This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: President Obama, Demopublican

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

President Obama, Demopublican

President Obama's signal accomplishments could easily have been signed into law by a moderate Republican.

The corporate Mainstream Media depends on ideological differences to generate "news" and advertising revenues, and the Status Quo depends on ideological differences to generate fear "of the other side" and enthusiasm "for our side."

As the 2012 election season kicks off in earnest, we have to ask: exactly what is the difference between President Obama's actual policies and those of centerist Republicans?

The president recently highlighted three centerpiece accomplishments of his supposedly rabidly Democratic administration:

1. Ending the war in Iraq

2. Ending the Armed Forces' policy of "don't ask, don't tell"

3. Passing sickcare reform, oops, I mean "healthcare" reform

If we examine these supposedly tremendous accomplishments, we find that moderate Republicans were equally capable of passing such lukewarm reforms. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular, acceptance of gays is increasingly mainstream, and healthcare reform had been on everyone's agenda for years.

Anyone with the slightest grasp of American history could find equally "liberal" accomplishments in the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and even George Bush 1. Indeed, it could easily be argued that Obama ended the war far later than a moderate Republican might have, and that he caved into the sickcare Status Quo to such a degree that his "reform" essentially accomplishes nothing.

The hundreds of pages of reform boil down to a super-committee that is supposedly going to set prices and practices lower in the future. Meanwhile the program is at least 40% waste and fraud and continues growing at multiples of the underlying economy and tax revenues.

By any measure, this "reform" simply confirms the healthcare cartels remain firmly in charge.

On the other side the of the ledger, Obama continues the FUBAR war in Afghanistan, sacrificing American lives and treasure for political posturing, and he agreed ("with reservations") to a congressional bill that gives the President unprecedented rights to impose "prolonged detention" on suspected terrorists and handing them to the U.S. Armed Forces, even as the military insists it has no interest or need in assuming such detention responsibilities.

Would a moderate Republican have agreed to gut the Bill of Rights with such tepid "reservations"?

It can be argued that Obama, visibly uncomfortable with members of the Armed Forces and fearful of being labeled "soft" on terrorism, has carved out an essentially fascist policy far to the right of even "rock-ribbed" Republicans.

From a more objective view stripped of phony ideological parsing, what exactly is the difference between Obama's policies and those of moderate Republicans? We can get a better grasp on his Demopublican nature by asking a few key questions:

How many bloated weapons systems has he cancelled? (Zero)

How many overseas bases of the Empire has he closed? (none)

Who runs his financial policies? Wall Street cronies.

I think you get the idea here: there is literally no difference between Obama and a moderate Republican when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire.

Obama's policies have all aided and abetted existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties.

President Obama can be charitably characterized as an ineffectual Demopublican. From those demanding more, then he can be accurately described as a well-meaning puppet of Wall Street and the rest of the Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms.

Longtime readers know I reject all the phony ideological "differences" between the two stooge parties; in reality, the differences are purely cosmetic and are exaggerated for propaganda and fund-raising purposes. Both stooge parties are in thrall to Wall Street and the financial sector, the sickcare cartels, etc., and both support a global Empire and endlessly rising public debt to finance their cronies. Both have consistently supported private profits while shifting monumental losses to the public. Both have consistently supported an out-of-control Federal Reserve. In every truly important way, the two stooge parties are merely two sides of the same Imperial coin.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:52 | 2033453 UTICA CLUB XX PURE
UTICA CLUB XX PURE's picture

You lost me when I read the word "Obama."

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:00 | 2033472 eureka
eureka's picture

William Black: "The Obama admin sent people out to tell every single State Attorney to not prosecute any single banker in the US."

When Barry came to D.C. he told FED VICE a.k.a. Justice Department to lay off State Medical Marihuana initiatives. Then in 2011 Barry told FED VICE/Justice-Dep the opposite.

Barry and his mediocrity makes me puke.

So does the Republican Elite.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-iowa-finish-biggest-fraud-since-kenned...

Get dirty. Fight For Paul - Fight For "America" - last chance, Bitchez.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:04 | 2033481 wanklord
wanklord's picture

Ron Paul supporters must realize by now that their beloved candidate is just another phony politician serving the interests of the elite and the corrupt establishment. If Dr. Paul is really serious about running for the presidency of this country, why he doesn't run as an independent?

IT IS A PROVEN FACT THAT RON PAUL HAS ZERO CHANCES TO WIN THE REPUBLICAN TICKET, thus why wasting your precious time and money on someone who doesn't give a crap about your concerns.

As a result of this, it is valid to assert that by appealing to tons of bullshit about the Constitution and other patriotic crap, Congressman Ron Paul is able to seduce his brute and ignorant constituency while doing nothing at all in Congress (a clever way to make easy money). Mr. Paul loves to portray himself as a genuine patriot who advocates Liberty, Freedom and other nonsense in order to deceive his supporters.

Moreover, Ron Paul is a mediocre version of one of Leo Strauss’(*) categories of society: the Gentlemen

The gentlemen, are lovers of honour and glory. They are the most ingratiating towards the conventions of their society – that is, the illusions of the cave. They are true believers in God, honour, and moral imperatives. They are ready and willing to embark on acts of great courage and self-sacrifice at a moment’s notice.

* Political philosopher (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973)

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:08 | 2033493 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Everyone get registered in your state for the primary to vote Ron Paul
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-sche...
Full Primary/Caucus Calendar
January 3, 2012 Iowa (caucus) – Results
January 10, 2012 New Hampshire (primary)
January 21, 2012 South Carolina (primary)
January 31, 2012 Florida (primary)
February 4, 2012 Nevada (caucus)
February 4–11, 2012 Maine (caucus)
February 7, 2012 Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)
Missouri (primary) – *See note below on Missouri
February 28, 2012 Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)
March 3, 2012 Washington (caucus)
March 6, 2012
(Super Tuesday) Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio (primary)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)
March 6-10, 2012 Wyoming (caucus)
March 10, 2012 Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)
March 13, 2012 Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)
March 17, 2012 Missouri (GOP caucus) – *See note below on Missouri
March 20, 2012 Illinois (primary)
March 24, 2012 Louisiana (primary)

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:15 | 2033523 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

 

The upcoming election promises to be a riveting one. Mitt Romney is the clear frontrunner and looks to take on Obama in November. The key issue in the upcomming elections is going be the ECONOMY. Romney and Obama will have to start talking straight with the American people about their plans for getting this country back on track. Both candidates are going to have to answer some tough questions such as:

1. What do you plan to do about jobs?

2. How do you plan to help small businesses in America?

3. How are you going to promote alternative energies and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil?

4. Can you GUARENTEE that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or the Defense Budget?

I don’t envy politicians right now. These are tough times to be leading the world, and the American people are rightfully demanding more from their governments because they want RESULTS.

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:20 | 2033530 Michael
Michael's picture

Dr Ron Paul Won Against The Main Stream Media!

They pulled their divide and conker strategy on us and they're all happy they think they've pulled off a win for themselves by campaigning for Santorum.

I have the memo somewhere, "We're all in agreement to comply". But they didn't realize they were exposing our actual numbers in this first contest of legitimate size, and just who do you think you're dealing with?

In the mind game 1/3 left and 1/3 right now see what their up against. 1/3 Paul!

They conspired to put the MSM against us. Can you imagine how much fire power that is in the TV world combined with the GOP establishment and blessed by the Federal Government?

DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH FIRE POWER THAT IS AND WE HELD OUR OWN WITH A VERY CLOSE 3RD TO SECOND AND FIRST?

THAT'S WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH PAL!

The Ron Paul Crew.

Michael

Santorum/Romney First, Ron Paul Second.

That should be the morning headline.

Fox news and others were too good at their job with their divide and conker strategy.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:29 | 2033570 Hugh_Jorgan
Hugh_Jorgan's picture

Sorry, but you need further context to know what is REALLY meant by this assertion that Obama is a Demopublican. First is that the actual Republican platform charter is WAY more conservative than what passes in the GOP these days. NONE of the Republicans follow those planks, they have been seduced by the "me-too" big government, central planning of the 90's. Everyone is trying to take a page form the Bill Clinton playbook.

The point being; it is not that Obama has moved so far right, it's that the GOP politicians have moved so far Left that the Republican platform now overlaps with the Obama platform. This is how we now have one party. It's called the ruling class.

