sjmvsfscs08;1091725 wrote:It's pretty fucking dumb that the national conversation right now is about social issues. Americans are pathetic.

I Wear Pants;1091728 wrote:The national conversation is about social issues because that's what Republicans seem to always want to do.

The national conversationn is exactly where the press and the left want it to be.

I Wear Pants;1091728 wrote:Do I really need to whip out the quotes from founders showcasing that we are not founded on Christianity?

Please do, honestly.

majorspark;1091731 wrote:The national conversationn is exactly where the press and the left want it to be.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think Santorum wants to stay away from economic and budgetary issues through the primary.

sjmvsfscs08;1091735 wrote:You're kidding yourself if you don't think Santorum wants to stay away from economic and budgetary issues through the primary.

True. Economics/budget is really why I wanted Romney, and only why Romney, and only why not someone else.

Although I agree the social issues bullshit is just a distraction and waste of energy. Yeah, leave it to the states and be done with it. We could debate the efficiency and effectiveness of that as some issues will be decided nationally, one way or another, and ultimately make more sense (I just think it's moronic to outlaw abortion in OH when it's legal in MI and IN, not to mention the resources wasted debating the issue).

But the federal elections should be focused on the economy, taxes and foreign policy. That's mainly what the federal govt should be doing. The liberals have their class warfare, the religious nuts have their family values, and the gun nuts have their hunting rifles....and they're all fucking retarded.

I Wear Pants;1091728 wrote:The national conversation is about social issues because that's what Republicans seem to always want to do.

That's fucking laughable. The "national conversation" is what the liberal mainstream media wants it to be.

For the MSM it's always best to paint a "wacky social conservative" light on their Republican-of-the-day. Right now it's Santorum. Why? Because he's regained some momentum and taken the national focus off their choice of Republican candidate (Romney). You can bet that once Romney gets the eventual nomination the MSM will go after Romney with equal vigor.

I'm rooting like hell for Santorum to win the nomination. I wouldn't have to stay up late on election night, as Obama would have it wrapped up an hour after the polls close. Are the R's really that stupid?

And one more thing. A lot of you speak about the "power" of the MSM. Do you really pay attention to the MSM? From the sound of your posts, most of you seem to get your information either from cable-based outlets or from the internet. Yet you like to portray the MSM as the national boogeyman. From your protests, you give them a lot more credit than they deserve. Red herring, perhaps?

Who the individual nomination is doesn't matter. If who the nomination will be is to determine whether you will stay up late or not you might as well just consider going to bed early.

stlouiedipalma;1091816 wrote:I'm rooting like hell for Santorum to win the nomination. I wouldn't have to stay up late on election night, as Obama would have it wrapped up an hour after the polls close. Are the R's really that stupid?

I seem to remember the same exact sentiments said about Bush II and Reagan...those elections turned out ok.

Judging by the email I receive from my readers, there are a lot of Republicans who feel that Mitt Romney doesn’t pass the conservative litmus test. Some of them even threaten to sit out the presidential election if Governor Romney secures the nomination. Although I do my utmost to be polite in my response, the truth is, I regard such people as idiots and loons. First of all, in any competition, you can only choose the best of the contenders, not the ideal. So, would I be more enthusiastic about Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Mitch Daniels? Yes, I would be. I would also favor George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, three other guys who are not in the race. But when it comes to choosing between Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, I find the choice an easy one. Newt Gingrich lugs around more baggage than a team of redcaps. When a politician has been involved in this many scandals involving sex and money, I just naturally assume he’s a Democrat. Besides, this is a guy who has sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and promoted the global warming hoax; he has attacked free market capitalism; and dismissed Paul Ryan’s economic plan as “right-wing social engineering.” Ron Paul seems an amiable sort of guy. He reminds you of an elderly uncle who shows up at family reunions, has a few drinks and winds up asleep at the dinner table, with his head resting in the mashed potatoes. Although I would never wish to be accused of fomenting ageism, the fact remains that if he were elected, he would be in his 80s before the end of his first term. A guy that age should be taking naps regularly, not running the most powerful nation on earth. In terms of policy, anyone who is cavalier about a nuclear Iran; believes that 9/11 was our own fault; and supports gutting and neutering the U.S. military, is someone who should not be trusted anywhere near sharp tools, heavy machinery or the Oval Office. Rick Santorum strikes me as a decent man. He also strikes me as a perennial lightweight. He comes across like a male ingénue. Between his tinny voice and his sweater vests, I keep expecting him to run on stage and say, “Tennis, anyone?” Also, as Newt Gingrich has pointed out, as a senator, he was in the hip pocket of the Pennsylvania unions, supported Arlen Specter’s re-election and was the crown prince of earmarks. As a personal aside, I should mention that when I interviewed Senator Santorum for my latest collection of interviews, I asked him if he was in favor of term limits. When he said he was, I asked him why, in that case, after serving two terms in the House and two terms in the Senate, had he run for a third term? He said, “Because I favor more than two terms for the Senate.” I told him that was what separated politicians from normal people. Having explained why I would not like to see the other three contenders get the nomination, the main reason that I would like to see Mitt Romney carry the GOP standard is because I regard him as the best bet to defeat Barack Obama, the worst and the most dangerous president in American history. Although many Republicans do not consider Romney a true conservative, the fact is America is not a truly conservative nation. It’s not Party bosses who shove people like Bob Dole, John McCain and the Bushes, down our throats, as some folks insist is the case. They happen to be the folks who win our primaries. The country is pretty evenly divided between conservatives and liberals. It is the 20% in the middle who call themselves moderates and independents who determine winners and losers, and they are put off by candidates, Democrat or Republican, they regard as extremists. They are far more likely to support Romney, a man whom even his opponents call a moderate, than they are either of the other three. The thing to keep in mind is that if conservatives can’t win GOP primaries, what makes anyone think they can win general elections, when, for reasons I’ll never understand, liberals and middle-of-the-roaders are allowed to vote? Most conservatives insist on litmus tests to determine the purity of Republican candidates. But the fact is they’re fooling themselves. They’ll dismiss Romney simply because he was the governor of a liberal state and had to compromise with a legislature that was jam-packed with Democrats. What they fail to acknowledge is that our hero, Ronald Reagan, would not have passed a similar test in 1980. As the governor of a liberal state, he twice raised taxes; he shut down California’s mental institutions, releasing thousands of psychotics who crowd our streets to this day; and he signed the most liberal abortion bill in America. And while it’s convenient to overlook the fact, Reagan got played for a sucker by a left-wing Congress that promised to shut down the Mexican border, and foolishly signed the amnesty bill that saw our illegal alien population soar from three million to 15 million. Too bad that in this all-important matter, Reagan trusted, but didn’t verify! Mitt Romney may or may not be a RINO, but the last one we had in the White House wasn’t all that terrible. As I recall, he got rid of Saddam Hussein; he prevented a repeat of 9/11; he placed Sam Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court; and, for good measure, he kept Al Gore and John Kerry out of the Oval Office. If all that Mitt Romney does is evict Barack Obama, he will have earned his place on Mount Rushmore.

