Ron Paul and Jessie Ventura?

[jmervyn]

Now an additional comment, with less teh funy.

Obama is poised to reshape the United States, not just for the next few years, but for a generation. At least two, and probably three, and quite possibly four Supreme Court justices will be chosen by whoever wins the 2012 election. Think of what a liberal Supreme Court would have done in just the past few years. The Second Amendment would be treated only as a collective right (Heller and McDonald). Citizens could be prohibited from exercising their freedom of speech when they also exercise their freedom of association (Citizens United). Capital punishment would be unconstitutional (Roper and Kennedy dissents). The partial-birth abortion ban would be unconstitutional (Carhart). Private organizations couldn't exclude members they don't want (Boy Scouts of America). Now imagine what a liberal Supreme Court could during the next thirty years.

[SaroDarksbane]

Incidentally, to get in another logic-oriented dig at Saro... aside from the military, here's another constituency that we could discuss Paul having deep throat-ed support from:

“I really appreciate the fact that Ron Paul respects states’ rights and individual rights. It seems like he really understands our rights to do what we want.” - Cami Parker, apparently -er- well known Bunny Ranch employee

That's not a dig at all. I'd rather have the endorsement of a prostitute at the Bunny Ranch than the endorsement of a prostitute named Trump.

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

[BobCox2]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Malor?
no link?
"Obama is poised to reshape the United States, not just for the next few years, but for a generation. At least two, and probably three, and quite possibly four Supreme Court justices will be chosen by whoever wins the 2012 election. Think of what a liberal Supreme Court would have done in just the past few years. The Second Amendment would be treated only as a collective right (Heller and McDonald). Citizens could be prohibited from exercising their freedom of speech when they also exercise their freedom of association (Citizens United). Capital punishment would be unconstitutional (Roper and Kennedy dissents). The partial-birth abortion ban would be unconstitutional (Carhart). Private organizations couldn't exclude members they don't want (Boy Scouts of America). Now imagine what a liberal Supreme Court could during the next thirty years."

If you can argue (Boy Scouts of America) as a corporation can officially preach(Citizens United) "Homosexuals are bad" all they want as long as they don't exclude them, I don't have a problem with anything on that list of decisions.

[SaroDarksbane]

Rick Santorum takes all three states. Unbelievable. If this is what the GOP has reduced itself too, then God help us all, because that means four more of Obama.

[BobCox2]

Rick Santorum takes all three states. Unbelievable. If this is what the GOP has reduced itself too, then God help us all, because that means four more of Obama.

The Media showed us all they can hack the voting machines, and How!

What's the surprise?

Calvinball is in play!

[jmervyn]

That's not a dig at all.

The dig being at your logical fallacy (phallacy?) of claiming Paul is morally superior because of the people who support him.

I don't have a problem with anything on that list of decisions.

Solely because I hate trying to parse your typing, do you mean to say you wish those decisions had come to pass? As in, you think the 2nd Amendment is a collective, rather than individual right? That freedom of association and speech are exclusionary?

Rick Santorum takes all three states. Unbelievable. If this is what the GOP has reduced itself too, then God help us all, because that means four more of Obama.

Pish-tosh. This was a reaction to exactly what you were whining about in the first place. Romney is viewed (improperly, I strongly suspect) as a Progressive while Santorum is viewed as being less Progressive (improperly again, I even more strongly suspect).

[Stevinator]

2nd Amendment: I don't 100% fathom the difference, but if making it a collective right means they can take away people's guns (or block them from buying them), then I'm for individual rights. Basically, the right to carry a gun should only be limited in very common sense cases. You're a convicted violent criminal, You're mentally unstable, etc. Concealed carry should be legal almost anywhere. I don't mind having to register guns, I only wonder if that's a pre-cursor to taking them away.

I also don't own a gun, though I have considered it, it just seems like an expensive thing to have around, and requires a lot of care, legal mumbo-jumbo and all the rest. in IL you have to have a foid card to buy a gun, but I've heard across the border (any of them) you can just use your driver's license.

Citizens United: Allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on ads for campaigns is no better than allowing unions to strong arm people into voting democratic. I'd like to find a way to get money out of politics. we might get better politicians.

Capital Punishment: Technically I'm for it, but it's not a big issue with me. Isn't a life sentence the same thing? Seems to me if it was for all the legal rigmarole, we could execute those that need to be removed from society and save a pile of money.

Abortion: Abortion is terrible, but it shouldn't be illegal. When the morality of something is this murky, we should err on the side of freedom by letting the individual closest to the issue make the correct determination. I'd like to think that she would've made that decision long before she got to a partial birth abortion--that's particularly troublesome, but I still think that's her decision. I'm not one to impose my set of morals on another, and I wish most conservatives felt the same way.

Boy Scouts: they are a private organization, and while it's pretty crappy to say hey kid, we're kicking you out because you're ***, again, they should be able to do whatever they want in a private organization. Would you still feel the same if someone was throwing out a kid because he was black? See i think even you realize that's crappy.


Government can't and shouldn't force people to do the right thing. I'd love to tell everyone that they should think like me. certainly i think we'd be better off. but that flies in the face of what this country is supposed to be about.

[SaroDarksbane]

The dig being at your logical fallacy (phallacy?) of claiming Paul is morally superior because of the people who support him.

1. Where did I claim Ron Paul was morally superior because of who supports him? He's morally superior because of his positions and track record.
2. And even if I had, how would the endorsement of a prostitute refute that anyway?
3. And even if it did, we already agree he's also endorsed by white supremacists, so I don't see how a prostitute would be a worse endorsement than what we already know.

Swing and a miss, there, any way you look at it.

As for Santorum's win, I will say one thing: it certainly puts a lie to the idea that money is the end-all and be-all of politics, since he doesn't have nearly the amount of funding the other candidates do and totally killed it last night.

EDIT:

It also apparently proves that the non-Paul candidates don't understand how caucuses work:

[Stevinator]

um, how the hell?

please explain the graphic, why would paul get the delagate from CO? didn't he lose?

Also, this:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/02/08...-the-gop-race/

So it does not look good for Ron.

not that my opinion matters, Obama will win Illinois handily. Last time it was something like 2:1 (or close) in his favor. in fact, i find it unlikely that Obama loses to any of the GOP candidates. The only big picture things he has going against him are being black (which might actually help him out) and Obamacare. I think the economy will be improved by november--at least enough that when people ask themselves am I better off than i was four years ago, they'll have to say yes. Four years ago we were in full-on meltdown. Fair or not (and that's not really), it's hard to make the argument that we should be better of than we are in a 30 second TV spot. the base might buy that but the less engaged swing voters aren't going to buy it.

Besides if Romney Wins the nomination, he can't really attack obama on health care anyway, since he set up basically the same system.

So sorry Jmerv, but you're probably going to lose those supreme court appointments.

[SaroDarksbane]

um, how the hell?

please explain the graphic, why would paul get the delagate from CO? didn't he lose?

The popular vote in caucus states is just a straw poll, essentially, and meaningless for choosing delegates. Delegates are apportioned by the number of supporters for each candidate that stick around to be counted after the fact. The delegate counts you see reported in the news are either for (A) bound delegates (none of last night's states have any of those) or (B) a projection based on the straw poll results, which as we can see are not necessarily a good measure.

I think the economy will be improved by november

I think it's likely that the economy will have the facade of improvement, anyway. That's what a cheap credit high is good for, after all; making people think they are wealthy. And if Obama can just get a few million more people to give up on looking for work entirely, he can claim he brought the unemployment rate down to nil!

EDIT:

Fox cancels Judge Napolitano's show.