I will be proven "very wrong" too. Fortunately, I won't be here to listen to the "I told you so".

Tue, 01/03/2012 - 01:59 | 2027966's picture

So you're not having your head frozen then?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:09 | 2025521 razorthin
razorthin's picture

I wouldn't mind the anarchy you are suggesting, instead.  But I suggest that you officially lose your right to bitch if you let the masters choose their chosen, 100% system-preserving puppet, while you choose not to choose.  You will have to ignite your dry powder and redden your stainless for the right to protest beyond this election.

Yes I really do believe this is the precipice of demise for any remnant of freedom, anywhere on the globe.  I think this election really is THAT critical.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 01:06 | 2025939 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you (still) believe your vote "counts."

I have investigated this notion, and proved to myself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my vote does not.

so only voters have the "right to bitch"?  where have I heard that before. . .

the president is, and has been for decades, a figurehead, something for CITIZENS to focus on when the spotlight is turned on every few years, and to whine about in between. . . Congress is bought 'n' paid for, and I didn't contribute money, so how could they possibly represent me? 

none of us are "free" here, but for a while there, we amrkns were relatively more free than those in other nations - that time is past, and it was always at the expense of others. . .

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:58 | 2025669's picture

A fetus is a living human being. I've only come to realize that recently.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:15 | 2025776 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Nope, a fetus is meat.  Excellent boiled, broiled or fried. 

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 08:03 | 2026168 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>A fetus is a living human being.

As it is a latecomer, a fetus cannot homestead and obtain title for a uterus. The mother retains ownership of her uterus and is justified in evicting unwanted fetuses found squatting therein.

Furthermore, unlike the born, a fetus is not a self-owner. Every volitional action of an unwanted fetus is an act of aggression because it is a misappropriation of nutrition and other biological functions taken from the mother against her will. Even if a fetus could argue against abortion, the act of the arguing itself would be tantamount to theft. The mother is justified in destroying the bodies of the fetuses, as they do not have self-ownership.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 08:30 | 2026192 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Respectfully, if it is a property rights issue, who speaks for the fetus? Someone has to, as it cannot at this point.

I would say it must be the father as he left "his property" there for safe keeping in the first place. And we of course assume the female did....willingly "open the door"...for the fetus to come to be & occupy the place.

So it was a voluntary arrangement between the two parties involved.

Maybe the landlord should be a little more discerning in who she rents to or at least get enough of a safety deposit to make up for any damages left behind ;-)

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 13:12 | 2026719's picture

The mother is justified in destroying the bodies of the fetuses, as they do not have self-ownership.

Do you favor late term abortions? Can a baby that would be born tomorrow be killed today because it lacks "self ownership?"

Even a fetus will display a desire to survive. Rip it out and toss it in a bucket and it will wriggle and cry. Self ownership is that self same desire to live and to thrive.

Dependency does not negate self ownership. If it did then multiple amputees, conjoined twins, coma patients and the very old would all be non-human.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 15:20 | 2026935 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Do you favor late term abortions? Can a baby that would be born tomorrow be killed today because it lacks "self ownership?"

Yes, the fetus can be killed. If there is a medical procedure to extract the fetus from the mother's body, and the mother consents to her body undergoing this procedure, perhaps paid for by a charitable group, and the fetus can then be sustained through medical technology then at that point the fetus would be under the guardianship of the charitable group. But if the charitable group then decides to "pull the plug" anyway, causing the fetus to die, it is so entitled.

>Even a fetus will display a desire to survive. Rip it out and toss it in a bucket and it will wriggle and cry. Self ownership is that self same desire to live and to thrive.

By your definition, chickens, worms, and bacteria are also self-owners.

>Dependency does not negate self ownership. If it did then multiple amputees, conjoined twins, coma patients and the very old would all be non-human.

No one has a right to live. Not amputees, not coma patients, not I. In fact, it is a datum of the external universe that everyone is virtually guaranteed to die. The desire to live doesn't entitle one to continually aggress against others.