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:19 | 2033699 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

ROFL.  What planet are you on, Hugh_Jorgan?  Try pulling your head out from between Roger Ailes buttcheeks, and dealing with the facts.

The country has shifted wildly to the RIGHT, not left, in the past few decades.  Justices appointed by Republican presidents are (or were) considered the 'mainstay liberals' of the Supreme Court: Stevens was a Nixon appointee, Souter was a Bush I appointee, and even 'swing vote' O'Conner was a Reagan appointee. 

The Affordable Care Act's individual mandate was originally an idea proposed by the GOP Heritage Foundation "thinktank", and broadly supported by the mainstream GOP in the 1990s, including Bob Dole and Jack Kemp.  Even your favorite propaganda slingers, FauxNews, got this one right - but apparently 99% of the GOP can lie their asses off to their constituents and not get called on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obam...

The simple fact is that the GOP is 100% in it for the corporate money they can pocket - with many Democrats not far behind.

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:08 | 2033932 economics1996
economics1996's picture

Goldman gave Obama over $1 million last election.  Wall Street gave to Democrats 70% last election.  You are a idot drinking the Kool aid.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:07 | 2034216 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Moron, you mentioned 2008, but conspicuously forget to mention what's going on in 2011/12.  Care to fill us in on why your memory is spotty on the subject?

Oh yeah, that's because, as was widely reported so you couldn't have missed it, the banks have reverted to their historical trend of contributing 70% GOP and 30% Democratic. 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/assets_c/2010/08/securgraph-1713.html

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:00 | 2034408 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture

 

 

The only reason Goldman and the rest of Wall Street donated millions to Obama is because it was 100% FUCKING OBVIOUS he was going to beat ANY Republican candidate, especially after McBush picked the chief flight attendant for Piedmont Airlines to be his running mate.*  After the monstrosity of the Bush administration and with our country spiraling straight into The Great Depression 2.0, any Democrat (even a Negro! Gasp!) was GUARANTEED to win, so the money started pouring into Obama's coffers.  Additionally, the very EXISTENCE of investment banking (post GLB Act) was in the process of imploding and everyone knew that the entire Wall Street industry - as it's existed since Reagan - was about to be called into question.  Did you forget what was happening to Wall Street in 2008?

It's amazing to me that you'll overlook the obvious just to puke out more talking points from Faux News.  I've read other posts of yours, and it's obvious that your brain has been thoroughly washed, rinsed, fluffed, and folded by the Murdoch Propaganda Machine like millions of others.  Let me guess... Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity are personal heros?  Palin, Bachmann and Coulter excite you?     

*credit to Matt Tiabbi

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:23 | 2034471 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

fkng brilliant - good to the last. . .word!

as many as you like.

 

edit to add - I don't care what you "vote" for, but THIS was truthy snark, high quality posting.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 02:20 | 2034687 Max Fischer
Max Fischer's picture

 

 

All credit goes to my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.  Been doing a LOT of praying lately, Cathartes.  Lots.  Sometimes, during the Rapture Season, the holy spirit fills my fingers with the spirit of Christ and I'm able to produce ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING commentary. If you've been "chosen" (like I have), you can do it, too.  Next time you try to post something, say a little prayer first.  Promise to give a little more next Sunday when the offering plate comes around.  Then concentrate. Concentrate real hard. Think of the Cross.  Think of the Constitution.  Think of American patriots like Rick Perry.  When the tips of your fingers start smoking, THAT'S when you know Jesus is in control. Don't fight it.  Just sit back and let your fingers type as the Lord shall SAYETH UNTO US!

 

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 02:54 | 2034711 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

see, this is why I love it here.

and I too love it when my fingertips start smokin'  *inhales deeply*

you take care now.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 14:44 | 2036239 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

Dear Cathartes A:

ILY

:-)

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 17:26 | 2036961 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

hahahhhahahhhh! 

brilliantly played - dizzyfingers, ILY2, obviously!

^.~

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:07 | 2033928 economics1996
economics1996's picture

 

Hugh Jordon, for the record Bill Clinton was by far the most conservative president we will ever see, reducing the federal government from 22.1% of the GDP to 18.2% of the GDP consumption.

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:16 | 2034090 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

Have to agree WJC was a good Republican in part.  However, what gets missed is that he put his best efforts into expanding the off-the-books entitlements growth.  It's killing us.  They didn't call him slick for nothing.  I will never forgive him for granting an export waiver to Raytheon to export missile guidance technology to The Peoples Republic of China.  Commerce had fought it off for years.  Bill needs soft money.  Michael Schwartz donates 1 mil to the DNC. Bang, Raytheon gets its export license and China finally gets more accurate missiles....to shoot us with.  AS FOR the decrease in deficits, it matched the increasing cap gains tax revenues....and the benefit went away with the dot.crash.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:46 | 2034163 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"I will never forgive him for granting an export waiver to Raytheon to export missile guidance technology to The Peoples Republic of China.  Commerce had fought it off for years."

I believe this is incorrect.

Defense fought it off for years. Clinton took the trade authority from the DoD and gave it to Commerce. Who then promptly sold it off.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:53 | 2034180 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

I believe Commerce said 'no' because DoD said 'no,'  but then Commerce said yes.  I suppose the point I want to make is that Clinton's team pushed approval just as that 1 million check showed up.  Do you disagree with that analysis?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:06 | 2034215 nmewn
nmewn's picture

The authority for the technology to be sold to the Chi-Coms was transferred from DoD to Commerce...by Clinton, as I recall.

Then of course there was the Commerce Secretarys untimely demise in a plane crash...but thats neither here nor there ;-)

But yes, the campaign check cleared just like all the other foreign donations/gifts that are against the law to accept.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 22:52 | 2034414 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

+1

Thanks for keeping up the good fight so continuously. :-)

Saying Clinton was the best budget Prez in recent memory is to exclaim incredible gas mileage while on the down-slope. ;-)

Clinton also demonstrated that being of strong "moral character" is not a necessary job requirement for the Executive Branch anymore. O_0

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 07:41 | 2034932 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'm always amazed by the supporters of Clinton.

The debt never went down under his presidency. He officially broke the publics respect for the office he was trusted with by lying in our face on national television. Stared straight into the camera as he said it. No morality whatsoever...none. Didn't even blink. He tried to define down the rule of law with his wormy definition of the word "is". Perjured himself and was disbarred...properly so.

He also signed NAFTA, one of the very tools used to rob the middle class of what everyone bitches about today. He put Rubin in a position of responsibility that abetted the housing bubble. He also signed off on the repeal of Glass-Steagal...at Rubins urging.

The cronyism of his administration is only surpassed by the current one.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 14:50 | 2036260 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

nmewn:

"Stared straight into the camera as he said it. No morality whatsoever...none. Didn't even blink. He tried to define down the rule of law with his wormy definition of the word "is". Perjured himself and was disbarred...properly so."

...just like every true sociopath in D.C. There are so many!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:29 | 2037689 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Theres a ton of em dizzy...on both sides and all points in between.

We're either gonna vote em out where ever they are or...that other option is too awful to contemplate.

Look at where we're at here in this nation.

We have a social worker as president saying "I gave you a $40 a month tax break."

Really?

A buck thrity a day? We're supposed to be appreciative of him letting us keep a whole dollar more of what we earn while he prints our labors actual worth into ashes?

Thats where we're at.

A skinny little narcissist with illusions of grandeur (president), a dysfunctional flock of preening peacocks (senate), a gang that can't shoot straight (house) and what can only be described as common theives frantically trying to extract favor from all the above.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 14:45 | 2036243 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

Forced  to it by a conservative congress, I think? By that time they had him by short hairs.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:00 | 2033650 Freddie
Freddie's picture

I read a real conservative site/financial guru this morning who said Ron Paul may actually get many or the majority of the Iowa delegates.  Remember we still have a delegate system, even though the scum Democrat muslim lovers want to do away with it.  Those lib dems like a lot of is**ic p*nile.

If Ron Paul has a lot of delegates, he could win or be a king maker. Maybe he will be able to extract the cuts and things needed.  I prefer Ron Paul for the win.  

