This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Rick Perry Out

Tyler Durden's picture




 

And then there were four.

  • RICK PERRY MAY DROP OUT OF PRESIDENTIAL RACE TODAY, CNN SAYS

It appears even Bank of America (which had a hilarious and brilliant $600 million Goodwill impairment today - on what? The fantastically prfoitable Countrywide acquisition) could not "help him out."

Of course, everyone is now expecting tonight's impromptu ABC "Career ending" interview with Mrs. ex-Gingrich, which may make it a trio. That may happen even despite Perry's imminent enrosement.

From Politico:

  • Rick Perry is expected to drop out later this morning at an 11 a.m. press conference and endorse Newt Gingrich, two sources confirmed to POLITICO.
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:21 | 2077569 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Who?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:28 | 2077599 trav7777
trav7777's picture

'zactly

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:32 | 2077620 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

the guy who said we should invade Turkey at the debates a couple nights ago. Apparently he wasn't told they've been one of our most staunch allies and have been part of the North Atlanic Treaty Organization for the last 60 years. I NOMINATE MYSELF FOR HIS SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD HE RUN AGAIN!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:53 | 2077689 MillionDollarBonus_
MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Looks like Romney has this one in the bag, although he's a little to far to the right for my liking. I do however like his strong stance on the war on terror.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:55 | 2077697 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

Meh.  Not your best, MDB.  Try stepping up the nationalist rhetoric just a little bit.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:59 | 2077713 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

Bastard.  I was just getting to like his slow southern style.  Of course I was for him before I was againnst him which was just before I was for him so I would not be a bad person for not wanting to pay for illegals college.  Now I'm solidly for him...leaving.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:05 | 2077725 Born Patriot
Born Patriot's picture

Where was Rick Perry when the south west became overridden with immigrants and foreigners? Rick Perry is all talk and no ACTION. Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:10 | 2077748 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You do understand that calling yourself "Born Patriot" while parading the flag of the CSA makes you a bit of a hypocrite??  Orwell would be very proud of you...

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:15 | 2077765 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

I wish I could get RT news...10 minutes of Fox News coverage here and every candidate has been mentioned for potentially benefiting and of course the Newt Romney saga but not a word on Ron Paul

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:31 | 2077858 redpill
redpill's picture

"And then there were four."

 

Nope, still only two candidates in this race, Ron Paul and the establishment.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:57 | 2077954 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Maybe Ron Paul will get a couple more "gotcha" questions in tonight's debate.  Something like, "In your junior year of high school Dr. Paul there was a rumor that you ......" 

Newt's ex should provide enough ammo to knock him out.  Nothing like a pissed off ex-wife to ruin the rest of your life.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:53 | 2078199 fuu
fuu's picture

Maybe he should have thought about that before he started fucking his staffer while his wife was diagnosed with MS.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:57 | 2078207 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

Maybe, just maybe...although it really hasnt happened so far...they will ask questions on monetary policy.  Just Maybe.

Of course pelicans could fly out my ass...maybe.  Just maybe.

On the Newt thing...I'd leave her for the blonde he's with now too and suffer all the consequences.  The ex does not look like a wife that is easy to please.  At least with the blonde I would be easy to please.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:51 | 2078685 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

From the clip ABC released today, Newt wanted to be able to fuck whoever he wanted.  The ex said, "he wanted an "open" marriage, I didn't".  Wonder how that will play in the Bible belt?  Newt's has many more skeletons in his closet that they can and will drag out.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:58 | 2078216 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

Gotta sideline +1 that.  If you wanted to plus 2 redpill just add it to mine here.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:38 | 2077874 Red Raspberry
Red Raspberry's picture

Look up the definition of Patriot.  There is more than one NEOCON definition.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:41 | 2077887 redpill
redpill's picture

"Born Patriot" is one of a number of fake puppet accounts by someone who poses as a Ron Paul supporter and says racist, mysogynist, anti-semitic, and violent things in an attempt to discredit Ron Paul supporters in general.  The confederate flag is part of his fraudulent schtick.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:01 | 2077959 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Negative, I know him from our one forum personally. He is a Southern Constitutionalist with let's saaay, strong genealogical opinions so-to-speak? 

I neither endorse or promote his points of view, but the 1A is still alive last I checked.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:05 | 2077974 redpill
redpill's picture

In that case the biggest favor he can do Ron Paul is to shut up and stop posting.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:10 | 2077997 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep... I would venture that RP supporters are the strangest combination of bed-fellows we have seen since the Tehran Conference..... 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:08 | 2078230 macroeconomist
macroeconomist's picture

Agreed!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:06 | 2078242 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I am willing to bet that the two junks I got were from people that have no idea what the Tehran conference was....

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:01 | 2079751 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

Three mass-murderers sit on a deck.

Two instigated the U.S. into world wars.

Two starved their own populations to the tune of millions, and sent many thousands to detainment facilities.

All three worked for the same people.

 

What's so different about them, again?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 21:57 | 2080062 fuu
fuu's picture

Clothing.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:00 | 2078728 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

With all these NEOCON's parading around as Democrats, it's hard to tell the difference anymore between the RNC and the DNC.

All centeralized war mongers. What ever the next war is, I'm against it already.

my 2c

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:04 | 2077722 LasVegasDave
LasVegasDave's picture

You RP supporters will just have to accept the fact that RP cost himself the election with his idiotic Iran policy.  Even guys like Hannity woulda thrown in behind RP. 

So unless Newt can defy the odds we are stuck with Obama for another four years which should be great for gold and silver.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:07 | 2077730 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

Idiotic?  What the fuck are they gonna do with a nuke?  Nuke Israel, home of many of their holy sites?  I don't think so.  Nuke Europe or America and guarantee their complete annihilation?  I don't think so.

 

Hannity is a douchebag and a traitor, and he can suck on my nuts.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:18 | 2077786 LasVegasDave
LasVegasDave's picture

Hannity is on TV an hour a day and radio for three hours. 