If you want a government that enslaves a mother and forces her to provide charitable housing for a fetus, then tell me why shouldn't you be enslaved and forced to provide charitable housing for crack addicts.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 15:21 | 2026945's picture

Chickens and worms are not human. You are inhuman.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 15:36 | 2026959 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

I'm humane because I want to preserve women's rights.

You, my friend, should run for Uterus Czar or Womb Commissar or something. You can oversee the labor camps where the young women who smoked a cigarette or ate too many trans-fats are held on attempted murder charges.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:15 | 2027017's picture

Women have a right to conceive or not conceive. They do not have a right to kill their own children.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 17:03 | 2027068 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

I haven't read this thoroughly, but it looks interesting:

"The key to the solution is to focus on the private property rights in question. In this case, it is the mother's womb; given that the fetus is unwanted, it is in effect a trespasser, or a parasite. The mother, then, has a right to evict it - in the gentlest manner possible - but not to kill it, if technology permits her not to do so."

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 17:08 | 2027074's picture

By agreeing to engage in a reproductive act a woman gives any potential fetus the right to occupy her womb for the gestational period. It's a contract.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 17:22 | 2027085 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

hhhahahhhhhh, a contract is it?  a legal egreement between the womb and who else?? 

away back to your Right To Life websites to memorise the rules of your new beliefs Crock - about how the State has the RIGHT to control a female's body, with no penalties or mention of the Sperm Donor.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 18:40 | 2027150's picture

There are penalties for the "sperm donor" including prison if he fails to pay for support. Why do you lie about this?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:26 | 2025684 Freddie
Freddie's picture

Then go vote for the muslim again like you did in 2008.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 00:06 | 2025851 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

Take your meds.Then read a book.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 17:50 | 2027111 Last_2_Sense
Last_2_Sense's picture

It's crazy the amount of other freedoms you are willing to sacrifice just so you have the option of sucking another life out of your womb. Heres a thought, get on birth control. Moron two holer.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:54 | 2025540 trav7777
trav7777's picture

petitio principii...classic example of this fallacy.

The issue is not about the womb, but the life contained inside of it.  The pro-abortionists cannot have an honest debate on THAT topic, so they should be ignored.

Women can do whatever they want with their wombs but not the lives contained therein.

What I find laughable is how many abortionists are PETA members.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:23 | 2025589 Chupacabra
Chupacabra's picture

Logical consistency is not a hallmark of (neo) liberalism.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:46 | 2025619 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

That IS funny Trav, what is also funny is that little lib's actually think anyone cares what the hell goes on in their bedroom..  Rather watch paint dry than watch your husband or wife boss you pink bathrobe boys about..   Just quit spending and giving the bamster power to disappear ayone he likes and you can keep peeing sitting down, we won't bother you..

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:37 | 2025818 weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Women can do whatever they want with their wombs but not the lives contained therein.

100% incorrect.  Women can do anything they want within their body.  Free market controls absolutely.  Until the little squib is out of the bod, it's her's and her's alone to do with as she sees fit.  Go peddle your fascist bullshit elsewhere.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 03:45 | 2026053 Platypi4Lyfe
Platypi4Lyfe's picture

That's fucking hilarious. I love how you guys are so protective of the unborn and love killing after birth. Some of those unborn are going to grow up to be Muslim, gay, liberal, pacifist and worst of all independent thinking. Consider that before you let all of them live douchebag.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 08:25 | 2026190 flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>Women can do whatever they want with their wombs but not the lives contained therein.<<<

So you're a high a mighty moral idiot too? as well as a racist and a sexist idiot?

Yeah...It all fits.

Be careful where you stick your might be paying out child suppoort to one of those fetuses you so dearly want to protect (but don't actually want, because it's about punishing women.)

DNA paternity testing works in court quite well these days.

Did your "I'm no racist and banged a black girl" miss her period?  Better hope not.