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:20 | 2033838 FMR Bankster
FMR Bankster's picture

I thought RP would win so take my comments with a grain of salt. But I think your comments here are correct. In my caucus last night 460 people voted and we had 35 delegate spots to the county and district convention. Less than 35 of us hung around and were elected delegates. Most voted and left as soon as they could. By the time the counting was over anyone who wanted to be a delegate could be regardless of who they supported. So organization matters. Good weather did RP in last night. Too many old people showed up. Exit polls done showed RP with 48% of the vote from those under 30 but he finished 5th with only 11% of those 65 and over. A kind way to view that would be they thought someone age 76 is too old to be president. Unfortunately a more accurate view is all they are concerned about is their checks and benefits and to hell with the kids and grandkids.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:54 | 2034183 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

A kind way to view that would be they thought someone age 76 is too old to be president. Unfortunately a more accurate view is all they are concerned about is their checks and benefits and to hell with the kids and grandkids.

My dad, who is 63, feels the same way about Paul (but likes some of his views, views him as a 'nice man')...minus the "hell with kids/grandkids" part.  He knows he has to work his ass off and save now because unless I win a WSOP bracelet, I'm not going ot make enough in wages to support me AND potentially him in a home age 85+ (unless, god-willing, he can stay healthy..which he is now).

It is a scary thought.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:10 | 2034427 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise to see video from a trial with testimony of vote programming fraud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs

Edit: this was a Heph response. So sorry.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:22 | 2034102 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I told you they were going to cheat the votes. It's like about a year ago when 2 or 3 people kept coming out saying how it's "impossible" to fake earnings in corporate america. I was laughing my fucking ass off for a week. Because we've seen nothing but faked earnings out of every jackhole retail piece of shit every jackhole state taxation authority and every jackhole fed pumped fucktard on the planet.

The votes have been cheated for years. CPU's just make it easier. Even though Al Gore was just as fucking evil as George Bush he was a victim of voter fraud in Florida. And Ron Paul will just as big of a victim of created numbers and outcomes as can be gotten away with in a world where people think computers aren't anything but automated lying boxes.

If you work in the tier 1 level of the electronics industry or higher you are a seriously fucked up piece of work. You're garbage. You're scum. No If's and's or's or butt's in the boolean logic of it.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:11 | 2034461 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise to see video from a trial with testimony of vote programming fraud:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 09:33 | 2035027 Archduke
Archduke's picture

Can we drop the Dr title?  it smells of populist agit-prop: Dr Duvalier, Dr Idi Amin, Dr Lyndon Larouche...

then again Ron Paul's campaign does share the aroma of the Larouchite school of disinformation media...

 

now to be fair that's probably not Ron Paul's fault.  There's a lot of goodwill sycophanting going on

and a lot of enthusiam to pin would-be-tarian anarchistic coulours of choice on his back.  that's

the price to pay for grass-roots campaigns.  you can't predic the kinds of critters what  lurk in the grass.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:21 | 2033539 Badabing
Badabing's picture

Ron Paul won the Iowa caucus if you use the old counting methods check Shadowstats!

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:40 | 2033602 eureka
eureka's picture

Michael and Badabing - you are right.

In addition - let every one who cares about reviving "America" to its glory and potential via re-instating the US Constitution to its original pre-emminent position - get ready to fight, even dirty, as its enemies do.

One source to examine and draw from: http://carm.org/mormonism - it has a quck video intro and more info - which can be used against Romney, by simply exposing actual Mormon theology - to for example Christian fundamentalists, Baptists and Born Agains, who thus enlightened can be encouraged to vote for Ron Paul.

Pragmatism, Friends, in combat - won the Presidency for W - courtecy of one pragmatic operator,  Karl Rove,  executing a strategy involving precisely what I here advocate: harness the ready and waiting religious forces in the USA for the Republican candidacy and US Presidency of Ron Paul.

The GPD ELITE is trying to destroy Ron Paul, not just through MSM, but through outright voter goating and fraud. Check it out and start fighting.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-iowa-finish-biggest-fraud-since-kenned...

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:55 | 2034048 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

so you want to "expose actual Mormon theology" so that the Christian fundamentalists, Baptists & Born Agains" will be "enlightened" to vote for Paul. . .

is there any room left in amrka for those folk that would rather be LEFT OUT of the RELIGIOUS based laws encroaching on personal rights and free will? 

MUST we live in a theocracy?

while I'm here, I'll just respond to the "obama is a demopublican" - make it easy on yourselves guys - recognise the President is the President - irrespective of which team colours he wore for the voting game, when in the role of President, he will be representing the owners, like all good team players. . .

voters vote, the President is bought & paid for, the last one was, and the one before that, and before that. . .

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:23 | 2034109 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"is there any room left in amrka for those folk that would rather be LEFT OUT of the RELIGIOUS based laws encroaching on personal rights and free will

MUST we live in a theocracy?"

You bring up a good line of thought Cat.

What is the source of all law? Is murder & rape bad or good?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:59 | 2034201 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

Simple.  What is bad is what we democratically conclude is bad.  Thus murder and rape are considered bad in the US (most of it), while not so bad in in Afghanistan or South Africa.  It's not relativism.  It's "thank my parents I wasn't born in Afghanistan"...  God doesn't make something good or bad unfortunately, because the god has published too many books which don't concur.  I don't know why this happened, only that it did.  Sometimes god says slavery is fine, other times maybe not.  etc.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:04 | 2034549 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Sorry, democracy is waay overrated -- the majority favored locking up loyal Nipponese citizens in internment camps, supported Jim Crow, etc...besides, we have a Republican form of Govt in the USA, read the US Constitution.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:16 | 2034245 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

must I choose a FatherSkyGod before I can know in my heart that "murder" or "rape" of another human being is not "good"?

were there no moral arguments prior to FatherSkyGods?

is it necessary to continue to pretend that "our leaders" are avatars of their HeavenlyFathers, or can we maybe evolve to being just and fair without giving "God" credit for our thoughts and actions?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:58 | 2034304 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

...can we maybe evolve to being just and fair without giving "God" credit for our thoughts and actions?

Perhaps, but those evolution-oriented types may have to outbreed the savage brutes who need the Big Daddy and kill each other for calling Him by the wrong name.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:58 | 2034306 akak
akak's picture

Well said!

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 22:32 | 2034384 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Cat,

I'm always surprised by the righteous indignation of such open progressive minds ;-)

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:46 | 2034516 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

see nmewn, I'm pretty sure you're being subtly derogatory here, and that's boring, especially with the smiley.

"righteous indignation"?  how do you know I wasn't singing my reply to you in gentle plaintive soprano tones? why characterise my reply as indignant, when it was merely to point out some people have different perspectives, and values even?  and the "progressive" part, that's a big ole swear word here at ZH, so either define it, or *pass*

What is the source of all law? Is murder & rape bad or good?

by "law" are you referring to such as UCC type, lawyers, etc?  because we all know that law is white Euro based, and as currently practiced, it is tyranny, disguised as fair doctrine. . . well, some of us know, some still "believe" in it, like religion. 

we have the whole world of ideas to choose from, daily - yet we habitually continue to reprogramme our mind (reMIND) upon awakening each morning with our name and our agenda, and so voila!  cue: groundhog day movie meme - and then we have the small-minded audacity to call it reality, and mock - or worse! - anyone who doesn't share that reality. . . THAT is the height of immaturity and ignorance, and in a nationstate, absolutely repulsive.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 07:13 | 2034904 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"how do you know I wasn't singing my reply to you in gentle plaintive soprano tones?"

From your tone of course...and no smiley, as you prefer.

"and the "progressive" part, that's a big ole swear word here at ZH, so either define it, or *pass*"

I find most things said here in the  ZH comment sections difficult to pass on...but I can't define something even progressives themselves have failed to define to anyones general satisfaction. So to me, the term has always been a front for hiding the nature of something. A screen. Smoke. You would have to ask one if you can ever catch one before he slithers back under a rock.

////////////////////////////////////////////////

You started your hyperventilating screed railing on about free will, personal rights and saying we live in a theocracy.

Where or when have you been forced to believe in or practice a religion by law? What country? Do you even know what a theocracy looks and feels like?

You spent the better part of a day and a half debating Crockett on a womans "choice". Do you know how women are treated at the bar of justice in a theocracy?

I started out with two simple questions and was treated to your evolutionary process of no answers...just more questions than had originally been posed.

