http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/opinion/obeidallah-santorum-sharia/index.html

You need to get some sleep.

Can we talk about someone other than Rick Santorum? This thread is starting to bore me. For instance:

Man, that Newt is really fat. I mean, he's starting to give Chris Christie a run for his money. Is America ready for a POTUS so obnoxiously overweight?

Discuss.

fish82;1040843 wrote:Can we talk about someone other than Rick Santorum? This thread is starting to bore me. For instance:

Man, that Newt is really fat. I mean, he's starting to give Chris Christie a run for his money. Is America ready for a POTUS so obnoxiously overweight?

Discuss.

Hell, you could run the gamut with the Republican nominees.

Gingrich is too fat.
Bachmann is too female.
Cain is too black.
Paul is too old.
Romney is too Mormon.
Perry is too batshit crazy.
Huntsman ... (see Romney)
Santorum is too archaic.


There. In all of that, SOMEONE should be offended. Now discuss.

This is 13 minutes well spent. I LOL'ed early and often.

http://news.yahoo.com/cyber-debate-parody-funny-or-die/

C'mon folks, we all know that Romney is going to be the nominee. It'll take a little getting used to, but in time you all will embrace him as the man, the one, the only alternative to Barry and his European Socialist Muslim ways. I'm even willing to bet you'll all have either Romney signs in your yards or Romney bumberstickers on your cars/trucks/SUV's/ATV's by Labor Day.

To paraphrase Steve Buschemi, "Embrace the horror!".

All of this primary nonsense is just that, nonsense. At the end of the day, we know he's going to be the nominee.

After all, it's his turn. Isn't that the way it works with the Republicans?

stlouiedipalma;1041245 wrote: All of this primary nonsense is just that, nonsense. At the end of the day, we know he's going to be the nominee.

After all, it's his turn. Isn't that the way it works with the Republicans?

Yup.

It is amazing that Ron Paul gets all the praise from conservatives on fiscal/domestic policy because he believes in the constitution and individual rights/accountability yet he gets destroyed for wanting to follow the constitution on foreign policy. Go to congress, declare war, win and come home.


What is so dangerous about his foreign policy? And has our recent foreign policy made,us any safer or less likely to be attacked?

stlouiedipalma;1041245 wrote:C'mon folks, we all know that Romney is going to be the nominee. It'll take a little getting used to, but in time you all will embrace him as the man, the one, the only alternative to Barry and his European Socialist Muslim ways. I'm even willing to bet you'll all have either Romney signs in your yards or Romney bumberstickers on your cars/trucks/SUV's/ATV's by Labor Day.

To paraphrase Steve Buschemi, "Embrace the horror!".

All of this primary nonsense is just that, nonsense. At the end of the day, we know he's going to be the nominee.

After all, it's his turn. Isn't that the way it works with the Republicans?

I didn't embrace McCain, and I would CERTAINLY not embrace Romney.

You do seem to be correct, though, with the whole "turn" thing. I've wondered if that is why Christie and Jindal really chose not to run.

stlouiedipalma;1041245 wrote:C'mon folks, we all know that Romney is going to be the nominee. It'll take a little getting used to, but in time you all will embrace him as the man, the one, the only alternative to Barry and his European Socialist Muslim ways. I'm even willing to bet you'll all have either Romney signs in your yards or Romney bumberstickers on your cars/trucks/SUV's/ATV's by Labor Day.

To paraphrase Steve Buschemi, "Embrace the horror!".

All of this primary nonsense is just that, nonsense. At the end of the day, we know he's going to be the nominee.

After all, it's his turn. Isn't that the way it works with the Republicans?

I didn't embrace McCain, and I would CERTAINLY not embrace Romney.

You do seem to be correct, though, with the whole "turn" thing. I've wondered if that is why Christie and Jindal really chose not to run.

If Romney is the nominee I will vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul. The Republicans would obviously want 4 more years of Obama if that were the case, so they will get what they deserve.