Please tell us you've been sterilized.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:48 | 2026660 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

I always wondered why it's ok for a Woman to abort her baby, but if the baby dies in an accident, someone gets charged with manslaughter.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 14:57 | 2026903 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

really?? you "always wondered" and yet you have yet to come to any conclusion???

what part of "choice" do you not understand?  the difference between choosing to not carry a foetus in the very early months of gestation, vs. carrying a viable foetus with intent and desire to give birth - you can't figure that out??

and all you emotional dudes need to do some research beyond your bibles - a zygote can be "aborted" by the body & no one would notice save the woman - a zygote is a cluster of cells, and in no way can be referred to as a human baby - unless your religious fervour tells you otherwise, of course. . .

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 19:30 | 2027211's picture

I'm an atheist. What does the Bible have to do with this subject?

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 23:58 | 2027762 LudwigVon
LudwigVon's picture

blue vulture logo: your ABOVE SCREED IS FALSE !



  • THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY LAW OR COMMENT ON ABORTION, AS IT IS NOT IN THEIR POWER NOR JURISDICTION ... after delivering over 4,000 babies he personally does not believe in abortion, but does not believe that we(gov't) can coerce others with force in the name of "personal beliefs."

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:21 | 2025158 d_senti
d_senti's picture

The guy's been ideologically consistent for 30 years. With literally ANY other politician I would agree with you 100%, but for the first time in my life I actually believe a politician means what he says. That's nothing short of miraculous.

If Ron Paul wins the nomination, there's still a 95% chance we're screwed; it'll be nearly impossible for him to get done what he wants to do. But if he doesn't get it, then it is 100% certain we are screwed. We are on the brink here, and our choices are simple: voluntarily downsize via Ron Paul's ideas, or push Keynesian nonsense past the point of collapse.

If nothing else, vote for Ron Paul on principle. Let it be a public declaration that many Americans have had enough. It might be our last chance to make a statement on the national stage before it all hits the fan. Whether it makes any difference or not, there is meaning behind the act, behind standing up and saying, in the only voice we're allowed in this system anymore, that we won't take this sitting down.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:32 | 2025186 falun bong
falun bong's picture

Seems like every blog I visit has people wanting Ron Paul. I have yet to visit a blog where people are all fired up about Mitt Romney, or Newt, or Santorum, or Obama. Hopefully that means something. But watch out, the Iowa Repub party said they're going to count the votes in a "secret undisclosed location"

Maybe everybody should write him in, no matter who's on the ballot. Use a Sharpie for good measure. Write-ins must be counted by hand so much harder for Diebold to fool with the numbers.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:05 | 2025237 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

That's exactly what I plan on doing!

No more Hegelian candidates for me!

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:31 | 2025692's picture

Write-ins are often not counted at all.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:41 | 2025200 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

maybe he'll give the others courage...maybe?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:03 | 2025250 ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

Like I said on an earlier thread,  the next president needs to stay in the white house and use that veto pen and his bully pulpit to force the criminals of both parties, in both houses of congress to have to explain their bills and votes to the American public.  As much as the media claims that there is gridlock in Washington, with a so-called do-nothing congress polling at 10% approval from their viewing audience, it seems to me that they have pretty much done exactly what they intended to get done for the last 47 years, at least.  Thank you,  I feel much better now.  RP2012   Don't take a step outside that white house, boy, if you know what's good fer ya. 

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:08 | 2025650 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

I would suggest to President Ron Paul:  Replace the Praetorian Guard(s) (The Secret Service works for the Treasury!), with Marines, until the Banskters are safely locked in GITMO...

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 00:55 | 2025926 Zadok
Zadok's picture

Triple green for you Stycho!

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:53 | 2025418 Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson's picture

I agree.  I love zerohedge.  So many intelligent folks.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 04:35 | 2026075 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Please read the Rose King Epistle I posted here on page 3 of this thread.

Excellent words here d-senti, but will we have an election?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:12 | 2025156 ozziindaus
ozziindaus's picture

Agreed but the biggest misconception is that sound money must be backed by somethng tangible and of value. Money should be more regarded as a conduit to facilitate commerce and not capital sitting in coffers. Scrooge McDuck knew this decades ago.

Additionally, its not what backs the money supply, but what controls its ebb and flow. Bank of North Dakota has this concept right. Why the nation does not adopt the same principles is beyond me.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:00 | 2025226 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Right. The monetary "backing" aspects have been all played out. The last time bernanke said anything of signifigance it was "rates 0% till 2013" The rest of it is just balance sheet tricks. Worthless houses, worthless consumer debt, $1 Trillion in Iraq war debt, and very shortly, over inflated student loan debt.