You know as well as I that western civilizations law is based on Judeo-Christian priniples but you didn't tarry long enough to debate the merits of them. Instead you launched into a tirade against the ultimate source of them.

Why would that be?

No ones trying to convert you to anything. You have your "free will" and "personal rights" to choose whatever you want to believe in based on those very laws. To now come and say the law or their principles must be abandoned for some as yet unexplained (by you) "other worldview"...because they go unenforced by the powerful & connected...smacks of defeatism.

Something I am also not familiar with.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 14:54 | 2036274 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

ahhh, thanks for flipping over your rock nmewn, and bringing your emotions out to air - as I said, your tone was detectable behind the smiley, so in order to address your agenda, I needed to be able to read it. . .

so you were a silent party to posts exchanged with Crockett (and others) over the long weekend. . . pity you didn't feel up to arguing your points then, because my intention was to air out the stale echo of Paulism these threads can degenerate into now that the team spirit is filling the voters once again.

you lads get hung up on the single topic issues, and abortion is an easy hook - BUT the more nuanced point I have been highlighting is the rules for voting keep getting strictly adhered to:

  • Pick your man
  • Decide which of his points you like best, hopefully the easy ones that your fellow fans obviously agree with
  • Ignore the points that are too hard to argue, or that you don't really care about anyhow
  • Apply your favourite labels to your chosen guy - make them the cool ones like "libertarian"
  • PLAY THE VOTING GAME

early on I posed the simple question; "how is it that a libertarian, whose basic "beliefs" are the right to personal "liberty" - like the brand name says! how is it that a libertarian would seek to change the Constitution to limit those rights for females?  the right to make a personal decision about her own body?"   I even did a bit of research prior, trying to see the various points of view from "libertarian" sites, and they were pretty clear on the subject.

question designed to promote critical thinking in the voter mind - nothing more.  it's not about any particular candidate - I played devil's advocate when many people were set on voting in Obama, the "anyone but Bush" vote, those who were nudged into HOPEing that another round of voting would CHANGE things - and they did! they changed the FIGUREHEAD!  which is exactly what "voting" can do - it can change the focal point for a voter's frustration! 

what it DOESN'T do is change the system that is causing the frustration. . . this is beyond "voting" - this is huge, and it's the thing that encourages voting, because if people have to disrupt their day to day lives, if they have to get informed and take direct action, even towards just becoming AWARE and more dis-engaged from the system - well, that takes work and it hurts the brain, it's easier to just pick a dude and follow the easy steps above, just like all your pals do - you're part of the public, and can wear the T-shirt that shows how rad your choices are - Team Spirit!!. . . (your being "in general" not "you" specifically)

I was trying to get some critical thinking going.

as to your defense of "Judeo-Christian principles" - I'm very well aware of the misery both flavours have caused along with the foundations of "morality" - and we both know I've read many of your posts here over the years, so I know your point of view, and you know mine - we don't agree.  I am not in favour of FatherSkyGod religions, they privilege the ones who dreamed the notion up - go figure eh! - and the religions may have nice principles but their practioners come in many flavours, some of them being evil shits, control freaks, pedophiles, etc.  so no, I'm not interested in discussing religion at all with you.

I have as much "free will" as you do.  If Ron Paul magically was put in place & could magically get his Sanctity of Life bill passed, theoretically I would lose the right to decide, and would be forced to carry a zygote to foetus to birth irrespective of any of the circumstances - such as incest, rape, illness, financial situation, mental health.  I say "theoretically" because I am well versed in ways of maintaining my sovereignty, it's been a lifelong creative endeavor.

you are free to believe whatever you like - about the world, the right to vote, and even "me" - doesn't change the truths, about any of those things, including my truths, which you don't have a clue about, but on you go.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:10 | 2037526 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"so you were a silent party to posts exchanged with Crockett (and others) over the long weekend. . . pity you didn't feel up to arguing your points then"

I was not silent. You simply missed it.

"as to your defense of "Judeo-Christian principles" - I'm very well aware of the misery both flavours have caused along with the foundations of "morality" - and we both know I've read many of your posts here over the years, so I know your point of view, and you know mine - we don't agree."

No we don't agree. But it is the foundation of our law. It could be much worse. So, now you see, this is not a theocracy...as no one lost their head over it ;-)

Sorry couldn't resist the smiley.

"the religions may have nice principles but their practioners come in many flavours, some of them being evil shits, control freaks, pedophiles, etc.  so no, I'm not interested in discussing religion at all with you."

This may be where I can help you understand and then we can amicably let the topic drop.

Making an appearance in a church or a synagogue or a mosque or gazing at crystals on a cliff at sunset or kneeling before an elephant in a temple does not make things right with God. Its whats inside you, your belief in Him. And you knowing in your heart whats right & wrong in His eyes. He knows we are mortal. Given to all the vanities, lusts, desires and greeds (myself included) that make men (and women) mere mortals. I would also add its not a prerequisite for pedophiles, egomaniacs and evil shits to belong to a church or religion...lol. Quite a few of the most notable were/are agnostics and/or atheists...as you know.

Now, between you and I...wink wink...I was raised by a preacher. Which may or may not be why I don't go to church now. I got a pretty good dose of it growing up. But I could tell you some stuff that would curl your hair. I can assure you, its very real.

At any rate, its been fun. When I cuss or ogle Banzais women always remember, I'm just human, not a saint. Far from it.

Seeya

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 21:31 | 2037695 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I'm all for amicably letting the subject of religion / religious choice be dropped.  it's like arguing favourite colours. . .

No we don't agree. But it is the foundation of our law. It could be much worse. So, now you see, this is not a theocracy

with reference to Judeo-Christian morality - yes, there is a certain flavour to "our laws" and this flavour could be worse, as in "this is not a theocracy" - however, I believe that were some people not vigilant in voicing their beliefs and making their voices heard, this nationstate could be under some theocratic rules & laws in a heartbeat

same with anything YOU feel is worth protecting, some people believe that a female's right to decide whether to carry a foetus to full term is hers alone - and attempting to change the Constitution to remove this right, defining "life" as beginning when the sperm & egg merge, the zygote phase, and then letting States decide how they'd like to criminalise the female should "something happen" to the precious zygote, THAT my friend has creepy theology written all over it - particularly when there doesn't seem to be any complimentary new laws that point to how this precious zygote is going to fare once it leaves the female's body & has to live in this world of "austerity" - 20% of all amrkn children live in poverty, nearly 30% are on food stamps - are taxpayers to continue to fund the precious newborns, and for how long?  or is the Constitution's work done once the zygote gets a RIGHT to life?  where is THIS discussion?  *crickets*

and I'm not necessarily directing those questions to you, but they ARE conveniently missing from the discussion threads.

you'll not be surprised to know that I too was raised in a religious family - a fundamental religious family where as long as you kept the family secrets, you could show up and pretend pious normal at every sanctioned gathering. . . and you'll not be surprised to know that once I became old enough to see through that evil non-sense, I was outta there, to another country no less, just to put distance between me and insanity - I was cut off from the whole clan with nary a backward glance from them, and you know what?  it hurt then, but it was the greatest gift I could have in my life, once I understood how to think and be for myself and those I chose to care for. . . freed from having to "fit in" with family lineage, I could make my OWN family, which is a pleasure.

we could exchange hair-curling stories no doubt - yours, mine, and all the other ones I have witnessed over the years - the hidden abuse of righteous believers is an iceberg, and with any luck, it will sink the myths over time.

I agree that whatever one believes, it should come from the heart - right and wrong doesn't need an-other's nod of approval, but if it feels better to the individual - why not?  I have zero problems with truly religious folks who practise their beliefs, and live their truths - in fact, I do volunteer work at the moment with the Quakers, and get along just fine - it's when religion gets tangled up in laws that restrict others that I will lend my voice to "no."

and for the record, "cussing & ogling" are pretty tame things, and ubiquitous in majority male environments - the former I rarely mind, the latter I reserve the right to mock when the mood strikes - I'll give you a pass for at least engaging in a dialogue, k? 

lol, take care.

Fri, 01/06/2012 - 07:19 | 2038587 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"I believe that were some people not vigilant in voicing their beliefs and making their voices heard, this nationstate could be under some theocratic rules & laws in a heartbeat. "

And you would have one of the strongest allies in me.