You can call his listeners sheeple, but if Hannity says get out there and vote, they will.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:43 | 2077899 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Speaking of sheep...

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:00 | 2077957 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

I also once thought that RP should slow down the foreign policy talk a little bit in order to get elected, but I now realize that to him this is as much a core issue as the Fed and that he is actually right to see it that way.

Only thing is that if he would get in office with his Fed talk, then getting rid of the Fed would allow him to get rid of the wars without even campainging on that theme.

But the guy just has too much integrity to play even this game.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:24 | 2078592 LasVegasDave
LasVegasDave's picture

castro?

really?

still using your junior college ID to get discounts at museums?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:23 | 2077806 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

This is what you don't understand...

What do you think happens when oil is no longer priced in US dollars?

Now asshats like Santorum and Perry are pandering to the Evangelicals because I truly believe that they have never made the connection between oil and the dollar....

Now, for the comprehension impaired, I am not defending American policy in the Middle East, not by a long shot, but I am completely capable understanding the logic...

Did it ever occur to you that the only thing keeping the US dollar alive is that connection with oil? Lord know the majority of people here understand the unsustainablity of the dollar, ever wonder why the fucking thing has not collapsed yet???

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:13 | 2078533 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Santorum and Perry aren't the only candidates "pandering to the Evangelicals" - I guess when one picks their team, blinders are mandatory. . .

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:01 | 2077717 Born Patriot
Born Patriot's picture

Who cares. The only candidate who is willing to defend freedom of association is Ron Paul. This country lost its way a LONG time ago with its multiculturalist policies. It's time to refound America by getting back to the CONSTITUTION. Ron Paul 2012!!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:07 | 2077737 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Yeah, just what we need....a Christian Reconstructionist nutballl whose followers promote the death penalty for adultery.

Enjoy your states' rights based Christian Gulag!

Public Stoning 2012!!!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:04 | 2077967 redpill
redpill's picture

In case you missed it, you dumb fucker, Ron Paul is one of the few people interested in actually preserving our civil liberties.

I'd really like to know which campaign the Ron Paul FUD agents around here are drinking the kool-aid of.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:47 | 2078118 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Once elected, his Chrisitian Reconstructionist followers will handle your "civil liberties" on the state level.

Think Leviticus.  Think Mosaic Law.

Dumb fuckers like yourself won't be allowed to "spill seed" outside of procreation or matrimony without penalty of death.

You should get to know your candidate, his core, long-time supporters and their agenda better.

See my posts below.

Any fear, uncertainty or doubt can easily be addressed with some key work searches--

Try any combination of Ron Paul and: Christian Reconstructionists, Gary North, stoning, adultery, death, biblical law, Kayser endorsement

Let me know which pill you chose to take after that.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:58 | 2078203 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Do you mean like this:

We wouldn't need laws....

Admittedly, this is more related to Rand....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:10 | 2078255 flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>Rand Paul: We Wouldn’t Need Laws If Everyone Were Christian<<<

Ron Paul's supporters will see to it that there are plenty of laws on the state level to make certain everyone behaves as a certain "kind" of Christian...being a garden variety Christian isn't good enough.

They got their bibles ready...to beat you over the head.

Smaller government on the federal level...just small enough on the state level to get under your bedroom door.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:31 | 2078357 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

More baseless Ron Paul fear mongering.  Rand isn't Ron.  Got anything of substance?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:16 | 2078451 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Yeah, sure.

Ron Paul touts endorsement of pastor who defends death penalty for gays, delinquent children & adultery

http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/kayserendorsemen/

Can't hide who you are when this is the company you keep...and you tout their endorsements...even if you later try to scrub it from your official campaign web site.

The internet has a looong memory.  Fortunately there are screen shots and a text archive of what the campagin tried to hide.

See my posst below for a direct quote from Ron Paul to the Christian Reconstructionist religious "remnant" regarding how they hold the "political truth" together.

And regarding Rand Paul, the nut doesn't fall far from the tree--

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/5/20/175036/669

 

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:37 | 2078643 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

So?  The Pastor says that he agrees with Paul on economics.  Thats the way politics, and most other relationships work.  You find common ground, and work towards acheiving simmilar goals. 

Suggesting that because Pauls CAMPAIGN touted then withdrew their support of the pastor, that somehow Paul supports every single belief that the pastor has is completely intellectually dishonest, and absurdist too boot.

Paul took my money, lets say for argument I'm a Pagan polyamorist, whos into psychedelics.  I know lots of progressives that support him.  So which is it, is he a Christian Recon, or a neo-pagan progressive?

If guilt by association is to be the measure of the candidate, certainly all the others are far, far worse.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:45 | 2078665 flattrader
flattrader's picture

RP is a theocratic nutball.  Don't pretend otherwise.  Don't try to explain it away.

He speaks their language when he speaks directly to them.

He is one of them.  Deal with it.

>>>At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the "remnant" left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North's publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul's keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, "He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, 'The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'"<<<

That's a direct quote in bold.  You can watch the address online.

His religious remnant holds the "political truth" together?  What crap.

I like my government secular and want to keep it that way.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:48 | 2078678 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Having a religious belief does not make one a Theocrat.  More sloppy thinking.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:55 | 2078696 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

True, but not distancing yourself from obvious Theocrats is a bit of a tell....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:07 | 2078772 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Hardly.  You know who else Paul "touts" the endorsement of?  Ralph Nader.  Oh, Denis Kucinich as well.  One MUST conclude that PAul is a covert Eco-Socialist who wants to advance the Global warming agenda and carbon taxes.

Just admit it.  The guilt-by-association argument is garbage.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:31 | 2078878 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Flak,

Bit of a tell?  Man, you are being polite.

Yeah, the fact that Paul hired one of the principal nutballs (Gary North) during his first term as his researcher and speechwriter, allows them to edit his newsletter and manage his 2012 campaign can all be explained away.