The "flow" of money (fiscal) stuff is parking it off shore to avoid taxation, and government spending on things like solyndra.

I also have no idea why american people are against sound money.  Sure glad this place exists. I am not at you folks level, but what I can understand seems far saner than the bizzaro world of mainstream finance and politics.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:03 | 2025230 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

you forgot to mention fractional reserve will always be abused and magically manipulated.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:57 | 2025541 razorthin
razorthin's picture

Absolutely the only relevant point regarding this centrally-planned monetary system.  Thank you for that.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:02 | 2027002 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>the biggest misconception is that sound money must be backed by somethng tangible and of value

It's a misconception? If so, then why don't green pieces of paper constitute sound money?


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:05 | 2025439 Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

well how the fuck can you disagree with Ron Paul's policy on that if you don't even know the fucking policy? Read up damnit.

He says 'gold standard' because its the only fucking sound bite dumb people can catch.

He's talking about doing away with legal tender laws and bringing in COMPETING CURRENCIES. GET IT?

THE RESTRICTION TO GOLD AND SILVER is per the constitution and the US FEDERAL and STATE GOVERNMENTs are restricted to issuing GOLD OR SILVER COIN ONLY.

That doesn't imply that YOU as an individual HAVE to use gold or silver.

A implies B does not mean B implies A.

just because the GOVERNMENT is restricted to gold and silver doesn't mean YOU are.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:44 | 2025620 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

No, no, no!  Serfs are created when central banks are allowed to create unlimited amounts of fiat currency.  Geez!

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 00:24 | 2025880 gangland
gangland's picture

jeez you had to go back to the 19th century to make your point? ...

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:53 | 2025216 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes, because peak oil and the negroid menace gives all those in positions of power a pass.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:02 | 2025644 trav7777
trav7777's picture

don't you have some more money to lose?  Why are you here, there are bagholders out there waiting to be conned into buying "with both fists" for "$60 by next week."

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:07 | 2025241 monkeys.pick.bottoms
monkeys.pick.bottoms's picture

@trav7777 You are very smart. Normally, it's a pleasure to read your thoughts. Be smarter than your cynicism.

I will take an honest man that can do little over a lying asshole any time.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:01 | 2025642 trav7777
trav7777's picture here I go pissing on the ZH orthodoxy again.

An honest man versus a lying asshole was NOT the issue, was it?  Was THAT the thesis I responded to?

I said that RP won't be able to MANAGE THE COLLAPSE.  Learn to read, please.  Don't assume things that I do not say.

What you just did was a strawman fallacy.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:11 | 2025655 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

NO ONE is gonna be able to manage The Great Implosion™!  Who ya gonna trust with picking up the pieces afterwards?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:42 | 2025714 Sizzurp
Sizzurp's picture

Collapse is coming, but who would you rather have in power during such a crisis? A statist authoritarian hell bent on maintaining power and control through war, or an honest humble leader hell bent on preserving your liberty?  I'll take my chances in collapse with the good doctor.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:15 | 2025775 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Why are you asking me nonsequitur questions in response to a statement?

The issue was not who I would prefer to have in office.  the issue was whether RP can manage a collapse that is outside of our control better or differently than some other guy.  I don't believe it'll make a difference, and I was primarily responding to the ZH echo chamber notion that RP is somehow gonna SAVE US.

In a collapse, it won't matter...the government cannot maintain control.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:07 | 2027009 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

> the issue was whether RP can manage a collapse that is outside of our control better or differently than some other guy

Why do you want or need someone to "manage" a collapse?

Are you saying you want the government to monkey with the economy?


Mon, 01/02/2012 - 15:32 | 2026968 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Ron Paul’s big moment The obstetrician, numismatist and hater of the Fed and the UN who just might win in Iowa

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:16 | 2025256 Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

Your blind cynicism is annoying.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:06 | 2025444 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Do you ever THINK prior to posting?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:04 | 2025645 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you're right, I should have THOUGHT before possibly suggesting on ZH that RP-Messiah cannot manage this collapse.

