Republican candidates for 2012

• ts1227

  

  [video=youtube;svwGRJA28lY][/video]
  
  /thread
• majorspark

  

  pmoney25;1037629 wrote:Rick Santorum leading Iowa. Smh. Social Conservatives at it again.

  Those damn social conservatives. Always fouling things up. How much better off would this country be without those fools.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1037764 wrote:Those damn social conservatives. Always fouling things up. How much better off would this country be without those fools.

  We'd be far worse off with social conservatives. Fiscal conservatism is where it's at. Social conservatism is for assholes.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1037800 wrote:We'd be far worse off with social conservatives. Fiscal conservatism is where it's at. Social conservatism is for assholes.

  I know a lot of assholes that are voting for Ron Paul.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1037830 wrote:I know a lot of assholes that are voting for Ron Paul.

  Didn't say that voting for Paul makes you not an asshole. But social conservatism is all about telling people what to do because you know better than them morally. Same reason rampant liberalism in the economic realm is bad.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1037931 wrote:Didn't say that voting for Paul makes you not an asshole. But social conservatism is all about telling people what to do because you know better than them morally. Same reason rampant liberalism in the economic realm is bad.

  These social programs the left cooks up are all aboult telling people what to do because someone knows better than them morally as well. Yet you support many of them. Is it not a moral imperitive to take care of the poor and infirm? So why is it ok for the govenment to compel its citizens to do so in the case of the poor and infirm and not the case of say protecting a baby's life in the womb? What are these morals? Who defines them? The left? The right? The Bible?
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1038020 wrote:These social programs the left cooks up are all aboult telling people what to do because someone knows better than them morally as well. Yet you support many of them. Is it not a moral imperitive to take care of the poor and infirm? So why is it ok for the govenment to compel its citizens to do so in the case of the poor and infirm and not the case of say protecting a baby's life in the womb? What are these morals? Who defines them? The left? The right? The Bible?

  It isn't a moral issue in the ones I support but an economic and health issue. For example, if having no contraception lowered the rate of STDs and unwanted pregnancies (IE: Abortion rate) I'd be more inclined to be cool with it. But it doesn't.
  
  I'm not always able to do it but I try to look at things from a macro level in regards to how they effect society. I have been and will be wrong/misinformed in the future.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;1037321 wrote:Nevermind that Obamacare is less socialist than the Medicare part D and the No Child Left Behind Act which not a single republican attorney general challenged as unconstitutional.
  
  I mean, if John McCain had been elected and Republicans actually did something about healthcare...we can be almost certain that it would have closely mirrored Obamacare...IF NOT MORE LIBERAL...because conservatives never challenge Republicans when they create programs that are more socialist than ones that democrats create.

  You are confusing conservatives with establishment republicans. The kind feeling the need to prove they care more than the democrats and poltically hoping to secure a dependancy class to rival their political foes or at least neutralize it. Medicare part D and no child left behind were railed against by conservatives all over the place. I stopped giving my hard earned bucks to the republicans back around those times. They have yet to win back a dollar.
  

  BoatShoes;1037321 wrote:Never in the history of this Republic has a Speaker of the House refused a President's call for a joint session of Congress as John Boehner did.

  I have always liked when the co-equal branches challenge each other. The president is not a king or a dictator that gets his bidding. Congress is equally as powerful as he is. Within the bounds of the constitution the three branches can duke it out all they want. Not a bad thing.
  

  BoatShoes;1037321 wrote:And that is because that all ties in with the the common theme...no matter what Obama does...no matter how conservative...he will face unrepentant opposition from Conservatives who would rather see him be defeated above all else.

  Maybe true. But this is nothing new in American politics. Not even in recent history. Take Harry Reid. He votes to give the president the authorization to use military force against another nation. Then a few years when things are not going as planned, publically declares the war lost. I am sure he was brought to this conclusion by some great moral awakening. You know better. Reid saw blood in the political waters. He was seeking Bush's politcal defeat and that of his party. If Reid's declaration were based on any principled notion he would have done everything within his political power to end the war immediately to prevent the loss of any more lives for a lost cause. More so when he gained majority leadership.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1038037 wrote:It isn't a moral issue in the ones I support but an economic and health issue.