But there must be a point of balance in all things. Finding that balance is often simpler than the long drawn out fight trying to hide its discovery.

Regarding abortion...I know you're dying for my opinion...

This is one of those things that will forever ride on the blades edge of balance. Teetering this way and that. There can be be no doubt (from a Judeo-Christian perspective) that God granted us sovereignty over our own bodies while here on earth. Even someone who does not believe in God has to agree in the individuals sovereignty. To abuse or strengthen at our will. But on the same token we know what is right & wrong. It can't be right that when something has a heartbeat and brain activity to say that it is not alive in any real sense.

At the end of it, it really is a personal choice a woman will ultimately make and live with the consequences of that choice...forever. And forever is a very long time. Believe me, I don't envy the weight of that decision always falling on the woman alone, by herself. Life or death.

But it always will.

Biologically, there is nothing he can do to prevent her will from being enforced. Accidents happen, only one of the two would really know. Again, the weight of it (the decision) is enormous. To me the man is just as responsible for "the problem" if thats how we choose to define it. The two (man & woman) made the decision/choice to do what they did regardless of any consequence. In many ways the man escapes responsibility by leaving it up to the woman. Its not fair to the woman in that respect, as a real man doesn't walk away from the tough choices of life & death. But he will always be in an inferior position on this. Many wish it wasn't so...but it is, just by the nature of it.

By the way, all children live in poverty. They are poor by definition...maybe we can fight over that ;-)

Sat, 01/07/2012 - 00:21 | 2041615 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

meh, I'll pass on "fighting" over definitions of internet words posted. . . well, for now anyway. 

I'll just answer from your final paragraph, re; the responsibility of men for pregnancies. . . in a perfect world, sexually active women would take responsibility for their sexual choices, including insisting on appropriate "protection" or more "creative" acts that don't feel degrading, nor result in exposure to pregnancy. . . but the culture promoted by the media, and porn, is reckless and immature, so people just drive headlong into the wall, at full speed, fingers crossed being the most "protection" used. . . somewhat exaggerating, yes, but I'm often amazed at how "thoughtless" sexually active folks are, men and women.

but then, maybe, not really.  many people are just big ole teenagers, indulging in "He Who Dies With The Most Toys WINS!" and "SHOP 'TIL YOU DROP" bumper-sticker lives, and like little kids, when they fall down & get an "ouchie" they have no idea how it happened, or at least that's what they tell whoever is silly enough to indulge their tales.

so yes, it would be lovely if "people" were more responsible, man & woman both - but culture wants kids to lie to & manipulate, so kids it is!   anyone acting responsibly is pretty much "borrrring!" - but in fact are the majority, heh.

for what it's worth, I've worked with, and around, mostly males all my life - and despite what they like to project to each other, for the most part they're caring, responsible creatures - as are most of the females I know - it's the "others" that foul the nest & the wanna-be control freaks in .gov that make more rules, with glee.

see ya round!

Sat, 01/07/2012 - 08:11 | 2041880 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"it's the "others" that foul the nest & the wanna-be control freaks in .gov that make more rules, with glee."

Well stated Cat. It seems we are forever doomed to the mass of people saying "Something must be done" about X. I always scratch my head on the vague concept of the "something" part of this nonsensical phrase.

Often the something that needs correcting was put into practice precisely because people had (in the past) uttered this ridiculous phrase before and demanded something be done...lol.

Clearly, to me, something must be undone...not done. I subscribe to the theory that in the realm of .gov, less is more.

In addition to my already submitted "Clawback Amendment" for the people (stripping pensions from government workers who cannot pass a simple budget and also relieving Wall Street bankers/brokers of their bonus checks ex post facto) I would submit another.

For any new federal law to be passed it must contain the language to strip out twenty existing federal laws and regulations. For two bodies (House & Senate) who are always in search of a problem, their solution already in hand, this should keep them busy for at least a century ;-)

Take care.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:11 | 2034559 Jack D. Ripper
Jack D. Ripper's picture

must I choose a FatherSkyGod before I can know in my heart that "murder" or "rape" of another human being is not "good"?

Must those who realize that primitive taboos against perfectly natural acts like murder and rape are counterproductive and impediments to the evolution of the species via survival of the fittest be continually limited by the weak minded and unfit?

Murder, rape, theft, and pillage are time honored traditions that have been practiced since the dawn of time. In fact, everyone who is now living owes their lives to these practices. What rational arguments can you advance for rejecting them?

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 07:16 | 2034906 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...none you would understand.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 20:44 | 2037607 Kayman
Kayman's picture

 In fact, everyone who is now living owes their lives to these practices.

I know I'm a little late to this discussion, but stop the bus and let Jack off.

Perhaps you could turn your mind towards the concept of despite, not because of...

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 22:50 | 2037863 Jack D. Ripper
Jack D. Ripper's picture

Well, just a little "for instance": all of North and South America formerly belonged to "Indians" who were mostly exterminated by European invaders who pushed the remnant survivors onto small plots of the worst pieces of unoccupied land. So anyone living in the Americas who is not a full-blooded Indian is living on stolen land. And the vast majority of the food grown in the Americas is being grown on stolen land, so anyone eating that food is benefiting from the results of the European genocide. And 99.9% of these people probably think of themselves as good, moral people.

Of course, the Indians who were displaced were in no way better than the Europeans. They also habitually murdered each other and stole each other's land with just as much zest as the Europeans. Read "Empire of the Summer Moon" to get an idea of how Amerindians behaved towards each other.

Also, research shows that modern humans emerged from Africa and displaced the existing human populations in Eurasia. So all modern humans owe their existence to the genocide of the premodern humans that their ancestors displaced.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:32 | 2033583 Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

While I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek posts, I disagree that the American people want results.  They want their "fair" share of Other Peoples' Money.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:43 | 2033753 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

Exactly.   That's what the deficits are about.  Each time a party wins 51% of the vote they have to make sure their core backers get 70% of new government spending, preferably via some very difficult to stop program.  The narratives that candidates use to win have nothing to do with the core supporter groups that get them elected, and who get the payoffs post-victory.  The US is not two groups, Republican and Democrat, vying with each other.  It is many many groups trying to get their own prosperity written into law.  The characterization of left and right is baloney.  The truth is more that there are teams in each corner backing the candidate-as-verbal-boxer.  The teams change year to year.  The current winner is the medical industry which can garner huge voting strength to take your money, give it to a surgeon and a a few medical device companies, and get poor folks to keep voting for more of that good stuff. Defense does it too, teaming poor folks wanting soldier jobs and pensions with military goods-and-services teams who make the real money.  Fascinating stuff.  I just wish the nation could agree to CAP the spoils at a balanced budget and duke it out over that pot of our gold. I don't even care which team wins year to year. Put pension and health-care promises into the current budget with realistic capitalization rates.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:05 | 2033670 Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

Mitt has been at this for severeal years and millions of dollars and he still can't break through his ceiling of 25%.  That speaks volumes.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:41 | 2033751 trav7777
trav7777's picture

that's because he totally fucking sucks and nobody likes him. 

Could you find ANYONE who was enthusiastic about a dude like Mitt Romney?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:53 | 2033785 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

I don't mind being a target:  I'm enthusiastic about Mitt.  I've watched Perot and Huckabee throw elections to the urban big-unions and financials guys and I'm sick of it.  Mitt offers a nice balance of intelligence and experience.  It's like the choice of Joe Kennedy as the first SEC Chairman.  Might be an ugly MO, but it isn't a stupid one.  I'm tired of watching the Republican Party being highjacked by the know-nothings, newsletter millionaires, and religious zealots. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:33 | 2033866 akak
akak's picture

How's that Stockholm Syndrome workin' for ya?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:54 | 2033908 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

I'm not captured by anyone, so it's difficult to see why you think SS is relevant.  As a couple we can choose our residence (EZ, US, EU non-EZ) and no two of those three can destroy our finances.  I would like to see US tax policy favor small investors/savers rather than hedge fund managers...and favor domestic manufacturing investment over Chinese.  Both of those are Mitt policies.  I'm not in favor of banning abortion or birth-control, so scratch Santorum (and I reside in his state).  I'm not in favor of newsletter millionaires who take no responsibility for what gets said in their newsletters and say they want a gold-based currency as they run a monopoly medical practice (how bold for an obstetrician to not accept Medicare money...laugh), so scratch RP. Mitt is simply my choice.  Backed him last time over McCain because I know too much about McCain.  Mitt is smart, not nuts, and can count.  Good tax policy proposals. And you want...Obama again?   I've spent about 1/4 of my adult life in Stockholm, so the SS bit struck me as ironic. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:01 | 2033919 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