My all time favorite though is Paul's association with the Constitution Party and endorsment of their candidates.  This is an organization whose founder, Rousas Rushdoony (Gary North's father-in-law,) advocated executing homosexuals by stoning, wanted to reimpose the institution of slavery, and maintained that the Sun rotated around the Earth.

I can't wait for Stewart and/or Colbert to go to work on the Paul Campaign.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:46 | 2078924 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I try to be polite if I am not insulted and slurred....

Let me guess Rushdooney was not an advocate of anthropogenic global warming....

Seriously, I have also had a bit of a soft spot for Ron. P., however, I simultaneously never harbored any illusions about the some of the wackadoos that he attracts... And yes, there are a lot of decent RP supporters, but there is a vocal minority of his supporters  that see his call for liberty to be an excuse to impose their own idea of "liberty"....

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 16:03 | 2078999 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Rushdooney not an advocate of global warming???...ROTFLMAO!!!

I think his concern is more "creation" based.

These are Ron Paul's long-time supporters...people he hires and whose organizations he endorses.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/16/182146/521

>>>The movement is famously fractious, and for years Rushdoony has been crossing swords with his prolific son-in-law Gary North over questions wondrously exotic. The latest battle is over "geocentrism," the doctrine that the earth is the physical center of the creation. Rushdoony is for it and North is against it. Apparently they are lining up astrophysicists and other scientists to help confirm their conflicting exegesis of Scripture. Is this ridiculous?<<<

You can't make this crap up!!!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 16:09 | 2079018 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

"but there is a vocal minority of his supporters  that see his call for liberty to be an excuse to impose their own idea of "liberty"...."

Thats true, but it is across the board.  I'm far more concerned about the non-vocal minority of oligarchs that support the rest of them.  Then of course there are the socialists tha support certain other candidates.  IF theocracy is your concern, its worth noting that there is a very vocal minority that don't find Pauls views theocratic enough.  They're voting for Santorum.  The actual theocrat.

I'd rather vote for a guy that doesn't share the views of the theocrats that support him than vote for the guy that shares the views of the theocrat that supports him.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:52 | 2078959 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

More correlative stretching.  Paul endorsed A constitutional party candidate after Bob Barr, the libertarian, smeared him.  Anyway, ithe argument is nonsense.  Should we go over what the founders of the Republican and Democrat parties believed about the world?  Of course not.

So, because Paul once endorsed a guy who was a member of a party that was founded by a guy that thought bozo stuff that was the in law (and we all see eye to eye with our inlaws...), Paul, despite his pesistant railing on and on about the freedom to make personal decisions, statements that the goverrnment should be out of the marriage business, and that people should be free to put whatever they want into their bodies,  is a theocrat.

Who is, of course, going to advocate public stonings, yadda scare-tactic yadda fear-mongering yadda....

I mean really, this is the best you guys can do?  "Paul's mothers fathers sisters brothers roomate once said something bad, therefore Paul is crazy"?!?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 16:12 | 2079020 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Sorry, man. No correlative stretching needed.

Paul spreaks directly to the Reconsturctionist religious "remnant" in their language.

He one of them.  Get over it and deal honestly with it...because trust me, others will very soon.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 16:27 | 2079086 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

An assertion is not an argument.  Declaring Paul a reconstructionist doesn't make it so. 

Out of the 39 minutes Paul spent at the JBS (of which he is not a member, since you know, hes such a devout recon) he mentioned "the remnants" twice, and in the context of refering to the members and their message of a constitutional government. 

The other 38.75 minutes he spent talking about peoples freedom to make their own decisions as to what they do with their bodies, economics, and anti-militancy.  Hardly the tone of a theocrat.

The idea that you want to tie a guy that rails constantly about peoples freedoms to do drugs and have whatever sexual relationships they want is self-evidently ludacris. 

As I mentioned, the guy got ringing endorsements from Kucinnich and Nader.  Its obvious that he is secretly a leftist, globalist, Eco-fascistic, socialist.  At least, so your own logic would lead us to believe. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 18:33 | 2079507 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Sorry, my friend, he said, at their big blow out party where he was THE keynote speaker (member or not,)

"The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth."

Stop denying the religious component.  It's a direct quote.

His religion and politics are in lock-step together.

You can't explain it away.  It belies your desperation.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck,...well, it's a duck.


Thu, 01/19/2012 - 18:53 | 2079584 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

I never denied what he said had a religious component.  You just don't seem capable of recognizing the difference between a religious person and a theocrat. 

Nor does having ones "religion and politics in lock step together" make one a theocrat.  My religion (isn't Christian) and my politics are "in lock step together" and yet I am not for rule by religious leaders.  The founders themselves freely admitted that their political beliefs were informed by their religion, yet they were certainly not setting up a theocracy.  Just read the DoI.

Maybe you should look up what Theocratic means?

Really, the guy talks tirelessly about individual freedom and choice being central to the US government.  He never shuts up about it.  Hes hardly going to advance Levitical law, as you so preposterously claim.

Talk about desperation....

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 07:36 | 2080566 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Paul's nutball supporters will take care of it for him on the state level, which is where he believes these laws belong.  He can mouth all the nonsense regarding personal freedom and liberty anyone can stand.  His Reconstructionist minions got his back.

>>>It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.<<<ion

You're an indication of easily people are fooled as to what he's about.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:15 | 2078806 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

"Having a religious belief does not make one a Theocrat"

no, but having a personal religious belief while holding office and attempting to enshrine your belief into LAW is Theocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

last put forth in 2011.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:24 | 2078849 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

The idea that life begins at conception is not a religious belief, it is a philosophical or scientific one.  Its also supported by the Declaration Of Independence, which is US law.

It also happens to be the only significant issue I disagree with Paul on.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:44 | 2078927 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow, can you point that out in the DoI for me???