  Taking morals out of economic issues concerning healthcare is what the left rails against. Those "immoral" policies of health insurance companies for economic reasons. Economics are amoral. Now there is someting called charity. The giving of something of value, whether a good or a service, with no expected tangible return. That is where the morals come in. A 75 year old man needs open heart surgery. His overall health is waning. A 60,000 dollar open heart surgery could give him another possible 5-10 years with his family. He has no personal funds to finance the surgery. Economically it would not profit anyone to finance the surgery. Charity is needed. This is where morality enters in. Is is moral for a man who is lavished in millions, has a private jet, several homes, a private yaht, and dines at the finest resteraunts to look the other way? No. Many in that situation do freely give of their own personal moral beliefs to those in need. What I am saying is many on the left have no problem compelling others of great finacial means, out of their own moral imperitive to give through the institution of government, to meet those needs. I have no problem with government assuring charitable giving. Just what level and its constitutionality.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;1038057 wrote:Taking morals out of economic issues concerning healthcare is what the left rails against. Those "immoral" policies of health insurance companies for economic reasons. Economics are amoral. Now there is someting called charity. The giving of something of value, whether a good or a service, with no expected tangible return. That is where the morals come in. A 75 year old man needs open heart surgery. His overall health is waning. A 60,000 dollar open heart surgery could give him another possible 5-10 years with his family. He has no personal funds to finance the surgery. Economically it would not profit anyone to finance the surgery. Charity is needed. This is where morality enters in. Is is moral for a man who is lavished in millions, has a private jet, several homes, a private yaht, and dines at the finest resteraunts to look the other way? No.Many in that situation do freely give of their own personal moral beliefs to those in need. What I am saying is many on the left have no problem compelling others of great finacial means, out of their own moral imperitive to give through the institution of government, to meet those needs. I have no problem with government assuring charitable giving. Just what level and its constitutionality.

  I think that's always the debate. Though many of the republicans currently in power would have it be none. And many in the democratic party would have it be used for stupid things. I truly don't like either.
• believer

  

  Well, this is interesting. Romney edged out Santorum by a scant 8 votes in the Iowa caucus and significantly ahead of the venerable Dr. Paul.
  
  Now granted this is just Iowa but the fact that not long ago Santorum wasn't even on the radar scope, things appear to have changed.
  
  No problem though. The MSM will now temporarily take its attention away from Saint Paul and go for Santorum's jugular vein. After the media Herman Cain's Santorum into oblivion, they'll go back after Paul.
  
  Ya have to love Amerikan politics.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1037321 wrote:Obamacare is a compromise!!!! It was the Conservative solution to Universal Healthcare. Conservatives used to say that they supported the mandate because it "reframed the debate from healthcare being a right to healthcare being a person's own personal responsibility." Liberals want an integrated system like the VA which is now much more efficient than our largely private healthcare system which is the most inefficient in the world.

  Go to a VA hospital and then tell me its better than the private system. You appear to be a smart man Boatshoes but you are insane if you think the VA system is a good one to model after.
  

  And that's just one part of "Obamacare." The advisory board to try and reign in spending and control the cost of medicare was a conservative id! And then, it gets lambasted as a "death panel." Even Cap and Trade and its pigovian taxes was originally put forth by conservative thinkers

  Just because someone has an "R" next to their name does NOT make them conservative, you should know better .
  

  Nevermind that Obamacare is less socialist than the Medicare part D and the No Child Left Behind Act which not a single republican attorney general challenged as unconstitutional.

  Most conservatives like neither of these...so you are preaching to the choir.
  

  I mean, if John McCain had been elected and Republicans actually did something about healthcare...we can be almost certain that it would have closely mirrored Obamacare...IF NOT MORE LIBERAL...because conservatives never challenge Republicans when they create programs that are more socialist than ones that democrats create.

  I don't remember McCain campaigning one time on any type of socialized health care, but keep revising history however you like.
  

  And, the only reason Obama had to pander to Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman was because of the Republican filibuster and both of them are essentially republicans and have deviated from what used to be moderate just like the Republicans have. I mean Obama...the liberal prince is offering positions that used to be considered conservative. How can you say Obama has not been flexible...He offered to spurn his whole party and accept cuts to Medicare and Social Security to forge a deal with Boehner...offering more spending cuts than Boehner was going for but who was then undermined by Eric Cantor and the Tea Party people who don't understand that massively slashing the budget now would make growth slow drastically and unemployment go higher....just like in Europe!
  
