Will Ron Paul win Nevada?

Via Talking Points Memo (from the AP):

No major GOP candidate has set foot in the state for two months, and some Republicans are bracing for a possible surprise first-place showing by long-shot Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the only Republican to broadcast TV ads in Nevada.

PLEASE LET THIS HAPPEN. What better way to mock the schism in the Republican party than allowing Ron Paul to win a state. Though the Republican politics in Nevada do lean more towards a Ron Paul libertarianism more than they fall in line with the national party. Nevada would be the perfect place for Paul to make a significant splash especially after you factor in the fact that no Republican is campaigning there.

Sadly, this is unlikely to happen. Romney and McCain both have built in advantages. Romney can rely on the active and organized large Mormon population in Nevada while McCain is a popular and well known Senator from a neighboring state.

But a third place for Paul,which is very much possible, would be a big boost for his national credibility.

Five things I know I know: about the Republican Primary

1. If your wife owns you in a snowball fight you are automatically disqualified from being president. Period. I’m sorry, call me sexist but there are some things that a guy should never lose to a girl in. Snowball fights are one of them. This is ESPECIALLY true when you get punked so bad that you have to quit because “your hands are too cold to pick up snow.” Seriously bro? What would the Russians think if they met the next President of the United States and it was a guy who lost a snowball fight to his wife. It’d be World War III I tell ya. Hell on Earth. If you care about your kids then don’t vote Mike Huckabee to become the next president of the United States.

2. Election’s are too long. Not because they take up too much time in the Calendar year, but because they’re not fights to the death. Thus I propose that we skip elections all together and have gladiator style fights to the death. And no not like that lame ass “new” American Gladiators BS. I’m talking Roman Collesium mets Japanese barbwire death matches. Three reasons why we should let fights to death determine our president:

1) Because i know im not the only one who’s thought “I’m not voting for him That other dude could totally kick
his ass”

2) You don’t like negative ads. Me either! If candidates fought to the death it would be the end of all negative
campaigning ! That;s 100% solvency.

3) It would probably produce better results than caucuses or Republican voting.

3. John Mcain looks like a robot, John McCain talks like a robot and John McCain moves like a robot. (An almost dead robot says Megan)

4. Ron Paul looks like my crazy old grandpa. And like any crazy old grandpa, his opinions should be ignored for anything that’s not Bingo, Oatmeal, or Matlock related.

5. Mitt Romney looks like a plastic Ken doll. His political stances are just as fake as a plastic Ken doll. What pro lifer “accidentally” sends a check to Planned Parenthood? Anyone who really believes that Mitt Romney is a conservative is :

Who needs the civil rights act when you have Jim Crow? Not Ron Paul

I meant to blog this last week when it came on Meet The Press but you know how holidays are.

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations […]

it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

Personally, I think that ending segergation was a good idea. Though to be fair I’m pretty biased. I love how property rights legitimately trump civil rights in the eyes of some people. Ron Paul harkins back to when the motto of the Republican party was “Screw the darkies, as long as I can have my gun and my 2500 sq foot plot of land.” Though really, that’s still the republican party’s motto.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. “According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.”

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the–that iron, iron fist.

MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them.

I’m surprised a fiscal conservative like Paul would support subsidizing the freedom of slaves. What has the welfare state come to? Haven’t those minorities ever heard of personal responsibility? Psh

Ron The Racist

This was too funny not to post:

Read more about Racist Ron’s comment’s here…actually I’ll post a few golden nuggets.

“”we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

“”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,” Paul wrote.

Of course Paul supports argue that Paul didn’t write or know about the comments in the newsletter. Of course the problem is that

1. He didn’t fire the person who wrote the letter.
2. He didn’t disavow the comments
3. He defended the comments in 1996