QuakerOats;1091897 wrote:...If all that Mitt Romney does is evict Barack Obama, he will have earned his place on Mount Rushmore.

Lol. This truly made me laugh out loud.

He could have mentioned that Romney's accomplishments in the private and public sectors combined are equal or greater than any Presidential candidate since....HW Bush? Nixon?

I didn't care for his opinions on Ron Paul though. Paul has his valid criticisms but those are not it.

Read an article that team Willard is starting to have some funding issues as far as his campaign donations go.

Carpet bombing your opponents is an expensive tactic, and the money has been going out far faster than it has been coming in since the Santorum surge.

It appears he is not going to have the funds to bomb his opponents back to the stone age with negative ads like he did to win Florida across the super Tuesday states as he had previously hoped to do.

God forbid, but it seems we are finally at a point where Willard might start having to explain why he should actually be President instead of relying on negative ads to torpedo his opponents for him.

pmoney25;1091590 wrote:Santorum is jumping on the social consevative train because when it comes to fiscal conservatism he doesnt have a leg to stand on.

We are at a point where our economy is crumbling, jobs are being lost, americans are dying fighting stupid wars and the biggest story on the campaign trail is birth control and prenatal treatments.

I Wear Pants;1091728 wrote:The national conversation is about social issues because that's what Republicans seem to always want to do.

believer;1091744 wrote:That's ****ing laughable. The "national conversation" is what the liberal mainstream media wants it to be.

Believer has it right. Rick Santorum hasn't jumped on any social issues train- he's responding to questions in debates run by leftists like George Stephanopolous and in interviews by other leftist media hacks. They know he's been consistent on these issues for a long time, and so he's an ideal target for liberals and Ron Paul types who like to pretend he'll create a Department of Morality with agencies like the Marital Protection Agency. Oh, and he'll outlaw sex and issue fines for people who don't go to church.

What the media never investigates is this: what's more extreme? Rick Santorum's position, or Obama's position (in the Illiniois State Senate) against a bill that would've required medical care for newborns who who born alive and survived an abortion attempt.

And of course, right on cue, Ron Paul agrees with some of the leftist media types on overexaggerating others' positions on social issues:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-social-conservatism-i-think-its-losing-position

"Well, I don't see how that's possible," said Paul. "And this whole idea about that talking about the social issues and who is going to pay for birth control pills, I'm worried about undermining our civil liberties, the constant wars going on, the debt of $16 trillion and they are worried about birth control pills and here he wants to, you know, control people's social lives. At the same time, he voted for Planned Parenthood."

This "social issues won't win" argument is tired and old and inaccurate. One example is California in 2008. Obama won handily, yet on that same ballot Californians voted to amend their constitution defining marriage between one man and one woman.

IggyPride00;1091935 wrote:Read an article that team Willard is starting to have some funding issues as far as his campaign donations go.

Carpet bombing your opponents is an expensive tactic, and the money has been going out far faster than it has been coming in since the Santorum surge.

It appears he is not going to have the funds to bomb his opponents back to the stone age with negative ads like he did to win Florida across the super Tuesday states as he had previously hoped to do.