Cleveland Buck;1041305 wrote:If Romney is the nominee I will vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul. The Republicans would obviously want 4 more years of Obama if that were the case, so they will get what they deserve.

How do you reconcile the fact that Mittens currently runs between 5-7 points better than Paul in the head to head polls vs. Obama?

fish82;1041359 wrote:How do you reconcile the fact that Mittens currently runs between 5-7 points better than Paul in the head to head polls vs. Obama?

Such an amazing name

fish82;1041359 wrote:How do you reconcile the fact that Mittens currently runs between 5-7 points better than Paul in the head to head polls vs. Obama?

Women voters find Mittens more attractive than Ru Paul.

pmoney25;1041300 wrote:It is amazing that Ron Paul gets all the praise from conservatives on fiscal/domestic policy because he believes in the constitution and individual rights/accountability yet he gets destroyed for wanting to follow the constitution on foreign policy. Go to congress, declare war, win and come home.


What is so dangerous about his foreign policy? And has our recent foreign policy made,us any safer or less likely to be attacked?

Those people aren't really conservatives then.

Not that I am, but I know that the people who support all our wars and various other things are not conservatives at all.

I have yet to come across 1 person who has said "Mitt Romney is the guy I want to be president" or even "Mitt Romney is who I'll vote for in the primary" -- The only thing I ever hear positive about him is "he is better than Obama" - But how can he lead polls when seemingly no one likes him or is there 1st choice?

pmoney25;1041300 wrote:It is amazing that Ron Paul gets all the praise from conservatives on fiscal/domestic policy because he believes in the constitution and individual rights/accountability yet he gets destroyed for wanting to follow the constitution on foreign policy. Go to congress, declare war, win and come home.


What is so dangerous about his foreign policy? And has our recent foreign policy made,us any safer or less likely to be attacked?

Not that simple anymore. Now a days declaring war against a country does not happen, while utilizing force against nonstate actors and providing deterrence (conventional, nuclear and asymmetrical) requires using forces quickly and effectively.

Also, Congress, specifically, the House and Senate Committees are in the know of nearly all U.S. operations.

Plus, in an area of nuclear weapons, the concept of going to Congress for a declaration to use them makes no sense now, when talking about deterrence and the need to retaliate quickly, which is the foundation of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Finally, yeah, the last 3 years has been an effective foreign policy, given the complexities of the world. The recent news of the new Pentagon strategy goes way beyond anything any of the Reps have put forth.

Retaliate against who?

Anyone using a nuclear weapon is going to be a rogue organization that stole it or somehow got it and not a country so retaliating with a nuclear weapon wouldn't make sense at all.

I Wear Pants;1041484 wrote:Retaliate against who?

Anyone using a nuclear weapon is going to be a rogue organization that stole it or somehow got it and not a country so retaliating with a nuclear weapon wouldn't make sense at all.

China or Russia currently.
The U.S. is currently at ease with both countries, but the President always needs to be prepared to utilize the nuclear arsenal in case the geopolitical crisis gets out of hand and nuclear weapons need used. This is far fetched yes, but it still needs to be an option.

The concept of deterrence is the ability to quickly retaliate, that is why we still have nuke subs at sea and nuke missiles on hair trigger alert, ready to fly. Take that away and you eliminate one of the core aspects of deterrence.

rydawg5;1041451 wrote:I have yet to come across 1 person who has said "Mitt Romney is the guy I want to be president" or even "Mitt Romney is who I'll vote for in the primary" -- The only thing I ever hear positive about him is "he is better than Obama" - But how can he lead polls when seemingly no one likes him or is their 1st choice?

I feel this way, also, Chief Yahoo. BRF says: GOP in trouble.......second term coming up for Obama.

Cleveland Buck;1041305 wrote:If Romney is the nominee I will vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul. The Republicans would obviously want 4 more years of Obama if that were the case, so they will get what they deserve.