I guess you call killing dollar "favor domestic manufacturing investment over Chinese" I call it inflation.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:11 | 2033940 akak
akak's picture

I'm not captured by anyone

Perhaps not physically (yet), but mentally, you are as much a prisoner and (willing) victim as anyone I have ever encountered --- which sadly covers at least half of all Americans nowadays.  The fact that your chains are invisible to you does not make them any less obvious to those who have intellectually freed themselves from the philosophical gulag of the status-quo establishment.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:50 | 2034035 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I quit reading him at Joe Kennedy...for obvious fascist reasons.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:31 | 2034128 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

I can't think of a better-spent ten minutes than to draw up and down votes here on one of the best of sites, and interesting comments from those who disagree with me.  I don't understand the "captured" bit, unless you mean captured by the idea that the US had better get its house in order and stop pretending that AA and exporting jobs to asia are policies for a bright future.  The way to be free is to build a prosperity dependent on no one bet or place, and to contribute a service or good people actually value, not just one with Congress people willing to hand you other people's money for it.  The way to preserve assets is in forestry or mines in multiple countries.  Paper money (or bytes) is for transactions only, a brief way-stop.  It shouldn't really bother you what paper money does, has for value, unless you spend a lot of time stuck in paper.  Paper isn't any more productive than gold, nor less.  Firms, factories, forests, fields, hard-working self-motivated students... and mines are productive.  Still, for my own benefit an explicit description of the idea or institution of which you claim I suffer SS would be appreciated.  Don't pull your punch.  Describe it. I have a thick skin.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:15 | 2034566 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Here's my bottom line:  If the MSM is cheerleading any candidate, I'm against them.  One only has to look at the results of their blind support of Obamatron to understand why; they only support those that will continue to increase the size of the Leviathan US Govt, and the ONLY candidate that wants to actually cut the size of the Leviathan is Ron Paul -- NOT Mitt Romneylan, Slimy Newt, or Rich Santorum.  One has to wonder how you feel that Mitt will reward you for your support -- I do not want a reward from Ron Paul, I want to be left the Hell alone by the US Govt, and continuing to support the status quo of ever intrusive Govt, like Romneylan does, ain't cuttin' it (litterally!)

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:50 | 2033898 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

How is Mitt not a financial guy. At Bain he was cut throat, cut jobs for profitable investments...he's already calling China currency manipulator, what does that tell you? Then he needs political boost after losing electin so jumps on board olympic bandwagon after money was already secured to make him look like a hero. He's an opportunist.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:10 | 2033936 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

Who said Mitt wasn't a financial guy?  As for cutting jobs to restore profitability, I think Obama's (and your...) GM did the same thing.  China IS a currency manipulator and it's about to get worse as they'll likely devalue a bit to fix their regional banking crisis.  As for Mitt's stint fixing the Salt Lake Winter Olympics bit, I was glad he did.  The athletes themselves ranked it one of the best WO's ever. And the closing song was sung in the cold night air by Willie Nelson. I can live with that.  The problem in the US is that since 1970, and in almost every industry there hasn't been nearly enough efficient investment or reward for smarts as opposed to politics.  Bain drew an awful lot of its capital draws from teachers and state worker's pension funds...so I guess those groups thought it was OK to make manufacturing efficient but not office work?  Long ago I was a soldier (for the US) so I know the waste and misery involved in that, as it was Kissinger and Haag sent me Into Laos, after Johnson set the whole thing going.  I'll trust Mitt to do less of that bullshit than Santorum or Obama.  Just my calculation.  You may think otherwise.  RP?  He understands his core and plays them like a pipe organ, while investing primarily in off-shore equities and portable gold, but has made more money from subscribers than either of the other two activities. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:31 | 2033954 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Guess you're sick of your own guy then?

"I've watched Perot and Huckabee throw elections to the urban big-unions and financials guys and I'm sick of it."

If China's a currency manipulator what are we? You don't make any sense. "Problem is no efficient investment for smarts in US." WTF? And I just finished reading long article that questined Romney's success in Olympics, yes it was successful, but Romney was not responsible for its success, like he claims. He needed the boost for political reasons so he took the job. Romney's just a slick opportunist.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:41 | 2034144 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

I'm playing for one side, ours.  So let's just peg the dollar to the yuan? Would that be better?  Yes, I expect Romney to throw more benefits to manufacturing than to BoA.  Maybe I'm wrong?  Hope I get to see.  As for the Olympics, Romney was absolutely responsible for drawing in sponsors fast, getting the books straight, and stopping some of the BS cash drain.  Opportunist?  Holy cow.  Pick a politician, even RP, and I'll send you a list of the opportunistic amoral stuff they've done.  Hell, Sam Adams was an opportunist and a creature of Boston financiers.  I'm picking a politician to back, not a poet or nanny.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:18 | 2034572 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

A lot of people joined the Nazi party because the Facists made the trains run on time.  Efficiency is overrated -- look at how efficiently the undesirables were shoveled into ovens.  The best govt is that which governs least!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 07:41 | 2034907 Archduke
Archduke's picture

seriously guys.

 

Romney "made the olypmics work" in Salt Lake because because he's a mormon;

That is, all of Salt Lake and Utah made the olympics work and made Romney good.

And bear in mind that Salt Lake would have only accepted one of theirs at the helm.

 

Now regardless of whether latter-day-saints or the amish tend to be fiscally responsible,

I'm not sure I want them heading all the other estates like foreign policy, healthcare,

education, justice and general governance.  Why the hell would you want to place a

proselytising fringe group as a guarrantor of rights, freedoms, and civil liberties for all?

 

though he gains 2 marks for his love of french, how can you claim you love france

and not drink wine?  this is the kind of  neurotic discourse we can expect from him.

I mean he went there as a _missionary_.  he loved the culture so much he wanted

to remodel it in his image.  I don't know about you, but I don't need any more love

of this kind.

 

 

 

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:43 | 2034009 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I don't see any significant difference between Mormney and NeO.  None.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 22:02 | 2034323 akak
akak's picture

The only differences I can detect are a bit more melanin in one and a special secret pair of underwear on the other.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:18 | 2034218 ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

You're no MillionDollarBonus, Wanklord.  But, keep on trying.   

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:01 | 2033920 Big Corked Boots
Big Corked Boots's picture

Chris Christie.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 22:38 | 2034391 baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

um, how about no. He wants your guns! Read up on Christie and his exact interpretation of the phrase `shall NOT' be infringed upon in regards to our Second Amendment.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:20 | 2034574 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

The govt can take our guns -- ONE BULLET at a time!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 10:00 | 2035108 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Classic right-wing: a scare story based on absolutely nothing.

47% of Americans have a gun in the house.  We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined ($1050 billion, counting VA, NSA, Dept of "Homeland" Security, etc - the majority of our income taxes).  We have the world's highest per capita incarceration rate, 8X the world average.  We are easily the most militaristic developed country on earth.  There is no way in blue hell anything approaching "taking away our guns" is going to happen any time soon in America - it's simply an empty scare story for those too lazy to think for themselves.

The rest of us would like some common-sense gun ownership regulation.  These are powerful tools - do we really need to let 8yr old Jimmy down the street pack an Uzi, in order to 'save the Constitution'?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:11 | 2034152 ClassicalLib17
ClassicalLib17's picture

MillionDollarBonus Sir, I have the deepest respect for your ability to point out the socialist agenda with a convincing zeal.  God bless you in your efforts to point out everything that is wrong with our gov't over the last 50 years in your bullet points.  Keep up the good work, we libertarians appreciate your intelligent sarcasm.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 22:42 | 2034404 LynRobison
LynRobison's picture

Wow, you are so status quo, it's amazing. You appear to have no idea of the magnitude of the upcoming reset.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 09:27 | 2035044 Haddock
Haddock's picture

Class MDB, as always.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:45 | 2033766 f16hoser
f16hoser's picture

Ron Paul is the only politician that can start to turn this around. A Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or who ever the established RNC put's forth will change nothing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! Obama freaks are freaking out. Priceless. They wanted change and they got more of the same! I love it!