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 16:00 | 2078988 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalieable Rights, among these being life...."

From the moment life is created, it has the same rights that any "man" posesses, and these rights come not from Man, but from the creator.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 18:28 | 2079490 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you're on thin ice here dude - all "men" are created equal?  yet there was the fight for equality from all those UNequal "men" throughout the middle of the last century.

you cannot remove "equality" of body integrity, aka the RIGHT to make decisions about one's own body, from the half of the population that are not "men" and call that ANYthing other than a theocracy.

and Paul has put forth that bill every two years this past decade, like clockwork, as his long-term followers are aware of, no doubt.

the newer "libertarian" folks. . . not paying attention.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 18:36 | 2079524 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

"you cannot remove "equality" of body integrity, aka the RIGHT to make decisions about one's own body, from the half of the population that are not "men" and call that ANYthing other than a theocracy."

Since this is the only part of your assertion that I can make sense of.....Of course you can.  Ever heard of the One child policy in China?  Hitler had no problem with breeding a master race, and talk about decisions over ones body  Shower anyone?    How about the draft?  How many non-theocratic states made the decision to turn their mens bodies into meat for political purposes?

History is FULL of non-theocratic examples of tyranny over ones body.  The US is an example.  Not that what you're saying has anything to do with the subject.  But really....
  MAybe try googling "theocracy" for a start.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:36 | 2079695 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

DD, I'm going to agree with you here - I have been using "theocracy" in the wrong context, and I'll not use it again to describe the attack on a female's body integrity.

as to your other examples of State rule over human's rights - well, they rather speak for themselves, IMO.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:51 | 2079732 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Thanks,
And like I said, this is the one thing I really disagree with him on.

Fri, 01/20/2012 - 07:53 | 2080580 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Don't be fooled CA Paul and his Reconstructionists efforts to undo a woman's legal right to an abortion and the stonings for adultery is Theocracy.

>>>It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.<<<

For them, it's about controlling women within their twisted male religious patriarch domain...and has nothing to do with true Christianity...and it doesn't fit some strict textbook definition of Theocracy because it's warped.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:31 | 2078354 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Oh, and Red Pill,

You can flush the little blue pills (Viagra) because you won't be needing them if your boy gets elected.

BWAHAHAHA!!!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:58 | 2078217 fuu
fuu's picture

Hi Gunslinger.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:07 | 2078249 macroeconomist
macroeconomist's picture

Here is your fav Ron Paul, and all the utter bulshit he has been saying over the years. Not too different fro Perry I guess...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?page=0,1

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:55 | 2078311 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

"This country lost its way a LONG time ago with its multiculturalist policies"

Yeah... It was all over when we started giving equal rights to the Irish..

Asshat.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:26 | 2078856 SAT 800
SAT 800's picture

with regard to his religious affiliation; I'd just like to say, "Thank You, Jesus".

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:32 | 2077616 VanillAnalyst
VanillAnalyst's picture

Rick Perry drop out of the race!?!? No chance at winning!?!? Well's that's just your theory!!! Just like Evolution!!!!

 

These people are all scrubs. Where's that german octopus when we need him. I bet he knows who the next president will be.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:27 | 2078079 Demologos
Demologos's picture

Dead.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:44 | 2078428 BigInJapan
BigInJapan's picture

I think that octopus died in an escape attempt.
He was trying to get to Vegas and really cash in.
Man that thing was good!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:49 | 2077673 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

/Sarcasm On/ Tonight she announces an affair between Gingrich and Perry, which is why Perry is dropping out today. /Sarcasm Off/

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:36 | 2077871 Momauguin Joe
Momauguin Joe's picture

Anybody catch the Doonsbury comic strip a couple of Sundays ago where short fuse bomb Gingrich is going through a Homeland Security "baggage" check at the airport? Laugh out loud funny.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/01/08

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:42 | 2077894 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

What's up LoneStar? How's that NDAA flying over on the Forum? State nullification? Best wishes!

 

Oath Keeper forever.

-JP

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:24 | 2077570 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Ménage à trois

...Gingrich is about to have his Cain moment.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:27 | 2077598 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Rick Perry: "My wife and I were going to have a threesome.  It was me, and Anita, and........um..........opps! I'm sorry, I can't name the thrid one."

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:33 | 2077623 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Gingrich is not on VA ballot, nor is Santorum.  Santorum also missed DC ballot - so he is already out  68 possible delegates.  Looks like Santorum might also be booted of IL ballot (So another  - http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/city/perry-santorum-may-be-booted-off-illinois-primary-ballot-1.2685772

It really is coming down to a two man race - Paul and Romney, Establishment Status Quo versus Freedom. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:45 | 2077659 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Hopefully, Paul will be able to pull off second in SC after Gingrinch goes down. My guess is the ABC conflict over whether to air it tonight had to do with whether it was the best strategy for getting their guy Romney as the Republican "choice". It may end up helping Paul but really the establishment is finding itself between a rock and a hard place.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:50 | 2077681 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Hope so.  Ron will run his campaign all of the way into the RNC in Tampa.  Problem is the alliances of delegates that will line up against Ron Paul.  A brokered convention looks to be in the cards right now. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:02 | 2077719 Debt-Is-Not-Money
Debt-Is-Not-Money's picture

 

"A brokered convention looks to be in the cards right now. "

There are those who believe this and it will end with Jeb Bush as the repub nominee, and that Obama is just a placeholder for the Bush/Klinton dyNASTY.

BARF

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:07 | 2077981 Nothing To See Here
Nothing To See Here's picture

You underestimate the establishment's evil. After Romney wins SC, the establishment will look at Florida. They may still let the game go until then since RP wont perform well there. But after Florida, they will call the game over and cancel the further debates. They will never let RP play the campaign in the next caucus states, let alone places like California or Texas which could change the race.