I should have known that it would set off a bunch of negativity like when I chose to go against other pillars of ZH orthodoxy.  Oh wait, I did.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:36 | 2025703's picture

You accuse others of massive negativity? What a loon.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 16:12 | 2027012 Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

I don't want RP to "manage this collapse".

I want him to shrink the government and get it out of the way of the market, facilitate unhampered price discovery, and allow the collapse to proceed apace. In fact, the faster the gangrenous engines of wealth destruction are liquidated and washed away, the better.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 17:57 | 2025222 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Ron Paul couldn't manage a fucking lemonade stand, much less the upcoming collapse.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:05 | 2025236 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Lemonade stands can do that? If so, Ron Paul wouldn't bother trying to "manage" them.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:58 | 2025425 Libertarian777
Libertarian777's picture

under Obama you're not allowed to have a lemonade stand anyway.

If you had a lemonade stand under Romney, he'd do a leverage buyout, fire you and throw your lemons away.

Under Newt, he'd tell you you get to keep your lemonade, then he'd join the Democrats in saying that its child slave labour and vote to ban lemonade stands.

Under Ron Paul, you could sell lemonade and add real unrefined sugar to it.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 20:45 | 2025519 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Ron Paul would sell you piss and call it lemonade and then drink what you didn't buy.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 18:33 | 2027141 akak
akak's picture

You seem to be consistently obsessed with Ron Paul's scrotum, penis and bodily fluids, as well as with the many lurid imagined details thereof conjured up by your tortured mind.

Something tells me that you have even bigger problems than your neocon brainwashing.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 20:18 | 2027280 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

You're back for more ? I'm getting tired of bashing you.

I prefer doing battle with worthy adversaries.

The only thing you're worthy of is licking the peanuts out of Ron Paul's turds.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 20:25 | 2027295's picture

You remind me of this guy:

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 20:40 | 2027324 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 20:42 | 2027329's picture

Is there someone else up there we could talk to?

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 20:59 | 2027358 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Joe and Angie.


Jo momma angie daddy.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:32 | 2025601 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Given that Mr. Paul assisted in the birth of over 4000 babies, I think he could probably handle a lemonade stand, at least until some goon like you tried to shut him down.  I hope you enjoy the FEMA camp!

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:32 | 2025698 Freddie
Freddie's picture

LOL!  Ron Paul's stock portfolio of mostly mining stocks beat the S&P, the criminal scum Buffett and probably 99% of most hedge fund managers over the past 5 and 10 years by miles.


Mon, 01/02/2012 - 01:52 | 2025986 kairological
kairological's picture

this conversation is irrelevant.

If RP's allowed the nomination it will just be in order for him be the fall guy for the economic shit that hits the fan in the fall when Europe and Japan go belly up...

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:03 | 2025045 fiftybagger
Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:09 | 2025059 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Kinda OT:

MSM ABC's "This Week" today gave Ron Paul the first interview. Tried to pin him down on the newsletter statements. Like a true statesman, he said "I did not write, I was not the editor, I appologize that it has been associated with my name, I've had hundreds of employees. Perhaps I did not always manage each one as tightly as a should". The wonk says "But doesn't that show a lack of management skill?" RP "Sure, its a human failing"

The rest of the candidates are all Newt Gingrich students. You know Newt "I train one and two star generals to KILL people of different races, when I am not working as a consultant for the wildy successful housing GSEs"

Which quote do you think the MSM is going to harp on 'till we get Mitt Romney as the nominee?

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:29 | 2025597 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

The "establishment" media is no longer the MSM!

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:08 | 2025651 trav7777
trav7777's picture

what is WRONG with you people?

The shit in RP's newsletters was fucking TRUE.  It wasn't racist for RP to SAY on TV that blacks have a higher propensity for violent crime!  It was a FACT.

As long as you idiots' brains are boxed into this MSM-built cage, you'll never be able to avoid it.  Look at what this shit does to you and RP- the mere ACCUSATION of being rayciss paralyzes you.  Instead of discussing the issues, you get immediately sidetracked into defensive tilting at windmills.

