BGFalcons82;1099839 wrote:Holy shit, Batman!! I just saw the great and powerful Ron has secured a robust 15% of the Michigan vote and is coming in THIRD!! Where's Gordon Gee to declare him the winner???

Third place? Sweet! That means Americans are finally beginning to see his flawless awesomeness. I'm confident Dr. Paul now has some momentum and will pull out a miracle win on Super Tuesday. Bank on it!

I Wear Pants;1099799 wrote:This is a lie.

Your chart is, you mean? Because, according to your chart, the "defense portion" of the debt service in 2010 was at least equal to the entire interest amount of $250B. In 1998, debt service was $229B, but according to your chart the defense portion alone was closer to $300B.

majorspark;1099696 wrote:Willard is running an ad attacking Santorum's "courage" for not standing up on his principles and making political deals instead. That Willard sure is a funny guy. Anyone who critisizes a decision he made as governor, or statements he made while running for office in Massachusettes, as leaning left or liberal needs to understand. Willard had a democrat legislature to deal with. And while running for Senate you know you just have to say some things that are against your priciples in liberal Massachusettes.

Santorum was in the Senate when the Republicans controlled the Oval Office, Senate, and House. Soooo, the comparison isn't even close.

I also think Romney's swaying away from "conservative principles in Massachusetts," is horribly overstated. He vetoed eight parts of their health care bill and the 85% Democratic state legislature STILL passed it. He helped draft a health care law that didn't raise taxes, and he balanced a $2 billion dollar deficit without raising taxes on people too. It'd say that's a damn fine job of being a conservative and making the best of the situation.

If Santorum had the balls to stand up for "conservatism" (which, again, I'm not sure the GOP could define other than you hate gays and abortions), he'd have been a Ron Paul and taken the shots to the stomach while voicing the truth. Santorum got int line with everything George Bush wanted. Hardly being courageous.

BGFalcons82;1099822 wrote:I take exception to the 2nd largest item, represented by the yellow color, "Interest on debt, defense-related". What is this?

Clearly all debt, and therefore the interest (perhaps with some SS surplus added back, eventhough those SS repayments are included in the debt), is being attributed to military spending. Even though the deficits the last few years have been nearly double the military spending. So make military spending 0 and we are still running large deficits well into the hundreds of billions. Ergo, the debt and debt service cannot be attributed entirely to military spending. Ergo, this chart is bullshit.

dwccrew;1099819 wrote:Did anyone hear the soundbite of Santorum stating that democrats should not be voting in primaries (this was during the Minnesota primary), yet he is robo-calling democrats in Michigan. Just another rhetoric speaking, flip-flopping canidate. If this field is the best the repubs can put up against Obama come November, you'll be hearing "4 more years" the day after the election. These guys (outside of Dr. Paul) are pathetic. I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I know that the masses will not nominate him, therefore it is down to Romney and Santorum. Either of those two will lose by a wide margin in a presidential election IMO.

He was calling them because the Democrats have been organizing to try and help him win the nomination. Landslide wouldn't begin to describe Obama's victory over Santorum in the general.

BGFalcons82;1099822 wrote:I take exception to the 2nd largest item, represented by the yellow color, "Interest on debt, defense-related". What is this?

I know right. How ridiculous. Everyone knows we don't have to pay interest on the money we borrow for imperial expansion and upkeep.

On hot air and Red state right now you'd think someone died given how depressed and demoralized they are about the Willard wins tonight.

I am not sure I have (in my lifetime at least) seen a party base so despondent over their nominee.

They hated McCain, but his support level among them seems like Reagan compared to how loathed Willard is among those who knock on doors and are grass roots activists.

Obama wouldn't win a landslide over a well-trained hamster after this Fed announcement:

http://news.yahoo.com/could-4-5-years-bring-down-unemployment-feds-010211557.html

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We voted for him on election day
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Unemployment is here to stay

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We voted for hope and change
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We moved the goalposts to out of range

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Our country was once the envy of most
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
There is nothing left for us to boast

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Our currency continues to take a dip
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Yet your wife can afford a luxury trip

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We voted for him on election day
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Unemployment is here to stay

This country is screwed.

In their unabashed selling out to attract the tea party base of the Republican Party, Santorum, Gingrich and, to a lesser degree, Romney and Paul have a difficult task ahead, whichever one of them wins the nomination. That task is walking back the extremism in order to woo the moderates and independents out there who typically decide Presidential elections. How do they scale it back without looking like they are ignoring that base? Let's face it, tea party support alone isn't going to do anything but re-elect Obama. Romney is almost there, as many consider him more moderate than conservative anyhow. It will be interesting to see how either Santorum or Gingrich "tone it down", should either one win the nomination.

I Wear Pants;1099811 wrote:

Somehow we managed to survive in this nation for over 150 years without the mythical notion of "separation of church and state" before the Supreme Court (Hugo Black) invented it in 1947.

Please tell me your intellectual resources are vast enough to tell the difference between "separation of church and state" (which means zero mention or exercise of any religious expression in the government- which in effect establishes atheism/secular humanism as a state religion) and the First Amendment, which prevents the government from establishing a state religion or preventing free religious expression.