The only card RP can then play is the 3rd party run bluff. It all gets clear why he never ruled it out. But the GOP will call his bluff I believe since they know a 3rd party run won't take him very far without any debates, media coverage or entries on state ballots.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:53 | 2077687 55 men
55 men's picture

If you were still on the edge about the media being biased, here is ABCNEWS deciding whether to air the Gingich drama, if this was Dr. Paul it would be on the front page of every ariticle, but with Gingrich lets make sure we get the votes counted first.

 

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be "unethical" to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates. 

A decision was tentatively made to air the interview next Monday, after all votes have been counted. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:54 | 2077696 one man wolf pack
one man wolf pack's picture

Its funny that the media keeps saying Dr Paul is unelectable, yet they mention very little of the fact that Santorum and Gingrich can't beat Obama in a head to head race, but Mitt and Paul can. Santorum and Gingrich are unelectable because most independents will not vote for them once the liberal media gets done with them.  Then throw in Newt's upcoming ABC " This is your Life" special and I am sure there is one coming about Santorum showing that he doesn't want clean water or air, hates poor people and wants them to die, is a racist anti semite, and kicks his dog for fun. Also,the fact that Gingrich and Santorum aren't on the ballot in some of the states is just more of a reason for them to drop out. 

 I would love to see a head to head race between Mitt and Dr Paul.  Even if Mitt eventually beat Paul, maybe Paul could use the showing to get himself appointed Sec of Treas.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:07 | 2077731 55 men
55 men's picture

I don't think any other candidate can win without Ron Pauls endorsment, 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:14 | 2077762 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

Bingo. Millions of Ron Paul voters will refuse to hold their nose and vote for Mitt W. Obama.  I would imagine more than half of the millions of Ron Paul voters would vote for Gary Johnson or just not come out to vote.  At least there is where I am standing.  The GOP NEEDS Ron Paul's supporters, otherwise Mitt won't have enough to beat Obama.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:26 | 2077828 55 men
55 men's picture

The thing that I want RP to do is to explain exactly what he would do if without a doubt some terroist came over here. What I want him to say is something like....first I would have all my troops home, I would declare war and have difinitive proof who my enemy was, I would make a statement to the world that this kind of shit will not be tolerated, I would send every troop, navy, airforce, marine, etc, and sit on the border of this country and demand for the all who was involved, if demands werent met, I would tell the innocent they have a week or so to get all out and that any other country who harbors the terrorist will be next. At this time I would wipe the place clean.   

I am not saying this is perfect but the warmongers want to hear how he would defend America, I just think if he would explain how and just tell how ruthless he would be and that he wouldn't mess around for ten years, that it would be 6 months and that after he was done the country would look like the Sahara desert.

Feel free fix anything, 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:33 | 2077861 Dr. Richard Head
Dr. Richard Head's picture

That is fucking perfect. 

"If someone attacks America, our troops will be home and quite possibly be able to prevent it.  Should the attack be accomplished, we will bomb the living Newt out of those who were responsible - legally and following just war theory.  Then we would come right back home."

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:50 | 2077925 55 men
55 men's picture

I think he could use this whole foriegn policy being his weak point (according status qou) to his advantage. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:20 | 2077790 flattrader
flattrader's picture

>>>Its funny that the media keeps saying Dr Paul is unelectable,<<<

It's going to be hysterical when some political news analyst draws the connections between Ron Paul and his Christian Reconstructionist nutball supporters...you know the ones who want the death penalty for adultery?

It will take a TV commentator from the left to connect the dots for people regarding RP's relationship to Christian Reconstructionists.  The right is too beholden to the CRs and other fundamentalist wack-jobs.  They are afraid of them as they often form the core voters in party primaries.

Should RP get any real traction toward a candidacy bid, they will go to work on him.  Once this gets wider airplay, left-leaning independents and disaffected leftists will abandon Paul.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report have had great fun with him as a foil to the other candidates.  That could change in a heartbeat and they will be merciless.  Their stock in trade is humor based on ridicule, irony and sarcasm.  Ron Paul is a goldmine for all three.

It will be fun to watch.  They only need to juxtapose the internet rantings of his Christian Reconstructionist supporters (regarding stoning for adultery for example) with his mealy-mouthed positions on social and civil rights.

I could script the segment myself...so, Stewart and Colbert  writing staff, if you're reading pay attention

Since many Ron Paul bots are by and large, men and wholly unconcerned that he's sold-out on the Libertarian principle of control over your own body where women are concerned, I suggest Colbert or Stewart interview one of his rabid CR supporters on the Old Testament prohibition of "spilling seed" outside of procreation...and the penalty...death.

The interviewer can suggest that for enforcement purposes men bet fitted with electronic stiffy collars or penis lo-jacks, which will send out a signal when a man is about to climax.  These alerts can be then checked against marriage records to see if the penalty for "spilling seed", adultery or sodomy could be applied...again, death. 

Since women have no access to abortion...under any circumstances...rape, incest, life of the mother...DNA evidence will also be useful in determining the guilty party.

See here for Leviticus related penalties--
http://bible.org/seriespage/boundaries-godly-sexuality-leviticus-186-29

Nobody is gonna give a shit about RP nuanced answers regarding the U.S. Constitution and state's right when they get a load of his supporters' agendas.

His margins will erode as he's digging his own grave one endorsement at a time.  You can't hide who you are when this is the company you keep.

Ron Paul touts endorsement of pastor who defends death penalty for gays, delinquent children & adultery

http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/12/28/kayserendorsemen/

And for all the youngsters, wannabe Libertarians and self-deluded constitutionalists who think that RP administration will somehow equate to a more libertine society with a reduction in sex-related legal prohibitions, legalized pot (and other drugs) etc... and lower taxes, well, they are so very wrong.  These assholes just want "The Right to Privacy", the 14th Amendment and other so-called "fedgov constructs" out of the way so they can go to work implementing some sort of Old Testament law on the state level...watch your state taxes soar to pay for localized Christian Gulag enforcement.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:29 | 2077836 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Don't you have a drum to beat somewhere else?

