I have to correct my post, that I made earlier in here in which I claimed there is now an AISOS = Austrian International School of Sex!. But it seems this was merely a hoax from a austrian activist group who tried to raise attention for a welfare state (ponzi scheeme) problem called social security. Since funding is a problem the only solution left they say is MORE SEX. In other words they want more ponzi without realizing it…
WTF…
Edit: The group seems to be from Austria not Sweden.
You know, the more time the other speakers get in debates the worse they appear. Perhaps the media and debate hosts are unintentionally helping Ron Paul by letting other candidates say really stupid things.
Biggest fear Republicans seem to have right now is that Ron Paul would break off as a third party candidate, which to them would mean practically a sure re-election of Barack Obama. For that reason they will try to keep Paul around until the convention, then they’ll get together to give the nomination to a less worthy candidate - or a team of less worthy candidates. Could also see them start to offer Paul some cabinet position empowered to tackle domestic and economic issues. They are scared to death of his foreign policy. So, in a sense, you could potentially see a triumvirate formed. I think there are too many corporatists in the party to make that happen.
If the repub nominee had Ron Paul in his cabinet for something domestic, he’d get a ton of extra votes, maybe the bulk of his supporters, right? This is getting interesting.
I’m about 99% sure Ron Paul would not accept a cabinet position with any of these clowns. Just look at this line-up. The Establishment has obviously decided there will be four more years of Barack Obama.
What the hell is Newt Gingrich doing on stage? And the MSM is acting like he has more “electability” than Ron Paul?? Are you kidding me? Gingrich had his glory days as Speaker and his political opponents (and his own foibles) have ensured that he will never rise higher than that.
Look at Herman Cain. 100% insider, laden with politically radioactive baggage (settled sexual harassment suits)… biggest joke ever. Why did they ask him to get in the line-up? Well, it’s simple, Cain’s job was to throw water on the anti-Fed sentiment in the campaigns and debates and give credence to the idea that what we need is a “Republican Fed” (Greenspan) instead of this horrible “Democrat Fed” (Bernanke).
We’ve seen each of the clowns rise and fall in the polls. Perry is Bush 2.0 and predictably fizzled. Romney is painting himself as “the inevitable” but I think Republicans are tired of seeing him, particularly because the memories of all the 2008 campaigning exposing Romney’s whoring opportunism are still relatively fresh on their minds. Bachmann has this Sarah Palin aura but more creepy, as difficult as that is to imagine. John Huntsman seems to be the Libertarian alternative to Ron Paul’s libertarian.
Rick Santorum seems to be the Establishment’s dark horse. He’s polling very low but he is 100% pure-bred Establishment. I will be surprised if Santorum doesn’t begin to suddenly be a “rising star of the Republican Party.” Santorum v. Obama would have the civility of Romney v. Obama without the has-been-ness. The sheep might begin to spook and wonder if something is amiss if it’s Romney yet again.
So, to sum up, I’ll sort the candidates into my own tiers:
Perry, Romney: Self-initiated candidacies; these two are acceptable to the Establishment but are not present at the behest of the Establishment
Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain: Establishment stooges whose purpose is to foil Ron Paul’s candidacy either by sucking up the oxygen or buddying up to him on a particular issue and transferring their “crazy” onto him by attribution
Huntsman: I don’t really know anything about him; doesn’t seem to be that important either way
Ron Paul: The candidate which, under no circumstances, is to succeed… whatever resources have to be mobilized to accomplish this will be mobilized
Rick Santorum: The only candidate who doesn’t fall into all the above categories. My bets are on Santorum for the next “meteoric rise”.
Clayton -
Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes
two top forecasters quit after gathering 20 years of useless data
@bbnet: That’s because mainstream science doesn’t really understand what causes weather. The Earth is a gigantic dynamo… a magneto-hydrodynamic drive. Our weather is created by the largely invisible electrical forces above our heads and below our feet.
Clayton -
Clayton, I’m not sure Republicans themselves are dumb enough to choose Santorum. Unless he really starts pressing the “family values” button, he won’t increase much. Even then, people care most about “jobs”, whatever that means.
bbnet - they quit long-term forecasting (from December), not all forecasting.