If anything the First Amendment opposes a "wall of separation" between church and state. But the Catholic-hating, former-KKK'er Hugo Black wouldn't have been able to think that deeply enough to get it.

Manhattan Buckeye;1099922 wrote:Obama wouldn't win a landslide over a well-trained hamster after this Fed announcement:

http://news.yahoo.com/could-4-5-years-bring-down-unemployment-feds-010211557.html

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We voted for him on election day
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Unemployment is here to stay

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We voted for hope and change
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We moved the goalposts to out of range

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Our country was once the envy of most
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
There is nothing left for us to boast

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Our currency continues to take a dip
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Yet your wife can afford a luxury trip

Barack Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
We voted for him on election day
Barack (Hussein) Obama
Hmmm hmmm hmm
Unemployment is here to stay

This country is screwed.

So are you saying that if we vote for the Republican candidate the unemployment rate will magically fade away?

If the House is any indication, I don't think any Republican gives a rat's ass about jobs. I'm still waiting for something substantial from Boehner and his klan.

IggyPride00;1099920 wrote:On hot air and Red state right now you'd think someone died given how depressed and demoralized they are about the Willard wins tonight.

I am not sure I have (in my lifetime at least) seen a party base so despondent over their nominee.

They hated McCain, but his support level among them seems like Reagan compared to how loathed Willard is among those who knock on doors and are grass roots activists.

Thankfully we have Ron Paul collaborating with Willard to contribute to that despondency. I'm still convinced he wants to run 3rd party against Romney and Obama.

jhay78;1099928 wrote:Thankfully we have Ron Paul collaborating with Willard to contribute to that despondency. I'm still convinced he wants to run 3rd party against Romney and Obama.

I still think either Ron or his son are on Mitt's Veep short list.

stlouiedipalma;1099925 wrote:So are you saying that if we vote for the Republican candidate the unemployment rate will magically fade away?

If the House is any indication, I don't think any Republican gives a rat's ass about jobs. I'm still waiting for something substantial from Boehner and his klan.

I'm saying it won't get worse. Obama has been a complete disaster. We were ready to hang W in '04 when unemployment in a jobless recovery was at 6.4....why are we giving Obama a pass after 3 years when we're stuck in the 8-9 range?

Is this an affirmative action presidency? Does he get a head start? Why do you support him? The nation is in major suckitude. Housing sucks. Jobs market sucks. Debt (both the nation's and individual's) sucks. What the heck has he done? Why has he earned your vote? Because he went to Harvard Law School (and did nothing afterwards)?

I'm voting for Romney, but I don't care, I just want Obama out. Congrats, we elected a Black POTUS, perhaps the next Black President will be qualified. Obama isn't.

believer;1099855 wrote:Third place? Sweet! That means Americans are finally beginning to see his flawless awesomeness. I'm confident Dr. Paul now has some momentum and will pull out a miracle win on Super Tuesday. Bank on it!

It does take time for movements to happen. There was a time in this country when most people didn't want to go to war with the British, When Slavery was popular and when Big Government rules the land. Most people are afraid to leave what is comfortable, what is safe and secure.

I have stated that although I will support Paul till the end, I am also a realist and understand the odds of him gaining the nomination are not that great. However, I am in it for the long haul. I am a supporter of his message. I am voting for an idea and perspective of how America should be, I am not voting for a Person. It does help that the person carrying the message is someone who really believes in the cause and has shown unbelievable consistency in an occupation where that is a rare occurence.

Like it or not, Ron Paul and his supporters will have a say in this election.

sjmvsfscs08;1099904 wrote:Santorum was in the Senate when the Republicans controlled the Oval Office, Senate, and House. Soooo, the comparison isn't even close.

Standing up for conservative limited government principles in the face of "big government" liberal democrat ideas as apposed to "big government" liberal republican ideas. What is the difference? Oh wait I know the republicans sweeten it up by injecting some free market mechanisms. Would Romney govern any differently had he been elected senator of Massachusettes? I think we both know the answer to that.

sjmvsfscs08;1099904 wrote:I also think Romney's swaying away from "conservative principles in Massachusetts," is horribly overstated. He vetoed eight parts of their health care bill and the 85% Democratic state legislature STILL passed it. He helped draft a health care law that didn't raise taxes, and he balanced a $2 billion dollar deficit without raising taxes on people too. It'd say that's a damn fine job of being a conservative and making the best of the situation.

Well like you say down below maybe he should have been a Paul and taken shots in the stomach while voicing the truth instead of making the best the situation.

sjmvsfscs08;1099904 wrote:If Santorum had the balls to stand up for "conservatism" (which, again, I'm not sure the GOP could define other than you hate gays and abortions), he'd have been a Ron Paul and taken the shots to the stomach while voicing the truth. Santorum got int line with everything George Bush wanted. Hardly being courageous.