And please, get another string for the fiddle as well.

Your anti-christian bias is making you sound ... like a wild-eyed TV evangelist.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:40 | 2077880 flattrader
flattrader's picture

I like my government--federal and state--secular and want to keep it that way...safe from the radically religous of all affiliations.

Mullah are mullah...Islamic, Christian or otherwise.

If you don't like the tune, it's because the music is haunting.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:44 | 2077903 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Supporting Ron Paul does not equate with supporting the supporters of Ron Paul.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:02 | 2077965 flattrader
flattrader's picture

RP is a theocratic nutball.  Don't pretend otherwise.

He speaks their language.  He is one of them.  Deal with it.

>>>At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the "remnant" left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North's publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul's keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, "He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, 'The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'"<<<

That's a direct quote in bold.  You can watch the address online.

His religious remnant holds the "political truth" together?  What crap.

I like my government secular and want to keep it that way.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:53 | 2078627 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

unlike most here, I followed up on the links you posted a few days ago flattrader, and then researched some more. . .

every single reply to your posts are just name calling, GTFO whining - not a one addresses the points you raise, nor the links you've posted.

it's really unsettling to watch ZH regulars completely swallow the voting game rules - pick a guy, pull your cap down over your eyes and ears, leave your mouth free to shout - but no due diligence, no questioning, no thinking ALLOWED.

these are the rules when engaging the voting game - don't question your chosen guy, but constantly dig at every personal detail of the other team.

gonna be a long year here. . .

(edit: already an anonymous junk, well go for it dude - vote your team, as if any of this circus matters)

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:07 | 2078771 flattrader
flattrader's picture

CA,

>>>gonna be a long year here...<<<

Well, maybe.

But, I fully expect Stewart or Colbert to dismantle Paul and expose him and his core, long-term supporters for the true theocratic nutcases they are before Super Tuesday.  The material is just too good to pass up.  It's what they do.

Right now they are using him as a foil against the other candidates.  They have to be polite. The gloves will come off if they see him gaining any real traction.

At some point he'll go Third Party.

We'll then have a true choice of the lesser of three evils...with one (Paul) being not much of a choice at all.

By then, the ZH Ron Paul faithful will dwindle and/or be largely demoralized post March 6th.

Europe will be blowing up and there will be plenty to talk about.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 22:19 | 2080120 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I guess what I was referring to was the long year of "I love RP!!" type posts. . . I loathe election years, everything devolves into team cheerleading, and so few do any real research on their choices, because the "I'm picking the least worst" type thinking quickly turns into "my guy is teh bestest!!!"

I'm also embarrassed to admit that I'd thought better of this site, as I've learned a lot about the financial world shenanigans from some of the posters here. . . I really didn't expect such a lack of critical thinking, that so many would still believe that a "vote counts" or that a "president" has any sway over the momentum of this huge, out of control juggernaut we face. . .

I appreciate your research, whatever your intentions might be - I don't vote, but I AM interested in the stories put forward by those in the race, and what's behind them - your links took me on some very interesting twists and turns, some of which I'm still looking at.  which is the point of research, yes?

best wishes.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:39 | 2078906 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

every single reply to your posts are just name calling, GTFO whining - not a one addresses the points you raise, nor the links you've posted.

Yes, people have so addressed this 'guilt by association' fallacy, and several times at that. A lot of people support Paul from dopehead dealeer wannabes to anti-semites, to social darwinists to free trade zealots to antiwar pacifists to tgold bugs to...well you name the category and Paul is likely getting at least some support from a few of them.

That should not mean, to a rational person, that Paul therefore agrees with all the views of those who publicly declare their support for him. In fact, that is one dirty trick often used by establishment candidates to smear otherwise vaild candidates in the minds of the public.

Really, you need to re-read the thread here.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:52 | 2079736 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

yes, it's true that the voters a candidate attracts are not necessarily fully representative of the actual candidates views - but they ARE a point of interest, to some at least.

I have a question for you - have you read Paul's infamous newsletters?  the ones that are headlined "The Ron Paul___Report" (various insert, such as "Survival" - names changed over the years) - where the writing is in first person, implying that the writing is by "Ron Paul" - I know there are many dodges on this issue, and Paul has said he should have paid closer attention, but didn't author them. . .

IF he in fact didn't author these "reports" with his name on them, with writing in first person style, THEN how did these newsletters get published for years and years without his knowing what they contained?  if in fact he didn't write them, how is it that something with one's name attributed to the words goes unnoticed for so long?  people were reading these newsletters, believing them to be "in his words" - yet he was unaware?   not buying it.  at the very least, Paul should have been more interested in his own reputation over decades, and taken a stance.  

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:53 | 2077937 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Another water carrier for the status quo...

Brainwashed and unenlightened.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:58 | 2077955 flattrader
flattrader's picture

Spilled any seed lately?

What size stiffy collar you want?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:22 | 2078838 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

You're full of shit.

Key policies
  • Balance America's budget within three years
  • Cut $1 trillion in spending in first year of presidency
  • Restore limited federal government by axeing five cabinet departments and cutting federal workforce by 10%
  • Cut corporate tax rate to 15%, extend all Bush tax cuts, end taxes on personal savings
  • Abolish the US Federal Reserve, eventually return to the gold standard and open currency competition
  • Abolish 'Obamacare', ending requirement for Americans to have government-approved health insurance
  • Bring home troops from Afghanistan and other US bases around the world
  • End "war on drugs"
  • Make securing borders top national security priority
  • Restore civil liberties eroded by Patriot Act
Thu, 01/19/2012 - 18:53 | 2079594 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you conveniently left off  Sanctity of Life Act like virtually every other dude posting here.