God forbid, but it seems we are finally at a point where Willard might start having to explain why he should actually be President instead of relying on negative ads to torpedo his opponents for him.

Romney raised $6.5 million in January. Santorum raised $4.5 million. Romney has $7.7 million on hand at the moment, no he will not be able to advertise as often as he could earlier.

The sad part is that you're smiling and loving this, but Santorum is a pathetic choice for candidate and Romney won't need to point that out. You want a conservative, and support a guy who supported Arlen Specter, was in the pockets of Pennsylvania unions, and voted to raise the debt ceiling numerous times? Seems a bit hypocritical...

sjmvsfscs08;1091949 wrote:Romney raised $6.5 million in January. Santorum raised $4.5 million. Romney has $7.7 million on hand at the moment, no he will not be able to advertise as often as he could earlier.

The sad part is that you're smiling and loving this, but Santorum is a pathetic choice for candidate and Romney won't need to point that out. You want a conservative, and support a guy who supported Arlen Specter, was in the pockets of Pennsylvania unions, and voted to raise the debt ceiling numerous times? Seems a bit hypocritical...

I actually want a brokered convention so we can draft a candidate that can actually win in November. Such a person does not exist in the field as of right now, because they all have fatal flaws that make them virtually unelectable for one reason or another.

IggyPride00;1091953 wrote:I actually want a brokered convention so we can draft a candidate that can actually win in November. Such a person does not exist in the field as of right now, because they all have fatal flaws that make them virtually unelectable for one reason or another.

The GOP has flaws and virtually unelectable... :laugh: WTF who would vote for Obama
If you're black would you vote again for Obama?
Unemployed why are you unemployed mofo?
Wealthy what the hell would you?
Jewish, Catholic or Christain why?
Poor you are getting poorer bro?
College age you don't have a job with this guy in office?
High school grad good luck
Enthic groups he done you favors?
Business owner he putting you out of business?

Please tell me want group Obama can depend on getting support from...

Please tell me want group Obama can depend on getting support from

I agree Belly, but there are an awful lot of people dependent on the government that BHO is going to mobilize this fall to vote for him. He has the media in his hip pocket, and an economy (for the time being) that seems like it is moving in the right direction.

He is approaching 50% in almost all of the recent approval polls from way down in the low 40's.

Some how somewhere there is starting to be a bit of a groundswell it seems for 4 more years of BHO.

IggyPride00;1091935 wrote:Read an article that team Willard is starting to have some funding issues as far as his campaign donations go.

Romney will never run out of money. The next treasury auction when the Fed is buying up the t-bills, Goldman Sachs will run in there and grab a few billion worth and sell them to the Fed in exchange for freshly printed cash. They will make sure that money gets funneled down to Mitt.

sjmvsfscs08;1091734 wrote:Please do, honestly.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -Treaty of Tripoli.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816



There's a lot more as well. The founders were deists and had a distaste for religion because it breeds violence and discrimination.

You'll perhaps still say "we're founded on Judeo-Christian values" perhaps, but those ideas are not exclusive to people who follow the Judeo-Christian faith.

Will we ever see the Republican party put forth a candidate who is fiscally conservative and leans a little liberal on social issues? Seems like most of their candidates are the opposite.

[video=youtube;cgNJBdTaKE8][/video]

I actually want a brokered convention so we can draft a candidate that can actually win in November. Such a person does not exist in the field as of right now,

Anybody who would be put in at the last minute would have to be thoroughly vetted already which will limit the possibilities.. Who do you have in mind?

I would also say the it would be good to choose a young lion for the VP slot...Rubio or Ryan

I would also say the it would be good to choose a young lion for the VP slot...Rubio or Ryan

Depends on the candidate.

I think personally it is somewhat of a career killer being the VP on a losing ticket if you ever hope to be President. Hasn't happened in recent memory that I can think of.

I don't want to waste a young Rubio/Ryan on a losing Willard ticket, as it just leaves a stain on your resume.

Not sure who I can even think of right now at a brokered convention, but the Republican base is terribly depressed right now if you look at the primary voting totals thus far.

Without an energized base it will be impossible to win this election. It won't make people vote for BHO, but it will keep them from knocking on doors, giving money, and doing all the other things that come with political activism.

IggyPride00;1091985 wrote:I agree Belly, but there are an awful lot of people dependent on the government that BHO is going to mobilize this fall to vote for him. He has the media in his hip pocket, and an economy (for the time being) that seems like it is moving in the right direction.

He is approaching 50% in almost all of the recent approval polls from way down in the low 40's.

Some how somewhere there is starting to be a bit of a groundswell it seems for 4 more years of BHO.

$5 gas and 9% unemployment ----- he is toast vs. anyone.

QuakerOats;1092029 wrote:$5 gas and 9% unemployment ----- he is toast vs. anyone.

16 Billion to 11 failure green energy companies
Eric Holder should be in jail
List of administration failures, delusional "hope and change"
Trillions wasted adding to our children burdens
Obama Care busted
Foreign Policy a sham