If RP had this integrity, he'd stand behind his newsletters and tell the truth.  But then even you morons would throw him overboard.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:39 | 2025710's picture

This site is owned by the Tylers and they permit you to post. Does that mean that the Tylers agree with everything you say or that you are really a Tyler in disguise?

Ron Paul didn't write the newsletter passages in question.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:17 | 2025781 trav7777
trav7777's picture

why do you FUCKING CARE WHO WROTE IT, when it is TRUE?

Free your goddamned mind!

Oh, and the analogy between ZH's comments section and RP's newsletters is incredibly weak.  Shamefully so.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:24 | 2025795's picture

If you knew what shameful meant you wouldn't act the way you do.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:52 | 2025734 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



The shit in RP's newsletters was fucking TRUE.  It wasn't racist for RP to SAY on TV that blacks have a higher propensity for violent crime!  It was a FACT.

Grand Master Brevik...  You are subtly twisting Ron Paul's words to fit your agenda of racism and bigotry.  

There are many RP quotes in question, but the one you're referring to is not as you represent.  His actual statement was: "95% of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."  That's damn close to saying, "all blacks in Washington are criminals."

He is NOT saying that blacks have a higher propensity for crime, as you erroneously suggest.  It would be no different for me to say, "95% of all white men working on Wall Street are criminals" and for you to interpret it as, "White bankers on Wall Street have a higher propensity for deception and thievery than many others...." 

Unless you can provide proof that 95%-100% of all blacks in Washington are criminals, this would be yet another example where you subtly distort words to fit your redneck agenda of racism and bigotry.  

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi 

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:22 | 2025790 trav7777
trav7777's picture

95% may be a little bit low for DC.

YES, nearly ALL of the goddamned black men in DC are criminals.  Issue?  What, that you just can't believe it? 

Hell, dude, half of black men nationwide are criminals, provably so.  As in jail, on parole or probation, or awaiting trial.

RP also said what I said he said.  In addition to the above.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:34 | 2025814 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



I don't need for you to simply repeat what you already said.  I was demonstrating your subtle trickery with words and/or asking for proof of RP's assertion that 95% or more of Washington's black men are criminals. 

And now you're claiming that he did, indeed, say "blacks have a higher propensity for violent crime..."  

Any chance you could provide proof of that, too?

My guess is that you can't prove either one.   

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:45 | 2025828 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Trav, assfire and I have proven this many times citing statistics (global and domestic). We have cited studies and statistics up the ass and blowing out the ears. 

Just get the shit out of your eyes and do your own research. You might learn something.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 01:55 | 2025987 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



SuperPig Bob...  The only reason it's "blowing out your ears" is because your head is hollow.  You're not addressing the statistic in question, and now when pressed to prove it, Trav7777 isn't either.  Why?  Because he (and you) can't prove it.  It's just more racist conjecture by a few white supremacist wingNUTS.  

I know you're busy with your fake trading account, but perhaps you could help with the research.  We're trying to find some credible proof that 95% or more of black men in Washington are criminals.    

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:25 | 2025797 Taffy Lewis
Taffy Lewis's picture

@Max Fischer:

"You are subtly twisting Ron Paul's words to fit your agenda of racism and bigotry."

I'm a Ron Paul fan and you're a stupid fucking dipshit. You sound like a Scientologist on a South Park episode.


I'm on your side. The stats are there. If we as a society can't recognize them, then how can we try to solve the problems?



Sun, 01/01/2012 - 23:42 | 2025820 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture



Same question for you, too:  any chance you could prove to me that 95% or more of Washington's black men are criminals?  Since the "stats are there" it should be easy for you. 

As soon as you provide that proof, I'll give you proof that 95% or more of racist bigots are low-brow PIGS who operate primarily from their lower brain stem.  I'll also provide proof that 95% or more of white supremacists in America vote for Ron Paul.   

Max Fischer, Civis Mundi

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 11:12 | 2026432 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

you subtly distort words to fit your redneck agenda of racism and bigotry.

