Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Boris Godunov]

Please don't use "flavor" to describe Santorum. Ever.

[Boris Godunov]

1. Paul leads polls down the homestretch.
2. GOP establishment freaks out.
3. CNN releases skewed poll showing Santorum "surging"
4. Establishment media picks up poll, and pumps up Santorum days before caucus, and with too little time for him to be vetted as the RINO he is.
5. Iowan sheep follow the establishment media herd.
6. Santorum takes enough votes from Paul to keep him from winning.

Your theory fails because multiple polling outfits of various affiliations picked up Santorum's rise at the same time as CNN did. While I know you've no problem believing all of these pollsters were in on a conspiracy, sane people know you'd have to be a delusional moron to think such a thing.

And your statement that the "GOP Establishment" will make sure Romney isn't the nominee is laughably idiotic, since it's the GOP Establishment that has been supporting him against the base this whole time. Romney is the "chosen one" by the GOP power brokers, hence the fantastic gobs of money they've shoveled at him and against every opponent who has risen against him.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Essentially, he brings together everyone who doesn't wait for the New York Times to tell them what to think - which is, thankfully, a rapidly growing portion of the the US electorate.

This highlights exactly what turns many people off Paul- the incredible arrogance of his supporters.

There is no room for differing opinions in their world. If you don't vote for him you are stupid, or evil, or not entirely human.

[Zevico]

Every dollar we spend keeping Australian freeloaders safe, is a dollar wasted. We're not in any danger. American citizens have more guns than all the armies and police forces in the world. If you're afraid of the big bad PLA, maybe your own country should pay its fair share.

American citizens have guns enough to...what, exactly? Walk about with guns? Well done. If you think that some armed American citizens can give an occupying force hell, well, maybe. But that doesn't mean-
1) That you will have the technology to beat them in any given conflict should the need arise;
2) The need will arise, if not in the present day in then in a decade or two, unless the US acts as an effective deterrent against the Chinese. Empires aren't built in days but the Chinese, like the Soviets, are quite capable of projecting their power into the South East Asian region, and even the Middle East (increasingly). They view American-Chinese relations as a zero-sum game and will basically work to undercut American power and prestige and actively curry the favour of anti-American forces. Like those friendly fellows in Iran that took your embassy hostage because they think you're the Great Satan. Fact is, China's in a proxy war with the United States right now. You feel like letting them win, well, hey, national suicide is all the craze these days. Let the Europeans show you the way.

And this nonsense about "fair share" is ridiculous. Since when does the character of the Chinese threat diminish merely because of an increase in defence spending by Australia? To state the notion is to reveal it as ludicrous. If China is a threat to American interests then it will remain a threat even if Australia's defence spending were higher or lower.

If you think abandoning Taiwan to the PRC is a great idea then sure, vote Ron Paul. I'm sure a nice invasion will make you think all about how the PRC is really just a loveable panda bear. You keep abandoning allies and the US will lose by it.

[Uncle Sparky]

Please don't use "flavor" to describe Santorum. Ever.

[HalfLotus]

Yeah. So the solution is to bring a crackpot into power? You haven't thought this through. ...Paul doesn't just want to cut defence spending; he thinks there are no dangers to the United States that could ever justify defence spending. He thinks the defence department is an evil unto itself. Literally. It's a dark force or whatever. The United States simply won't act on the global stage anymore. At all. Think about that.

You neocon armchair generals can bloviate all you want. The troops support Ron Paul:

Your theory fails because multiple polling outfits of various affiliations picked up Santorum's rise at the same time as CNN did.

Sources? Links? I documented my theory from top to bottom.

[HalfLotus]

This highlights exactly what turns many people off Paul- the incredible arrogance of his supporters.

There is no room for differing opinions in their world.

Funny accusation - coming from a guy who can't even find a differing opinion:

In the media I'm reading, the Republican candidates in general are being described as a "freakshow"- and that's even from the right-wing UK media. Paul's treatment really looks no different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You neocon armchair generals can bloviate all you want. The troops support Ron Paul:

That's wonderful and when we have military rule, I'm sure that'll be relevant.

[DinoDoc]

You neocon armchair generals can bloviate all you want. The troops support Ron Paul:

How is Zev a neocon considering the fact he doesn't give 2 ****s about spreading democracy to the rest of the world?

[loinburger]

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Funny accusation - coming from a guy who can't even find a differing opinion:

You do realise that, left uncontested as it is, the two of us emerge from that exchange with the following labels-

You- incredibly arrogant.

Me- reading newspapers voicing similar opinions on the Republican candidates as a whole.


To be perfectly honest, I'm not terribly uncomfortable with that.

[Felch]

American citizens have guns enough to...what, exactly?

Preserve our liberties. The rest of the world could fall to the Chinese or Russians, and America would remain unconquerable. We are in no realistic danger. If Aussies are afraid, they should rearm their citizens and spend more than 2% GDP on national defense. Do that, and I'd be a bit less contemptuous of your concerns.

[kentonio]

You don't honestly believe that if you were invaded by an occupying army that your guns would do you the slightest bit of good do you?

[loinburger]

All of the Afghanis' and Iraqis' AK-47's certainly didn't help the US any

[Felch]

Absolutely. I realize that you're British and are completely ignorant, but there are over 10 million guns sold each year in the United States, many of them "assault rifles." Considering the thousands of tanks, artillery pieces, jets, and other materiel that our military already has, we are in no realistic danger.

It's easy to discount small arms, but they are effective for killing people. Much more so than cricket paddles or knives or whatever you Brits have.