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:23 | 2034577 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

The Decepticrats "thought" they were voting for Martin Luther King and got Uncle Tom instead! :>D

Yassuh massa, Tobie be changin' dem bankn' lawz for you...

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:28 | 2034260 URZIZMINE
URZIZMINE's picture

OT.  The MSM and Fox News has been running wall to wall Hatchet Jobs on RP.  The O'Reilly Factor skipped RP the night after the Iowa Caucuses like he wasn't even in the area.  F**k O'Reilly and Fox News.  They just lost a customer.  I was so blind.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:27 | 2033563 escargot
escargot's picture

Are you an establishment troll or just a freakin' moron?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:25 | 2033716 Rynak
Rynak's picture

That's not mutually exclusive.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:29 | 2033568 Seer
Seer's picture

Sadly, I'm afraid, you're correct.  I feel for all the hardcore supporters out there: I've been there and done that!

As George Carlin put it: If voting did anything they'd make it illegal.  The Iowa caucuses should be ample demonstration: WTF?

RP is still accepted by the GOP.  That there should put all arguments to rest.  Yeah, he's TRYING, I'm am quite sure of that, but the System won't accept him (nor will it accept us) in any sort of "leadership" position: TPTB know that it would be problematic to allow him to get to the throne, that they'd have to knock him off, which would likely unleash a massive outbreak (TPTB only like stability).

The prudent thing is to give up on this "hope" nonsense: yes, Barry used it, but so too are folks who are backing RP- "we hope that he gets in there so that things can be 'fixed!'"  Hope is no more than desiring for an outcome that you have little/no agency over.  After realizing that my political actions had next to no affect I decided that I'm better off to apply my energies toward making my immediate environment/situation better, allowing my actions to speak (rather than tell everyone else how things should be, how they'd be better off voting and whatnot).

Again, after noting the results from Iowa it's pretty clear that hope, let alone "voting," ain't going to cut it.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:12 | 2033825 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

The same hope was used 4 years ago on the left side of the coin.

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:47 | 2033892 Bob
Bob's picture

It's amazing to see the pendulum swing . . .  the messiahs change, but the perversity of childish adulation stays the same. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:50 | 2033900 Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

This time it's different.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 20:09 | 2034073 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

good points Seer, particularly this

After realizing that my political actions had next to no affect I decided that I'm better off to apply my energies toward making my immediate environment/situation better, allowing my actions to speak (rather than tell everyone else how things should be, how they'd be better off voting and whatnot).

by seeing through "hope" dangled to "voters" you've reclaimed a corner of your mind that can be put to better use becoming more independent of the "systems" that many are "invested" in, accepting personal responsibility and sovereignty by letting the system occupy less of your mind space.

paying attention to what "they" are up to doesn't mean playing the game with them.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:22 | 2034480 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

When it comes to success in a failed system you have to be good at "Doublespeak", aka cognitive dissonance.

So, I gave you a green light because it is hard to maintain sanity, and yet still be a Producer, in this madhouse most still call the US of A.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:57 | 2034536 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

constant refocus of the wide angle lens, WaterWings.

always step back, refocus. . . step back, refocus. . . eventually, you're not actually "in" the madhouse, merely observing it.

the Producer part might take some creative thinking too, tho.

best wishes!

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:42 | 2033615 Desert Irish
Desert Irish's picture

The problem with the argument above is that if every marginal candinate is dismissed as a waste of a vote and / or resource - then the only real outcome is more of the status quo despite which party you vote for. It's a self defeating prophecy and allows the MSN to dismiss any other candinate with similier views from running in the future.

 

 

 

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:55 | 2033910 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

No this is their tactic, just like coming on here and hating on Jews. Marginalize voting, marginalize Paul. They don't want you to vote.

In case anyone doesn't realize it fucking fantastic that Paul won 22%. Come on. He was treated like the nasty boogey man. People don't want to show support for him because worried they'll be put on FBI list, so 22% is fucking amazing.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:43 | 2033621 escargot
escargot's picture

Yeah yeah yeah...RP serves the interests of the elite.  Behind the scenes, Bernanke loves him.  I suppose you think Zero Hedge is just a cover operation for establishment propaganda, too.   Dude, did you run out of Prozac or something?

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:45 | 2033626 Motorhead
Motorhead's picture

@ wanker

The two-party system is stacked up against independents.  In fact, I'm not even sure if an independent is eligible for matching campaign funds (if someone can verify or disprove that, I'd appreciate it).

But it is funny how Ron Paul is being vilified by being more Republican than the Republicans (or, Republicrats).

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:11 | 2034228 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

The two-party 'winner takes all' system is stacked against good ideas rejected by the two parties.  The  parliamentary system has it's draw backs, too, as does the idea of frequent plebiscites.  If we go to a parliamentary system then Ron Paul supporters would have presumably had more representation in Washington for decades now.  The two party system is much easier to 'capture.'  The real powers have to shift parties once in a while when they run up against resistance, but they get their way over 8 years, one way or another.  I also favor "one bill, one purpose" so that we stop getting clobbered with Omnibus bills which contain fifty little ways to curtail our freedoms.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:20 | 2033703 floridasandy
floridasandy's picture

exactly how has it been proven? (that ron paul can't win the ticket).

 

 i am curious what you think the "proof" is.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:36 | 2033743 lasvegaspersona
lasvegaspersona's picture

I enjoy listening to Michael Savage. After yesterday's assault on Ron Paul however I have come to see Mike as more entertainment than a source of information or opinion.

2 Weeks ago Savage suggested that RP would make a good vice-presidential candidate. Yesterday he said Paul was deranged. He said he would let us listen to Ron Paul's own words and then gave us a diatribe against Ron Paul by some supposed former campaign worker.

Savage can dish it out pretty good but he is ultimately a tad thin skinned himself. He pretends to let opposing views speak but then often interrupts them shouting "answer my question".

That Michael Savage is so afraid of Ron Paul is interesting. I'm not very conspiracy minded but if I were I would have thought Savage would come out above the rest of 'bought and paid for' media. After his outrageous treatment of Ron Paul he seems like all the rest....confused about the mess we are and and terrified of changing anything.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:53 | 2033788 PianoRacer
PianoRacer's picture

When I google the text of your message, wanklord I see it repeated verbatim high up in ron paul posts spanning the last year, all under different aliases.

WHO ARE YOU AND WHO DO YOU WORK FOR 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:03 | 2033925 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture

Wanklord you are getting exposed for the piece of shit that you are. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 21:05 | 2034209 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

Wanklord's message on another website...

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1060493166

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:15 | 2034469 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Wanklord's message from May 25, 2011 (using the alias "Samuel") in a comment on Max Keiser's site, but this time about Rand Paul:

http://maxkeiser.com/2011/05/25/sen-rand-paul-speaks-on-patriot-act/#com...

Found using a google search for the phrase "seduce his brute and ignorant constituency" (including quotation marks to force a search for the exact phrase).

 

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:28 | 2034586 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

There are a lot of troops in the internet "water army," but they don't wear any identifying patches. :>(

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:12 | 2034563 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

Thanks for the footnote there, wanklord, else I wouldn't have had a clue as to who that uber-elitist, state-worshipping, anti-human, pseudo-intellectual piece of shit is.

As for your trolling, anti-boomer vitriol, here on ZH and elsewhere, the downfall of this country started long before any of us post-war kids were born, dating back at least to 1913, with the creation of the monetary fascism of the Federal Reserve and the class-warfarism of the IRS and its thoroughly Marxist income tax.  

Which is to say, I don't know how old you are, punk, but I know for sure that I would kick your ass if given the chance.

And make you kiss mine.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 14:14 | 2036141 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture

R. Paul may not be THE answer, but he's a beginning. I believe the country still will be in decline but at least perhaps we could restore some dignity.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:04 | 2033482 redpill
redpill's picture

Despite the economic underpinnings of the western world crumbling to dust, Iowa voters are apparently more concerned about who gay people get to marry and other various social authoritarian stances.  In short, we're fucked.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:21 | 2033537 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

The TP started off as anti-bailout, anti-Fed.  Establishment republicans came in and made it about guns, gays, and god.  OWS started off anti-bailout, anti-banker/wall street.  Establishment democrats came in and made it into something else.  THe common ground is there, but the link has yet to be solidified.  Time will tell. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:58 | 2033648 john39
john39's picture

its no accident how this happens...  keeps the sheeple in the middle paralyzed.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:23 | 2033545 Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

The Human world is fuked 1 way or the other, if it's RP or Obama in the WH things will end up the same in the end.

