You should really stick to chit-chat Pryderi.

You're out of your element.

5/1/2011 9:36:57 PM

My element is Krypton, it's an inert gas, the most chill of all the gases, and it kills superman.

5/1/2011 10:18:21 PM

Lock it up

5/1/2011 11:28:41 PM

they are sure to win

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

5/1/2011 11:29:27 PM

Nothing to see here now, we can close the book on this crowd

5/2/2011 12:24:16 AM

ok so who will the sacrificial lamb be?

5/2/2011 12:31:26 AM

5/2/2011 11:49:30 AM

First GOP debate tonight at 9pm on Fox news.

Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum all in attendance.


should be . . . . . . . . . . . . good?

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 12:28 PM. Reason : where are the "front runners"]

5/5/2011 12:27:32 PM

^thanks for reminding me.

5/5/2011 12:28:09 PM

Gingrich made it official. Does Newt have as many wives as bin Laden had?

5/10/2011 6:56:40 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Bin Laden ever divorced a cancer patient.

5/10/2011 10:09:33 PM

^or commit a felony

5/10/2011 10:23:18 PM

^^It's always nice to see those false rumors fly. His wife requested the divorce, and she didn't have cancer.

5/10/2011 11:27:07 PM

Yeah! You can't be spreading those false rumors, especially when we're still waiting for the president(WHO MIGHT BE A MUSLIM!)'s birth certificate!

5/10/2011 11:37:04 PM

herp derp

5/11/2011 12:09:59 AM

Quote :

"His wife requested the divorce"

I'd want a divorce if I were being cheated on, too.

Quote :

"she didn't have cancer."

Source? I see one article written by their daughter saying she was just in the hospital for the removal of a noncancerous tumor and numerous other articles that say she was in the hospital for surgery related to uterine cancer.

Okay, let me rephrase my statement. If anybody takes issue with the facts in this, let me know:

Newt Gingrich has admittedly cheated on two of the three women he's been married to. The first of these two women was Jackie Battley, his high school geometry teacher. According to her daughter, she was diagnosed with cancer in the spring of 1978. They divorced in February of 1981.

5/11/2011 12:28:06 AM

It wasn't a big deal when Clinton, Edwards, and possibly Obama had affairs. Who cares? We need to be focused on legitimate issues and stop dirt slinging on trivial shit
I

5/11/2011 3:43:02 AM

^^I've got no issues with saying he cheated. He did. But don't act like it's a huge deal, because it's not. He, and his daughters, have all said the divorce had nothing to do with cancer, she had a benign tumor removed. That's what I'm going off of. But I agree with this guy^.

5/11/2011 8:38:14 AM

Quote :

"It wasn't a big deal when Clinton, Edwards had affairs"

No, it was actually a pretty big deal. I agree with you that it shouldn't be, though.

5/11/2011 8:40:51 AM

Quote :

"It wasn't a big deal when Clinton, Edwards, and possibly Obama had affairs"

Really? It wasn't a big deal when Clinton had an affair? I seem to recall one Newt Gingrich, who was cheating on his second wife at the time, by the way, leading the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.

Did ANYBODY in the political sphere not completely abandon John Edwards when his infidelities came to light? Do you know anybody who doesn't think he's a complete dirtbag?

And I like how you throw in that "possibly Obama". Do you have a source for that? Or is it possibly made up?

Newt Gingrich lecturing people on family values and the sanctity of marriage is like Michael Vick lecturing people on animal welfare.

5/11/2011 9:52:21 AM

^I agree, no need to throw Obama in there.

Impeachment was brought because of felony perjury, not having an affair. (which isnt illegal)

And Edwards affair was broken by the fucking Enqurier. In which he still went on national TV and denied and the media ate it up.... until they found out he lied about that too. haha.

Id MUCH rather have Newt than O in the whitehouse, but he wouldnt be my first pick. His party first attitude bothers me before his affair.

5/11/2011 9:59:57 AM

Why was Clinton asked if he was getting his dick sucked under oath?

5/11/2011 11:08:02 AM

OH! I KNOW! WAIT FOR IT....























































REPUBLICAN PENIS ENVY!

5/11/2011 11:08:56 AM

^if you really are interested in what happened.

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

5/11/2011 7:13:12 PM

We need to investigate every nominee with the same intensity that Ken Starr did to Bill Clinton.

5/11/2011 7:24:00 PM

It is funny how many blame Starr for the investigation, but he was commissioned, with the approval of Janet Reno, to be an independent investigator to look into a host of issues surrounding Clinton. Repubs thought they had enough, with evidence, of felony perjury to impeach Clinton. But this requires 2/3 votes to pass. (Damn near impossible these days.)

