Rick Perry prevents catastrophe as South Carolina, Florida loom

This article comes from the National Post, Canada's premiere conservative news paper, often to the right of even our Conservative party politicians:

This is the same argument the South used to support slavery, and which GOP candidates have used to oppose same-sex marriage. It’s not that they hate gays, you see, it’s just that they support the states’ right to make anti-gay laws if they see fit. “States’ rights” has become a convenient way for federal politicians to support positions that provoke opposition in a large segment of the population, while pretending it’s all about a constitutional point of principle.

Canada has hate speech laws. The thoughts of Canadians on the nature of freedom are like the thoughts of Richard Dawkins on religion: shallow, superficial, incurious, and almost always wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You can tell this was written by a woman. Also, I love it when foreigners think they have the right to comment on American politics. WELL YOU SEE I AM NOT PART OF YOUR COUNTRY BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY

You're telling me that a feminist c*nt doesn't understand the Constitution? I'm shocked! Naturally, as progressives want to control the population, they're going to push for measures that increase the size and scope of the government.

Canada has hate speech laws. The thoughts of Canadians on the nature of freedom are like the thoughts of Richard Dawkins on religion: shallow, superficial, incurious, and almost always wrong.

Exhibit A: why American conservatives are idiots

EDIT: btw, not written by a woman, but its cool how smart you are all the time

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is a problem that has been on the horizon for the Republicans since 2000, at least. When you "rally the base" you have to push your whole platform to get their support and end up with candidates they like but come election time the base isn't large enough to let you win. If you've been going more and more extreme to sustain the excitement in the base eventually things will drop out from under you when the candidates you chose don't appeal to anyone else.

If they lose this election it might force party leaders to reevaluate their tactics. Moving further away from identification with the evangelicals while still upholding their issues seems like a good move, they're certainly not a group that will look kindly on democrats while being seen with them puts a lot of people on edge.

interesting point...

but if the base wants these extreme politicians, how will they ever move back. I almost see the GOP fragmenting before they unite under some moderate so long as that means non-evangelical corporatist, which it almost has to be to be "mainstream"

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Oh and according to this it doesnt even look like ron paul is in NH

🙄

come on, Paul finished a whole 3% behind the two who essentially tied for first, his candidacy is over

Over?

The man never had a candidacy. lol. Ron Paul will never be president, and will never even get close.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Over?

The man never had a candidacy. lol. Ron Paul will never be president, and will never even get close.

He made an extremely impressive showing in Iowa and he's set to be third is all the other major states. So his candidacy is fairly strong. I do wonder what would happen if he won the primaries, would the GOP run with it?

Making an impressive showing in Iowa isn't a strong candidacy. Call me when he wins the primary, lol.

As for your question, that's a good point. Talk about choosing from two evils, by the GoP's viewpoint anyway.

Ron Paul won't be president and it wouldn't much matter if he made it because both Republicans and Democrats love their government handouts.

And this is the kind of thinking that maintains the status quo. stoned

Tied in delegates in Iowa. Despite all the media bias and bullshit thrown at ron paul he did surprisingly well in Iowa. State full of morons it seems.

I just heard its come out that Santorum actually won in Iowa by a slim did but ballots were miscounted to due error/fraud.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just heard its come out that Santorum actually won in Iowa by a slim did but ballots were miscounted to due error/fraud.

I heard that as well. Though I don't see the fascination with "winning" when it's about delegates and you get the exact same number.

I think Ron Paul has done amazingly considering the media silence on him. Whenever he has to be mentioned he is dismissed as a cook and unable to win the presidency, as if that was a fact, rather than a self-fulfilling prophecy as all the established media refuses to inform their viewers and readers on one of the top three candidates.

I also agree that Paul would be the best to debate Obama, he can be very aggressive in debates, and has no qualms about pointing out bad things about his opponents, and to most people who know of him, he does have the high ground of being different. Honestly all the other candidates could say (besides lying, which they probably will do) is "Haha, you agreed with all our proposals, and now the country is in the shit!", not a very good advertisement for their own policies.

Regardless, I am pretty sure Obama will win against any of them. He's a great campaigner, and he already started to pretend to be a tough Democrat, rather than the push-over Republican he played during his presidency.

But but but Ron Paul is a racist anti-Semite!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
But but but Ron Paul is a racist anti-Semite!

He might be a racist. Don't think he's an anti-semite. I tend to believe him that he failed to oversee his newsletter, but, admittedly, that may be worse if you are running for supreme-overseer.

And don't get me wrong, I have huge issues with many of his points, but he is definitely the least corporate bought and most honest of the whole field (including Obama)

Doubt he's a racist.

Who cares if he's a racist? That bit about how the riots won't stop until the blacks get their welfare checks is completely true. Also, even if he didn't like blacks, that has nothing to do with his ideas on government, so it's completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Who cares if he's a racist? That bit about how the riots won't stop until the blacks get their welfare checks is completely true. Also, even if he didn't like blacks, that has nothing to do with his ideas on government, so it's completely irrelevant.

I don't think Ron Paul is racist either (no more than the minor racism that many people his age have as a result of the times they grew up in) but what you just said is ridiculous.

Whether someone hates 10-15% of the population they intend to govern doesn't matter?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, it doesn't, because that's not what racism means. (The term is so overused as to mean "someone said something that I disagree with that may or may not pertain to minorities."😉 Furthermore, if we're going by that standard, I think that would disqualify any progressive from office, seeing as how they hate white Christians, especially those that they deem as fundamentalists or rednecks.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, it doesn't, because that's not what racism means.

Yes it does, because that's exactly what racism means. I love this kind of argument.

Besides Ron Paul almost certainly hates more than 15% of the population for reasons entirely divorced from race. Also he's complete cook.

Yes it does, because that's exactly what racism means. I love this kind of argument.

oh well. there goes the greatest mind of the GDF. at least we still have dadudemon.