Is that supposed to be a joke? That’s the only button he ever presses. (Well, that and the default “America is great, rah rah, they hate us cuz we’re great” refrain)
Unless he really starts pressing the “family values” button
My bad, needed some extra emphasis. But yes, he does only press that button 
I actually think the more he goes that route, the more he’ll alienate people. Yes, conservatives by and large are religious and family oriented, but that only goes so far. The more you press that, the farther down the spectrum you go, and you get farther and farther from the mean. The more Santorum reveals just how ridiculous his beliefs are, the less people will care for him…and as he’s already at <2%, I really don’t see much hope for him unless more people start dropping out really soon.
On a positive note (Iowa):
Gingrich 22%
Paul 21%
Romney 16%
From http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html
Paul’s supporters are considerably more committed to him than Gingrich’s are. 77% of current Paul voters say they’re definitely going to vote for him, compared to only 54% for Gingrich. Romney has much more solid support than Gingrich as well, 67% of his voters saying they’re with him for the long haul. Among only voters who say their mind’s totally made up, 29% support Paul to 21% for Gingrich, 18% for Romney, and 11% for Bachmann.
A guy on /r/l;ibertarian asked why he should not vote for Obama. He got slapped with this (by a guy named ProudLikeCowz):
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/06/obama-chooses-jpmorgan-exec-william-daley-chief-staff/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronnie-cummins/the-unholy-alliance-monsa_b_642385.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20047212-503544.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062802955.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22957.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/468316
http://lonestarwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/05/cameras-banned-in-white-house-daily.html
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/fz4ed/wikileaks_cables_leaked_information_regarding/
www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/flw6z/obamas_37_trillion_budget_calls_for_military/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-27-Patriot-Act_N.htm
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/imjiy/obamas_doj_we_can_force_you_to_give_us_the/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/jqntl/obama_administration_once_again_siding_with_the/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/k1oix/top_cia_official_obama_changed_virtually_none_of/
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/opinion/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ln4gz/president_obama_is_going_to_begin_a_series_of/
www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/l2yy6/us_can_put_american_citizens_on_terrorist_kill/
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/60-minutes-to-look-at-lawmakers-and-stocks/
www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/kwo4b/government_orders_youtube_to_censor_protest_videos/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/lv3iw/google_refuses_to_remove_policebrutality_videos/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62999.html
http://www.aclu.org/mapping-fbi-uncovering-abusive-surveillance-and-racial-profiling
www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ksu6d/iraq_to_buy_us_warplanes_worth_3_billion/
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d1ll4/obama_return_your_nobel_peace_prize_the_new_york/
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/fxgb9/atf_agent_admits_to_reporter_that_he_was_ordered/
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f84s8/barack_obama_out_of_the_closet_wall_streets/
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ecgup/us_government_censors_70_websites_for_whole_world/
http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2010/10/12/why_are_bailed_out_banks_breaking
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-assassination-program-092910?src=rss
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/djeai/the_obama_administration_is_pushing_for_new/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/us-military-banned-from-v_n_671967.html
Hehe, cute:
Word for the day: Bedoon
This knocked my socks off!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYk_hgnsgo0
“… and I’m going to stop there.” Holy crap.
I don’t believe “the Jews” control the world, or even the US or even the state of Israel, for that matter, but I find the nature of the Shah’s remarks enlightening in itself. He was in a position to have a good grasp of the nature of international power politics, as well as national politics and he doesn’t hesitate a second to engage in “conspiracy theory.” Salzberger owns the New York Times? Here’s a shocking claim for you: he runs it to enrich and empower himself, his family and his community first above all else!
gasp! You anti-semite!!!
Clayton -
I don’t think coming to a rational conclusion about the Jewish lobby in America is conspiracy-mongering. Unfortunately anybody who hints at the idea that they think there are lobbyists who lobby in favor of the Israeli state who may have a little too much power is tarred with the anti-Semitic brush. People will do that because they support Israel no matter what due to their religious system that they think tells them they absolutely have to.
I almost agree with your Santorum analysis. I think he will get something of a boost after the conservatives become disenchanted with Gingrich. But the religiousity to the degree that Santorum displays it will give him high “unelectable” status. He could get into the teens, but I don’t think much higher than that.
Clearly, elevators are not regulated enough!
Clayton -