Starr's report also concluded that Vince Foster killed himself which wasnt whatt clinton's conservative political opponents wanted to hear, or had been saying. Dont hear much about that though. Just that he was a GOP puppet and witch hunt. Funny how time and politics change things.

5/11/2011 9:45:56 PM

5/14/2011 1:05:46 AM

5/14/2011 4:56:38 PM

[Edited on May 14, 2011 at 6:31 PM. Reason : 2]

5/14/2011 6:28:47 PM

Huckabee is out. So the fight will be between Gingrich and Romney with Ron Paul shaping the debate but not the primary itself.

5/15/2011 2:22:27 AM

You guys give credibility to the media enhanced candidates when you say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance. Don't let the media drive your opinion of who can win. The best candidates emerge in a free political system and the internet is creating a much freer political system than we've ever had before.

One day the elections may actually come down to the issues and then candidates like Paul can win. There's no need to denigrate them on the internet, you can turn on the tv to CBS news if you want spew.

5/15/2011 1:55:48 PM

Quote :

"One day the elections may actually come down to the issues and then candidates like Paul can win"

It's indicative of the unrealistic view of the world that you possess when you so matter-of-factly state that your extremist views actually reflect the beliefs of most americans.

5/15/2011 2:06:31 PM

most americans are idiots and they dont know what they are voting for.

I would think that most americans are against stealing, personally. But they dont vote that way.

5/15/2011 2:17:10 PM

It's hard to take you seriously when you constantly talk in hyperbole stemming from a mindset whose only logical conclusion is total anarchy.

5/15/2011 2:58:15 PM

I can't help but laugh when people say "total anarchy". What else is there? Partial anarchy? There either is or is not a state...

What you're actually doing is equating "anarchy" and "chaos", which is incorrect. I mean, I think anarchy is stupid personally, but brushing it off as something it isn't is just as dumb.

5/15/2011 4:07:16 PM

If you consider all taxation to be theft at gunpoint, and you consider that something that must be eliminated, then you must be oppose all taxation and seek its elimination. Is my logic incorrect?

If all taxation were eliminated, the government would be unable to function. This would lead to an absence of government. "Anarchy" means an absence of government. Therefore, working from the assumption that all taxation is theft, it logically follows that anarchy is preferable to our current situation.

5/15/2011 4:35:46 PM

Forgot just the tax code.

how is fannie mae not stealing? It's a transfer from one group of people to another group of people and it's done fairly secretly, look at when they released their explosive news last week.. Friday after hours... barely got a mention that they are fucked beyond repair.

But we've got people saying the #1 issue in this country is abortion, lol.

5/15/2011 5:50:35 PM

I could see voting for Ron Paul in the primary just to send a statement to the GOP. There are a few things that I really take issue with him on in terms of him actually being the President, but that's just an academic exercise, anyway. The reality is that there is a 0% chance that Ron Paul will ever be elected President.

In any case, I'm more inclined to make my "statement" vote for Gary Johnson.

Additionally, Congressman Paul's criticism of making the hit on Osama bin Laden just cements my view of him as a silly moonbat, even though I'm still grateful that he at least is moving the chains a little for libertarianism.

If we (libertarians) could get someone who is Presidential and a moderate pragmatist, we might be able to get somewhere. As it is, most of the rest of you goddamn ridiculous capital-"L" types can sit smugly back in your fringe ideological purity, but that's never going to put a dent in anything, and the rest of Washington will keep right on shitting all over everything.

5/15/2011 6:38:06 PM

Quote :

"If all taxation were eliminated, the government would be unable to function. This would lead to an absence of government. "Anarchy" means an absence of government. Therefore, working from the assumption that all taxation is theft, it logically follows that anarchy is preferable to our current situation."

Thoreau said it best, I think: "I heartily accept the motto,—'That government is best which governs least;' and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

For the most part, individualist anarchists and the more typical constitutionalist libertarians seem to have the same policy recommendations, which revolve around eliminating harmful government interventions. The divergence is what they believe "final product" would look like if we fully embraced libertarian ideals.

^When you think about how awful business as usual is in Washington, it becomes obvious that we need a radical change. To make the calculated, rational decision to vote for that change is akin to jumping into a chilly pool. If we decide to make the change necessary to get back on the right track, it will strike the people as extreme at first. I think having Obama for another 4 years would be a true disaster. We have to get our fiscal house in order, and that has to be the number one priority. I'm not going to support a candidate that I think doesn't have the balls to pull the trigger once in office.