"restore civil liberties" uh, yeah.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:40 | 2078912 JimBowie1958
JimBowie1958's picture

You really have to be the biggest ignoramus troll here at ZH, bar none, even Robotrader.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:35 | 2077865 Caggge
Caggge's picture

The only reason Ron Paul is unelectable is because they only count the votes they want to count.

 

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10188663-iowa-republic...

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:11 | 2078260 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

You wasted a lot of valuable space here flattrader...and your still breathing my air.  Please stop both.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:35 | 2078382 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Nothing but baseless fear-mongering.  How typically typical.

It is pretty ironic to be cast as a Christian recon.  Being about as opposite that as possible. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:35 | 2078637 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

did you even read the links he posted?  or are you just hanging with the majority on the thread??

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:45 | 2078663 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Its a pretty irrelevant story. So what?  A pastor that has some screwy ideas endorsed Paul because of his views on the economy.  The Paul camp mentioned the endorsement, then pulled it when they found out the guys other views.

Thats how politics works.  You find common ground with people and see past your diffrences to affect change.  Kinda a critical skill if you want to be president actually.

I know self-described Wiccans that support Paul.  Maybe hes a witch AND a Christian Recon. ROFL.
Really...Do we want to have a guilt-by-association contest with the rest of the candidates?  Its one that Paul would win.

Its so comical watching the Paul haters try to come up with something...ANYTHING to get the guy on. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 17:49 | 2079377 akak
akak's picture

DD, I applaud you in your use of LOGIC to utterly refute the specious guilt-by-association nonsense trolling of Flattrader, or the milder but still flawed arguments of CathartesAura (sorry CA, but it had to be said) to likewise unjustly smear Ron Paul.  Many people STILL have an impossible time of imagining a political candidate having personal views that IN NO WAY affect, or are reflected in, their political positions.  The statist mindset just AUTOMATICALLY assumes that whatever a candidate believes will necessarily be directly translated into public policy --- because with most of the completely unprincipled political candidates nowadays, Ron Paul excepted, that is exactly how it works.  When one has no guiding principles or fundamental political philosophy, it is all too easy to substitute personal biases and beliefs for bedrock principles, but I have NEVER seen Ron Paul do such a thing in the more than 20 years that I have followed his political career.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:03 | 2079617 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

akak, we've had the argument, and I respect your opinions - however, how can you write in your post

Many people STILL have an impossible time of imagining a political candidate having personal views that IN NO WAY affect, or are reflected in, their political positions.  The statist mindset just AUTOMATICALLY assumes that whatever a candidate believes will necessarily be directly translated into public policy --- because with most of the completely unprincipled political candidates nowadays, Ron Paul excepted, that is exactly how it works.

when Paul's Sanctity of Life Act is put forward by him in the years 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011?

I did a lot of research on this, and virtually none of the Paul forums has anyone talking about this - it's all "I love him because he's for personal liberty and personal sovereignty" blahblahblah - which leads me to believe either it's mostly young males voting for him, or NO ONE IS EVEN AWARE of this "side" of Paul.

and if people can't see how government, ALL government, is in the business of building on the LAWS it continues to pass, incrementally removing any notion of personal rights as they stack the LAWS against us, then I'm sorry, I can't respect that as an intelligent position. 

this is what voting is all about, choosing what to believe, what to ignore, the "best of the bad options" - no thanks.

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:17 | 2079650 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Thanks, I usually don't try this hard with trolls, but I'm bedridden today, and I'm a sucker for bad logic.  It is statist brainwashing isn't it?  Must admit, I never thought of that.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 15:23 | 2078847 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

And can you tell me what it fucking matters whether women will have control over their own bodies if people don't have control over their own destinies, speech, rights, guns, lives?  If RP is elected and Roe v. Wade is thrown away, women will go back to the back-alley butchers, business as usual.  If Mittrack ORomney is elected, women, men, and children will go to the detention camps, stripped of all legal rights and their citizenship.  If I were a woman I know which one I'd be picking.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:23 | 2079663 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Of course the fallicy there is that Paul can just declare RVW void... OR that he would want to in the middle of trying to push through his agenda on THE STUFF HE ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT. 

Its really just baseless fear mongering by people that don't realize they are being propagandized by the left.  Its funny isn't it, that they aren't so rabid about, say...Santorum, an ACTUAL (and unashamed) theocrat. 

Your point is right on... You guys wanna talk choice?  How about due process?  How about "States should decide on birth control" Santorum?  How about the choice in wheather or not your country starts world war three?  What is the point of having the right to have an abortion in an economy where you can't afford one?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 19:22 | 2079665 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

Of course the fallacy there is that Paul can just declare RVW void... OR that he would want to in the middle of trying to push through his agenda on THE STUFF HE ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT. 

Its really just baseless fear mongering by people that don't realize they are being propagandized by the left.  Its funny isn't it, that they aren't so rabid about, say...Santorum, an ACTUAL (and unashamed) theocrat. 

Your point is right on... You guys wanna talk choice?  How about due process?  How about "States should decide on birth control" Santorum?  How about the choice in wheather or not your country starts world war three?  What is the point of having the right to have an abortion in an economy where you can't afford one?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 22:37 | 2080149 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

nah, that's not a great argument -

What is the point of having the right to have an abortion in an economy where you can't afford one?

because many women know how to interrupt a recent impregnation without pharma-medical interference - however, should a woman decide to do this, and the "religious thought police" get wind of it, vindictive "reporting to authorities" will of course be something people just can't imagine. . . at this stage. . . 

what if a woman chooses to end her recent impregnation - is she then a murderer in the State's view?  what if I decide to share advice with another woman?  shall I be jailed for murder too?  there are so many "what ifs" I can think of here, none of them the word "liberty" applies to.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:54 | 2077939 Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

Unelectable in the republican primaries. They are just batshit crazy enough to elect Santorum. But Paul has no chance. After all the fighting and all the santorum has dried on the sheets, the republicans will do what the banks and "the machine" wants and vote for Romney. The general election however, is a different story.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:21 | 2077573 fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

I can't wait to read the headline "Perry endorses Romney"

It will just sound so funny

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:19 | 2077796 Screwball
Screwball's picture

News just said he will endorce Newt.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:22 | 2077575 Bill Lumbergh
Bill Lumbergh's picture

Bilderberger Bobby will be missed by many.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:26 | 2077587 Muddy1
Muddy1's picture

exactly, now he and dubya can go quail hunting and invite Chenney

perhaps he will be appointed ambassador to Mexico and help negotiate the "reconquista" of the American southwest

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:26 | 2077588 Mercury
Mercury's picture

I remember a Doonsbury cartoon from the Clinton era depicting the speaker in the hospital serving his wife divorce papers.