Humanity has outpaced it self with technology that is now far superior to the inferior (average) human mind, we are Caveman using near StarTrek technology, and we are going to get burned badly. Nearly avoided a Nuclear war(at least the last time), Chernobyl-Fukushima, Offshore Oil spills(that are just getting started), Peak Oil and (natural) Climate Change. The Human race has painted it self into a Corner and instead of looking for ways out it's accelerating it's profligate ways. A Crash is imminent(in the next few decades, maybe even years) better be prepared for the worse, 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink' meaning even a RP Presidency will not change this crash-course

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:09 | 2033503 Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

One has to wonder, how many actually know that "Mitt" is Romney's middle name ?

In a farming state such as Iowa, one would have to believe that "Willard" would actually go a long way. Perhaps that is what put Willard over the top with those eight votes.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:26 | 2033555 redpill
redpill's picture

Well he was really born as Willard Mitterand Rothschild Shalom Romney III, but he kept getting beat up at school and sodomized in the shower so frequently that they gave him the nickname Mitt, for being such a great catcher and all.  The name stuck ever since.

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:29 | 2033571 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Twink for sure now Newt would be a bear no question.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=twink

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:53 | 2033639 VyseLegendaire
VyseLegendaire's picture

Your icon and user name interest me, this place has got some very epic gag accounts. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:52 | 2033903 midtowng
midtowng's picture

My only problem with the article is the insistence of using the term "moderate" Republican.

Many of the policies listed here are also the policies of conservative Republicans

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:53 | 2033455 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Duh. All this was obvious when he started nominating people in his administration or when you looked at who backed him...

McCain wasn't better... but at least with McCain, everybody would have hated him day one.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:00 | 2033457 kito
kito's picture

OBAMAROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT 2012!!!!!

 

oh, and charles is wrong, as there really is no difference between obama and 99 pct of all "conservative" republicans as well. lets not forget newt is claiming to be a reaganite republican (and even reagan was not a true conservative abiding by the spirit of the constitution). nearly all republicans are no different than obama, not just the "moderate" ones. the word "conservative" was stripped down, watered down, beaten down centuries ago.....

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:07 | 2033497 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Wait...

Are you telling me Obama and Romney are different people? Reading their policies and flip flops I'd just assume they were the same person.

Thu, 01/05/2012 - 00:28 | 2034583 Dick Buttkiss
Dick Buttkiss's picture

I can see the bumper sticker now:

OBAMNEY or ROMBAMA: Take Your Pick

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:53 | 2033905 midtowng
midtowng's picture

You beat me to it. I was pointing out that Obama's "moderate" Republican policies were also conservative Republican policies.

But you've already said it better than me.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:54 | 2033458 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Topic has been beaten to death circa sometime 2009...

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:21 | 2033467 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Obama's favorite presidents, Republican. Both parties the same, both from the same corporatist party.

Ron Paul should own his garbled speaking style. When he owns it's endearing. But when he fights it, it's painful to watch. One reason why the WHO interview successful imo .

Also I think electronic voting machine can be manipulated with flash drive if memory right, so have to fight it. Ron Paul's team imagine criminal behavior of status quo and block it.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:30 | 2033572 escargot
escargot's picture

Is English your native language?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:49 | 2033881 akak
akak's picture

Native language being means are how?

Now time writing for Chinese products the manuals for is happening me.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:08 | 2033931 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Not Chinese. What I meant to say,

I think electronic voting machines can be manipulated with a flash drive, so Paul's team has to fight it. Don't know how they can, some sort of surveillance, or a pat down of all election officials. RP team should just prepare for worst criminal behavior of status quo and block it. Imagine what you would do to rig an election and then prevent it from happening before it happens.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 23:26 | 2034486 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

ZH intoxicated is awesome. Pretty much the best comment fights on the Interwebs.

"You should join our club."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N8cF2moe2w

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:56 | 2033459 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Something of a secular Christuslim, too.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:56 | 2033463 vintageyz
vintageyz's picture

Amen, Mr. Smith

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:57 | 2033466 Zola
Zola's picture

I just found the santorum supporters in Iowa !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4O3_CED1Fk&feature=youtu.be

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:25 | 2033551 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Here is a picture of the supporters from one of Rick's last "rallies" before the caucus - https://twitter.com/#!/evanmc_s/status/153210263900930049/photo/1

Makes you fucking wonder.  not just wonder, but fucking wonder. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:50 | 2033634 King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

Iowa is immaterial and inconsequential per the Media pontifs. So Romney or Santorum's win doesn't mean much at this stage.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:03 | 2033666 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

That story has since changed since Ron Paul didn't take first. 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 15:58 | 2033469 Snake Plissken
Snake Plissken's picture

WANTED for Treason:

Philip Zelikow
George Soros
Ben Bernanke
Alan Greenspan
Jacob Lew
Henry Kissinger
Paul Wolfowitz
Douglas Feith
Dov Zakheim
Michael Chertoff
Michael Mukasey
Elliot Abrams
Lewis Libby
Jack Abramoff
Lewis Eisenberg
Eliot Spitzer
John Deutch
Benjamin Chertoff
Larry Silverstein
Frank Lowy
Rupert Murdoch
Maurice Greenberg
Michael Cherkasky
Lloyd Blankfein
Richard Fuld
Peter Orszag
Jeffrey Liebman
Michael Bloomberg
Michael Eisner
Madeline Albright
Rahm Emanuel a.k.a "Omega"

Obama is just a puppet, as were Clinton and Bush. Different handlers (same Tribe of course), but same masters.

For real change there is only one option:

Ron Paul

 

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:07 | 2033498 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Throw in Dimon and Sorkin just to mix things up and it would be a great start.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:16 | 2033528 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Idiot

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:22 | 2033542 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

He no likey the Jooz...

Get ready for much more of this as Paul gains momentum...

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:24 | 2033547 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Good point.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 16:46 | 2033627 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Paul has until November so this is not over by a long shot.  As an independent, his base will continue to grow as things get more and more fucked up in the country.  He's achieved enough critical mass to take him to the top within the next 9-10 months.  Once the primary is done and Shit Romney is officially the Repugnantcan candidate, the MSM will lay off RP for a while.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:47 | 2033771 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Ima say...it's over.  It's good to dream, but better to be real.  RP needed a blowout Iowa win.  As it stands, he lost to a complete chump like Santordumb.  Maybe they fudged the votes, who knows...it doesn't matter.

RP needed to get legitimized...where's his opportunity to do so now?

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:56 | 2033794 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Legititimized? That shit was basically a tie 23, 23, 21 and the delegates are assigned proportionately. 

So Rick and Romeny get 23% of the delegates and paul get's 21%; big whoop; South Carolina is gona' say a lot whoever wins that. Paul is in 2nd in NH with polling and Santorum isn't even on the map...he went all in Iowa and now doesnt have shit anywhere else.

It could also come down to a brokered convention

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:27 | 2033978 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Can one have a brokered convention without smoke-filled rooms? And who'g going to defy the EPA and other environmental fascists by daring to have a smoke-filled room? Or maybe it won't count if the smoke isn't from tobacco! What a hoot if the brokering is done by a gaggle of high politicians!

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:46 | 2034023 trav7777
trav7777's picture

3rd place won't cut it; neither will 2nd.  To get momentum, he needs to start having some wins.  3rd place in Iowa is a disaster for him.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 18:45 | 2033889 whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

That's right you know what you're talking about. Just like McCain got legitimized in IOWA, LOL.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 19:45 | 2034018 trav7777
trav7777's picture

sorry, but Muhcane was an already legitimate candidate.  RP isn't.  RP is still fringe.  Like it or not, that's what he is.

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:00 | 2033657 Kinskian
Kinskian's picture

Get ready for much more of this as gasoline passes $5 per gallon upon war with Iran....

Wed, 01/04/2012 - 17:45 | 2033764 trav7777
trav7777's picture

feel free to add as many others to the list as you can...won't change the trend that pops right out

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