I have never once made an arguement for Santorum's fiscal conservatism. Just the opposite. For the record Willard is right and he was not courageous in this case. Its just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And your comment on the gay and abortion thing shows how you ride the current media/political wave like so many others without stepping back and thinking. Bush was very strong on gay and abortion issues. We all knew where he stood. His judicial appointments reflected it especially those to the high court. Bush and those that followed him in congress turned off conservatives with his new "big government" federal programs with a different flavor. "Compassionate Conservatism" he called it. No child left behind, medicare part D, etc... They railed against it.

BGFalcons82;1099822 wrote:I've seen charts like this and language similar to it in other threads. I take exception to the 2nd largest item, represented by the yellow color, "Interest on debt, defense-related". What is this? Is the U.S. government selling specific war-bonds, like they did during the Big One? I am unaware if they are. To me, debt IS debt. The fact that the chart above and other use of "Defense-related debt" obfuscate the issue.

Is there "Social Security debt" sold and tracked?
"Stimulus debt" sold and tracked?
Is there "Cowboy Poetry debt" sold?

Okay, take away the debt part and what Quaker said is still false, we have seen a massive increase in defense spending.

jhay78;1099924 wrote:Somehow we managed to survive in this nation for over 150 years without the mythical notion of "separation of church and state" before the Supreme Court (Hugo Black) invented it in 1947.

Please tell me your intellectual resources are vast enough to tell the difference between "separation of church and state" (which means zero mention or exercise of any religious expression in the government- which in effect establishes atheism/secular humanism as a state religion) and the First Amendment, which prevents the government from establishing a state religion or preventing free religious expression.

If anything the First Amendment opposes a "wall of separation" between church and state. But the Catholic-hating, former-KKK'er Hugo Black wouldn't have been able to think that deeply enough to get it.

And in 1954 the church crowd added "under God" to the pledge and in 1957 added "In God We Trust" to paper money. Don't act like it's been a one way street.

stlouiedipalma;1099931 wrote:I still think either Ron or his son are on Mitt's Veep short list.

It sure seems like they are setting up his son.

Iowa: Santorum
New Hampshire: Romney
South Carolina: Gingrich
Florida: Romney
Nevada: Romney
Minnesota: Santorum
Colorado: Santorum
Maine: Romney
Michigan: Romney
Arizona: Romney


March 3:
Washington: Romney

March 6:
Alaska: Santorum?
Georgia: Gingrich
Idaho: Paul?
Massachusetts: Romney
North Dakota:
Ohio: Santoum? Romney?
Oklahoma: Romney?
Tennessee: Gingrich??
Vermont: Romney
Virginia: Romney or Paul

Tennessee won't go Gingrich: http://www.dnj.com/article/20120228/NEWS/302280035

The Feb. 16-22 survey of 1,508 registered Tennessee voters found former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania in the lead to win the state’s Republican primary March 6, though former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could still catch up

Delegate Count Update

Romney 145
Santorum 82
Gingrich 29
Paul 18
Huntsman 2

1144 needed to win nomination

However, totals do not include the preferences of national party leaders, who are free to support any candidate, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

However, totals do not include the preferences of national party leaders, who are free to support any candidate, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

Those would also be known as Willard supporters, as he is the clear choice of the establishment.

I Wear Pants;1100010 wrote:And in 1954 the church crowd added "under God" to the pledge and in 1957 added "In God We Trust" to paper money. Don't act like it's been a one way street.

These lines were added to our founding document long before the 1950's:

. . . the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . . they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

I get what you're saying, just don't pretend like "separation of church and state" and the First Amendment are the same thing.

Con_Alma;1100043 wrote:Delegate Count Update

Romney 145
Santorum 82
Gingrich 29
Paul 18
Huntsman 2

1144 needed to win nomination

However, totals do not include the preferences of national party leaders, who are free to support any candidate, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

I guess Michigan's 30 delegates will be split equally between Romney and Santorum? It's based mostly on who carries the congressional districts. Quin Hilyer at the American Spectator puts Romney's Michigan win in perspective:

That said, here's what the delegate tie, and the overall close result in the popular vote, says about Romney: It says he is incredibly weak. It says that he can be in his home state, his wife's home state, the state his father served as governor, PLUS outspend his chief rival five to one, PLUS have his opponent make a series of mistakes in the worst ten days of that opponent's campaign... and STILL not even win a majority of the delegates. That's pitiful.

As for Santorum, he showed he has real staying power. Compare his performance with that of Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was up by a huge amount in Iowa, and ended up in a very weak fourth. He was up by a huge amount in Florida, next door to his home state, and ended up getting clobbered. He couldn't take a punch.

Santorum faced a guy in his home state. Santorum was attacked and outspent just like Gingrich was; he was attacked not just by Romney but by Ron Paul; he was attacked (like Gingrich was) for five days straight by bad Drudge headlines; he was attacked and mispresented by the national media. Yet in a TOUGHER state to take down Romney than the states Gingrich operated in, without the same financial resources Gingrich had, Santorum fought to a virtual tie rather than getting clobbered.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/29/split-delegate-count-in-michig