Newt wins sc big!!!

I am reposting this because it made me laugh. It's from a Libertarian leaning site regarding the outcome of the SC primary with Newt winning:

"What did you expect? "Welcome, libertarian"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry
my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These
are people of the land. The common clay of the new South. You know...
morons.
"

NLXSK1 said:

Ok, my bullshit alert just went off...

Click to expand...

564 Delegates will be split between Paul and Romney. The other candidates CAN NOT win. (literally)

[video=youtube;qxKpRctPHyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxKpRctPHyc&feature=youtu.be[/video]

The strategy the campaign is implementing is on track to collect a boatload of delegates.
This is a two man race between Romney and Paul. Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot for 500 delegates worth of states. They are not, and will not be on the ballot in other states besides just Virginia. They have no grassroots support and virtually "zero" ground game. They cannot win the nomination.

Period.

All this MSM Propaganda pushing either Santorum or Gingrich is a joke. Anyway you work the numbers, they are out.
We are in this for the long haul! Go RP2012!!! Paul is running the same strategy as Obama in 2008.

There is no race. It's all just a media circus.

By the way, how many votes did each candidate get in SC?

NLXSK1 said:

You know what is going to be really funny to watch? The GOP doing the same thing to Obama and his 4 year record of flip flopping... GITMO anyone?

Click to expand...

lol.

obama would have a field day with that one. he's been blocked at every turn trying to close it down.

UncleBuck said:

lol.

obama would have a field day with that one. he's been blocked at every turn trying to close it down.

Click to expand...

Who needs GITMO when you have the NDAA declaring the U.S. a warzone on the war on terror, Which Obama signed on New Years eve while everyone was drunk. Then he announced that he wouldn't use it against U.S. citizens, because hes never told a lie and hes going to be president forever.

Goooo Newt......
Lets see what happens next in Florida.
Maybe I will have to say Gooooo...______________???

lifegoesonbrah said:

Who needs GITMO when you have the NDAA declaring the U.S. a warzone on the war on terror, Which Obama signed on New Years eve while everyone was drunk. Then he announced that he wouldn't use it against U.S. citizens, because hes never told a lie and hes going to be president forever.

Click to expand...

looks like i had better stop my side gig of providing substantial support to terrorist networks then.

maybe i can replace the income stream as a professor of underwater basket weaving at the most local liberal indoctrination center...i mean university.

doesn't anyone know the vote totals for SC?

Illegal Smile said:

doesn't anyone know the vote totals for SC?

Click to expand...

just go to huffpo or cnn or foxnews.

it was approx. 40 newt, 28 romney, 17 santorum, 13 paul, 1 perry and 1 cain.

UncleBuck said:

looks like i had better stop my side gig of providing substantial support to terrorist networks then.

Click to expand...

ALSO anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]."

These proposed laws should bring up *****red flags**** as vaguely worded legislation is dangerous for abuse!! Have you ever heard of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918? In the case of Frohwerk V. United States (1919), this man was convicted to a ten year imprisonment for questioning the constitutionality of the draft! These laws have been put in place throughout American history to put fear into the dissenters of the wars. To dismiss the NDAA 2012 as being legitimate is very irresponsible, it clearly gives the executive branch the power to override the bill of rights. Last I checked, constitutional law > statute law. Why is anyone still supporting Obama?

I do find it amusing that the supposed constitutional lawyer and nobel peace prize winner has managed to contradict himself so well during his presidency.

lifegoesonbrah said:

ALSO anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]."

Click to expand...

looks like i had better find a new weekend hobby that does not involve launching scud missiles at government institutions.

underwater basket weaving, perhaps?

lifegoesonbrah said:

Why is anyone still supporting Obama?

Click to expand...

the alternatives.

UncleBuck said:

the alternatives.

Click to expand...

Or lack thereof.

UncleBuck said:

looks like i had better find a new weekend hobby that does not involve launching scud missiles at government institutions.

underwater basket weaving, perhaps?

Click to expand...

You're not getting it. We don't need new laws to prosecute people for launching scud missiles at us, we have laws for that. The vastness of interpretations for the words "belligerent acts", goes far beyond scud missile attacks. People have been prosecuted throughout American history for disagreeing with the wars. That is the intention of these laws.

lifegoesonbrah said:

You're not getting it. We don't need new laws to prosecute people for launching scud missiles at us, we have laws for that. The vastness of interpretations for the words "belligerent acts", goes far beyond scud missile attacks. People have been prosecuted throughout American history for disagreeing with the wars. That is the intention of these laws.

Click to expand...

they're going to come detain us indefinitely for saying we disagree with a war?



ever wonder why ronald the millionaire worshippers are regarded widely as the lunatic fringe? THIS is why.

UncleBuck said:

the alternatives.

Click to expand...

I like this alternative.

UncleBuck said:

they're going to come detain us indefinitely for saying we disagree with a war?



ever wonder why ronald the millionaire worshippers are regarded widely as the lunatic fringe? THIS is why.

Click to expand...

It has been done throughout American history during wartime, look into the red scare trials, the rosenberg trials, froehwerk, Schneck, etc etc etc.... I shouldn't have to do your homework for you.

People who are still supporting Obama are simply sympatico with his world view. They basically dislike america and want to see her taken down a notch. They welcome america becoming a decadent euro-socialist state.

I don't have a problem with people thinking that way. We have had a segment that believed those things throughout history. So far they have never prevailed, but maybe now they will. And that will end the america we grew up in. But, so it goes. We get the government we deserve and we get the future we deserve.

lifegoesonbrah said:

Why is anyone still supporting Obama?

Click to expand...

I actually think Obama is a total piece of shit. There was a large group of people who wanted a specific type of change, he then pretended he was the guy who'd give us that change, so those people got him elected. The second he took office he completely ignored the will of the people and just did whatever the fuck he wanted.

I don't know what he thinks he's proving right now but all he's doing is universally pissing everyone off. He has alienated all those people who put him in office in his attempts to court right wing voters. Unfortunately for him, those people are going to hate him no matter what. He can pass all the tax cuts he wants and they'll still call him a socialist. The end result is shitty policy, and pissing off everyone. He's having huge fundraising problems because of it. He will not raise the 1 billion dollars for reelection he projected. He'll be lucky to keep up with Romney.

That being said I'm going to vote for him because the alternatives are absolutely terrible. Clearly the republicans are not serious about electing someone new if Romney is as close as they are willing to go to electing a moderate. Romney is not a moderate what so ever. No one who thinks WalMart is a person with rights can be considered a moderate. But centrist is a dirty word to republicans, they want an extremist. So what they'll end up getting is 4 more years of Obama.

I would have voted for Huntsman. He's an intelligent and capable moderate republican, or as that sort of thing is now referred to in the republican party, a dirty communist who hates America and wants to steal our freedom. The thing is, the American people would have accepted Huntsman as a sane and reasonable option over Obama. The majority of Americans don't want a far right wing extremist president. They'd probably take a moderate republican over Obama, I would. But there is no way they'll except Romney, Newt, or Santorum. So thank the republican party for 4 more years of Obama.