Wife: Divorce?! but I'm dying of cancer!

Newt: Press down hard, you're making three copies.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:30 | 2077602 trav7777
trav7777's picture

but the current president has body men and membership to DLCs and nobody says shit about it...

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:50 | 2077678 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I'm sorry. I can't figure out what membership to DLCs means. Is it somehow refering to being on the DL (I learned about the DL by listening to the urban radio station for fun)?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 12:41 | 2078142 Demologos
Demologos's picture

Google Wayne Madsen and DLC.  It is an acronym for male on male sex clubs.  The participants used it so in phone taps it would sound like they were referring to the Democratic Leadership Council.  Oh hell, here's the link that was the first hit on Google:  http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/washington-insider-oba...

In the 60's this kind of association that leads to potential blackmail of politicians, military officers and news media figures was called the "Homintern."  Another fun Google exercise for ya!

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 13:07 | 2078245 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

"Newt: Press down hard, you're making three copies."

I copied the who thing and sent it to all my friends...damn that was funny.  Sadly it only went to my wife...and she probably wont read it...

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:24 | 2077589 Greater Fool
Greater Fool's picture

...and Robomney marches on to glorious victory.

He even looks a little like John Kerry, doesn't he?

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:49 | 2077671 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

And therefore ObaMao easily wins, completing another successfull rigged puppet show 'election' that the people had no say in at all.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:26 | 2077596 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

I've had it with these money-grubbing super PACs messing with our Monday to Friday elections!

 

http://youtu.be/ObEsbLggGM0

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:32 | 2077615 a growing concern
a growing concern's picture

Hey, who's the negative Nancy around here?  Douche.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:30 | 2077604 Parabolic
Parabolic's picture

G'bye pRick!!  Next is Dick Santorum to hit the road.  Neutered Gingrich is long gone at this point once SHTF with his ex...

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:01 | 2077677 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

+100. Totally agree. And Rick "the Dick" Sanitarium, the pussy that he is with his f___y sweater vests will be vying for more Conservitive Christian votes.. Uugg.

Perry always made the argument that it's "us against them" and their busy installing "Them" into the system... Again!

Gimmi a break, this whack job Sanitarium brought his dead baby boy home for his children to "bond with" Come to find out, he is having an affair with an abortion doctor. How sick is that? I shit you not, go search it.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:30 | 2077605 LasVegasDave
LasVegasDave's picture

Gingrich will get a nice bounce after this media cheap shot, and will win south carolina.

any takers?

(Note to the OWS crowd: takers means gamblers, not parasites with their hands out.)

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:30 | 2077608 sabra1
Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:31 | 2077609 Screwball
Screwball's picture

Keep leaving scumbags - I want to see Mittens against Paul, one on one - and let's talk money.   Should be in the wheelhouse of both.  Now all we need is the right pundit to ask the right questions.

Unfortunately, good luck with that.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:32 | 2077619 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

Perry should support Ron Paul

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:32 | 2077856 Deo vindice
Deo vindice's picture

Perry won't. But some of his Texan supporters will.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 14:39 | 2078647 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

because their policies are similar?  or because it's easy to just vote your state??

seriously, why would someone who voted for Perry now support Paul??  because they're Texan??? 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 17:53 | 2079388 akak
akak's picture

Even a blind elephant can find a life-giving waterhole now and then.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 20:03 | 2079756 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

lol, & *gah*

voting season sucketh.  I can't be bothered with the way it turns critical thinking into pompom waving. . . I'll probably just spend less time reading/posting as the shit swirls the drain this year. . . what's the point really.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:34 | 2077624 WALLST8MY8BALL
WALLST8MY8BALL's picture

OOPS

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:35 | 2077626 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Yaaay! Friggin RINO. He was a Democrat before he was installed in Texas. He is a horrible condidate and I have no idea how he got this far.

My prediction, Romney / Christie or Rubio ticket in the making.

The Enemy.

Ron Paul 2012 if God will's. 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:43 | 2077649 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The Dems are saying "You keep him. We sure as hell don't want him back"

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:56 | 2077700 Tortuga
Tortuga's picture

A Texas Dem in those days supported 2nd amendt, was right to life, sent murders to DEATH, no pardons, didn't support welfare or medicaid, was not politically correct, did not support Affirmative Action, supported right to work, etc. Would have been booted out of any Dem organization anywhere in the USA, except for maybe OKLA and Montana. Christi is as RINO as Romney, McCain, Graham, Nelson, Hutchinson etc. Bankster prostitutes each and every one.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:11 | 2077745 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

All that said, I see a good Constitutional figure, BUT, he has turned his back on all those values recently. In-state tuition for illegals and against a border fence.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/rick-perry-tells-new-hampshire-audience-hes-against-a-border-fence/

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 11:15 | 2077768 Stax Edwards
Stax Edwards's picture

We are apparantly living in a DINO

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:35 | 2077627 lindaamick
lindaamick's picture

Had a look at BigFinance donations lately?  Romney is their guy. 

 

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 10:36 | 2077629 jmcadg
jmcadg's picture

BBC News saying Perry out, supporting Gingrich and (Welcome Home) Sanitarium won Iowa by 34?

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