Paulists amaze me. They know deep in their heart of hearts that Saint Paul has zero chance of winning the Repub nomination and even less chance of becoming POTUS especially if he runs third party.

If Paul does run third party he'll simply siphon votes away from Romney (who will in fact be the establishment nominee) and then Obama will most certainly have a shot at a second term.

Romney blows. Gingrich blows. Santorum blows. And Paul has proven time and again he's unelectable.

I'm beside myself that the Repubs appear to be blowing a golden opportunity. Obama should be easy pickings. But for reasons beyond my feeble comprehension, the field of Repub candidates as a whole smells only slightly better than the shit pile currently occupying the White House.

Yet I'd take ANY of them in a heartbeat over Obama.

But the Paulists, who howl louder than anyone over Bammer policies, arrogantly concede that they'll either not vote or waste their votes possibly ensuring 4 more years of the fiscal and political insanity they clearly abhor. And to add insult to injury, they arrogantly proclaim that it will be the fault of Repubs if the Bammer gets 4 more years to put us a few trillion dollars deeper in debt.

I voted for Ford in my first presidential election in 1976. The fruitcakes made Jimmy Carter POTUS that year and that pales in comparison to the nonsense I'm witnessing now.

Perhaps we deserve to endure another 4 more years of Obama. Maybe THEN a leader even stronger than Reagan will rise up out of the quagmire and finally bring us real hope and true change.

believer;1041565 wrote:Perhaps we deserve to endure another 4 more years of Obama. Maybe THEN a leader even stronger than Reagan will rise up out of the quagmire and finally bring us real hope and true change.

I actually like what you said there.

Also, it's nice to know that you are about my age.

rydawg5;1041451 wrote:I have yet to come across 1 person who has said "Mitt Romney is the guy I want to be president" or even "Mitt Romney is who I'll vote for in the primary" -- The only thing I ever hear positive about him is "he is better than Obama" - But how can he lead polls when seemingly no one likes him or is there 1st choice?

Mitt Romney is the guy I want as President. I am not joking. I think he's do an excellent job if people simply held his feet to the fire a little bit.

He will be the most qualified nominee, from either party, since George HW Bush in 1988. I truly believe that.

Honestly, I haven't heard one notable criticism of the man.

believer;1033031 wrote:If Romney takes the White House and helps eliminate the piece-of-crap legislation commonly known as Obamacare and then asks the states to come up with their own plans, I'll be the first to sing his praises.

So is that your biggest, or only gripe? Certainly that alone is worth not voting for a man, I agree. But he's stated that he hates Obamacare and that he doesn't like national plans.

Don't you think that a guy like Romney (who is accused of doing anything that is popular, at the time, with policies) would act to remove Obamacare? He's not a fool--I mean, he did get an MBA and a JD from Harvard at the same time haha. Do you really think he'd leave it in place? Really?

And how does your view change if and when the Supreme Court shoots the whole damn thing down? Suddenly is it all a big non-issue now?

Tobias Fünke;1041691 wrote:So is that your biggest, or only gripe? Certainly that alone is worth not voting for a man, I agree. But he's stated that he hates Obamacare and that he doesn't like national plans.

Don't you think that a guy like Romney (who is accused of doing anything that is popular, at the time, with policies) would act to remove Obamacare? He's not a fool--I mean, he did get an MBA and a JD from Harvard at the same time haha. Do you really think he'd leave it in place? Really?

And how does your view change if and when the Supreme Court shoots the whole damn thing down? Suddenly is it all a big non-issue now?

I can't quite put a finger on it but there's something about Romney that makes me uneasy. Nevertheless, I'd still vote for him in a second over the buffoon in the White House.

Let's hope the SCOTUS blows Obamacare out of the water in the meantime.

C'mon, Tobias. The Republican field of candidates is a joke including Romney...but like I said ANY of them is a vast improvement over Obama. I'm not exactly sure why you're in my face on the Romney thing?