So "Mr. Self Righteous" accuses someone of racism & bigotry whilst labeling the target of his attack "redneck"...

Instant Classic!

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 19:02 | 2027178 Last_2_Sense
Last_2_Sense's picture

Thats how it works don't ya know? Minority's can have their Dave Chapell shows and Carlos Mencia shows and trash white people like it's going out of style, Oprah can get on a XFM radio channel and talk in a condescending faux southern drawl about "Iz gotz summ guuuud white folk thats wurks fa meeez" and it's all good. Imus cracks one nappy head hoe joke tho and it's the end of the world. I have shared a barracks room with 6 separate black guys, I don't need statistic's, life has taught me the truth. Blacks are far more racist, some of them stink horrifically, and the thieving is so bad it almost seems genetic.      

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 19:14 | 2027193's picture

I was reading your post and gave you an up arrow but when I reached the final sentence I had to change it to a down arrow. My black relatives smell just fine.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 19:29 | 2027209 Last_2_Sense
Last_2_Sense's picture

I did put the caveat "some" in on that, It was 2 of them in particular. Didn't matter if they had just gotten out of the shower or had ran 5 miles, something in what those two secreted out of the skin. Even one of the other black dudes gave him shit about it! 

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 19:36 | 2027221's picture

Well, I do agree with you about Imus. He apologized and that should have been enough. An individual identified with a minority group is rarely asked to apologize for a similar faux pas. Except Muslims. Muslims are expected to bear the guilt for any and all statements made by their coreligionists.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 02:32 | 2026009 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

I agree with you trav to the extent that even when there are verifiable facts using them is shouted down as racist, or anti-semitic or homophobic as if suggesting gays, not all but those that don't practice safe sex, which also applies to heteros and bisexuals, live a dangerous lifestyle and are more susceptible to stds.  Anyone could agree on that but they demagogue and present his words as if an actual Dr. speaking truth about the diseases and actions of those contracting them is somehow condemning the sexual appetites and lifestyles of the group it is impacting most.


I agree in your anger that facts can't just be presented as facts and argued or debated without elevating the issue to some shouting match that alters the whole topic and its intent.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 22:27 | 2025683 Smokey1
Smokey1's picture

Ron Paul eats shit.

He has the same chance at winning the republican nomination as does Batman, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Peter Rabbit, Superman, Spiderman, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John F. Kennedy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffry Dahmer, Snow White, Mother Hubbard, Tinkerbell, Porky Pig, Donald Duck, Daffy Duck, Froghorn Leghorn, Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound, Snagglepuss, Big Bird, The Lone Ranger, Sky King, Robin Hood, Peter Pan, Captain Hook, Zorro, or The Creature from the Black Lagoon.

Mon, 01/02/2012 - 04:54 | 2026088 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Excellent Wisefool, noticed this too from a different aspect.

What you saw there was the ol lets trick him into a lie but Ron Paul fooled them and gave the yellow journalist in the attack pattern a real truthful answer. Any other poiliticing scam artist would have lied, or made up some sort of excuse as to what that had happened.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 16:09 | 2025060 maxw3st
maxw3st's picture

Looks like Baptists are about to get some competition from the Catholics in S. Carolina. Nice to know that in a nation founded on the principle of separating church and state, in the 21st century we still have states voting according to religious beliefs.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 18:33 | 2025263 DosZap
DosZap's picture


 Nice to know that in a nation founded on the principle of separating church and state


Dude you need to read the Founding docs,and get your shit together................

Separation of Church and State is NOWHERE in them.( find it)

LEFT WING liberals put that horse *hit out.

It simply means that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could not set up a single religious denomination as a blanket for ALL states.

Taking GOD out of the Political/Electoral /Values/Mores, has done more damage to this country than anyone dare believe.

The Founders NEVER intended it be so.


Sun, 01/01/2012 - 19:26 | 2025379 SystemsGuy
SystemsGuy's picture

Bill of Rights, Article I, very first statement

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sun, 01/01/2012 - 21:27 | 2025593 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

The amendment is terrific, but it would have been even better if our founders had stopped after the fifth word!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!