5/15/2011 7:20:12 PM

Quote :

"When you think about how awful business as usual is in Washington, it becomes obvious that we need a radical change."

You are completely missing the point.

There is not going to be a radical change, at least not in one fell swoop. The best that can be hoped for is a significant and meaningful step in the right direction. You can either have a moderate pragmatist of a libertarian-leaning Republican, or nothing at all.

5/15/2011 7:34:17 PM

I think that's a false dilemma. We don't need another Reagan that talks a good game and then ends up ramping up big government. It doesn't seem like you fully understand how bad of shape our economy is in. You've got to know that these deficits cannot go on forever. We depend on foreign creditors to buy our bonds. More and more of the bonds are being purchased by the Federal Reserve, which is now manifesting in the form of inflation. It's a serious thing, man. We have to elect someone that will draw a line in the sand and never budge, which means using the power of veto. If we don't, then we as individuals stand to lose a lot.

5/15/2011 7:45:59 PM

Believe me, I wholeheartedly agree with taking a pragmatic approach. Even though he didn't do all that well at the OMB under Bush, I think I'd still be willing to vote for Mitch Daniels if it comes to that. I'm not sure I'd sacrifice all that much more though. Certainly not a Newt/Romney/Pawlenty/etc.

As d357r0y3r said, we are in for dire consequences if major action isn't taken. I just don't see anyone other than Paul/Johnson or possibly Daniels as doing anything to take a step in the right direction economically.

My opinion could completely change, though, if Daniels comes out and is a hawk or something. I doubt he will though, because he's well aware of how much our interventions cost, and he can't have a repeat of his Bush OMB years.

5/15/2011 8:32:28 PM

I'm not an expert on Mitch Daniel, but someone like that is what we need...I'm probably somewhat to the left of him socially, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Gary Johnson is probably about the most extreme candidate that I can see having even a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected to the Presidency, and even that would probably be unlikely, at least at the moment.

Ron Paul...I appreciate his presenting libertarianism and adherence to the Constitution to the masses, but there is no fucking way he'll ever be President...not to mention the true, die-hard, party-line, card-carrying, capital-"L" Libertarian types, who are relegated to be footnotes, at best.

[Edited on May 15, 2011 at 8:54 PM. Reason : odd that you're disparaging hawks when your namesake was the ultimate hawk]

5/15/2011 8:53:20 PM

^watching the SC debate I think Johnson and Paul tie for the award of Makes the most sense, but are the most awkward to watch.


Trump is out. I know most people are surprised.

5/16/2011 1:16:26 PM

I called it almost a month ago:

Quote :

"fyi, Trump isn't running. It's all smoke and mirrors. 4/23/2011 12:21:15 PM"

5/16/2011 1:28:24 PM

DOWN GOES GINGRICH, DOWN GOES GINGRICH!

Quote :

" "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich told host David Gregory on the NBC show. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate." On Monday, Ryan went on Laura Ingraham's radio show, where he told guest host Raymond Arroyo, "With allies like that, who needs the left?" Ryan does have an ally in Rush Limbaugh, who was baffled by Gingrich's comments. "I am not going to justify this. I am not going to explain it," Limbaugh said Monday to his national radio audience. "The attack on Paul Ryan, the support for an individual mandate in healthcare? Folks, don’t ask me to explain this. There is no explanation! What do you mean, 'If I don't explain it, who will?' There is no explanation for it," Limbaugh said. "First off, it cuts Paul Ryan off at the knees. It supports the Obama administration in the lawsuits that 26 states have filed over the mandate. I guess, what? Back in 1993, Newt supported an individual mandate, everybody should buy insurance. I am as befuddled as anyone else is what I’m telling you." "

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/rush-limbaugh-on-newt-gingrichs-attack-on-paul-ryan-im-as-befuddled-as-anyone-else.html

5/16/2011 11:45:07 PM

Gingrinch has some seriously twisted and archaic views. I hope his campaign fizzles and dies before it gets much more publicity.

Mitch Daniels is my favorite candidate at this time. Some of his views I don't support but there are a lot I agree with...and more importantly very few that I vehemently disagree with. The same cannot be said for just about any other candidate.

Romney seems like a lying piece of shit snake oil salesman.

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM. Reason : fgh]

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM. Reason : m]

5/17/2011 2:19:47 PM

there is not one single GOP candidate that i have any confidence in and its sad!

5/17/2011 4:01:11 PM

Look up Gary Johnson. If you're intent on being a Ron Paul hater, Johnson comes across as a little less cooky.

5/17/2011 4:09:40 PM

with trump out looks like itll be the candidate with the next most money.

/practicality

5/17/2011 4:18:51 PM