  Never in the history of this Republic has a Speaker of the House refused a President's call for a joint session of Congress as John Boehner did. And that is because that all ties in with the the common theme...no matter what Obama does...no matter how conservative...he will face unrepentant opposition from Conservatives who would rather see him be defeated above all else.

  Funny, so now Obama had to bribe democrats because they have become too conservative? Do you actually believe what you are typing?
  
  I do not believe that anyone is denying that shrinking government drastically would hurt in the short term, conservatives are looking at the LONG TERM financial stability of the country. If it hurts for a couple years but we get away from the runaway debt crisis, then so be it.
• Con_Alma

  believer;1038071 wrote:Well, this is interesting. Romney edged out Santorum by a scant 8 votes in the Iowa caucus and significantly ahead of the venerable Dr. Paul.
  
  ...

  This is not surprising in Iowa. Even Hucakbee did will with the flyover State Christians. Consider that Romney's money was focused on discrediting Gingrich it's no surprise that someone was going to benefit from transfer of votes from one candidate to another. Santorum was well positioned to be this person in Iowa.
  
  What we be shocking is if he did as well in NH.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  The media did their job well. They pushed Santorum right at the end with no time for him to be vetted before the caucus. Still, despite weeks of slanderous smears, Paul didn't lose any of his support and won the same number of delegates as Romney and Santorum. The media now knows that they can't take Paul down, all they can do is herd the sheep to someone else, but they are running out of flavors-of-the-month. Once people see that Santorum championed No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D and Arlen Spector and that he received more lobby money than any senator during his term then he will go the way of Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and company. In the end it will be a choice between tyranny or freedom, between the one who will restore our God-given rights or the one who will sell them to the highest bidder.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1038249 wrote:This is not surprising in Iowa. Even Hucakbee did will with the flyover State Christians. Consider that Romney's money was focused on discrediting Gingrich it's no surprise that someone was going to benefit from transfer of votes from one candidate to another. Santorum was well positioned to be this person in Iowa.
  
  What we be shocking is if he did as well in NH.

  Santorum won't get 10% in New Hampshire. In a general election he would lose 45 states to Barack. He is completely unelectable. He can't wait to bomb Iran and wants to invade South America. The guy is scary as fuck.
• Con_Alma

  Ms. Bachman has suspended her campaign.
• WebFire

  Con_Alma;1038624 wrote:Ms. Bachman has suspended her campaign.

  About time.
• QuakerOats

  Cleveland Buck;1038268 wrote:Santorum won't get 10% in New Hampshire. In a general election he would lose 45 states to Barack.

  If that were true, then this republic would truly be finished.
• QuakerOats

  jmog;1038142 wrote:Go to a VA hospital and then tell me its better than the private system. You appear to be a smart man Boatshoes but you are insane if you think the VA system is a good one to model after.
  
  
  Just because someone has an "R" next to their name does NOT make them conservative, you should know better .
  
  
  
  Most conservatives like neither of these...so you are preaching to the choir.
  
  
  I don't remember McCain campaigning one time on any type of socialized health care, but keep revising history however you like.
  
  
  
  Funny, so now Obama had to bribe democrats because they have become too conservative? Do you actually believe what you are typing?
  
  I do not believe that anyone is denying that shrinking government drastically would hurt in the short term, conservatives are looking at the LONG TERM financial stability of the country. If it hurts for a couple years but we get away from the runaway debt crisis, then so be it.

  
  Thank you.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;1038071 wrote:Well, this is interesting. Romney edged out Santorum by a scant 8 votes in the Iowa caucus and significantly ahead of the venerable Dr. Paul.
  
  Now granted this is just Iowa but the fact that not long ago Santorum wasn't even on the radar scope, things appear to have changed.
  
  No problem though. The MSM will now temporarily take its attention away from Saint Paul and go for Santorum's jugular vein. After the media Herman Cain's Santorum into oblivion, they'll go back after Paul.
  
  Ya have to love Amerikan politics.

  Lol, Santorum is a terrible candidate and deserves any harsh vetting he gets. Dude is a religious bigot.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1038708 wrote:If that were true, then this republic would truly be finished.

  If Santorum is the candidate the GOP loses the national election in a big way. It's that simple.
• majorspark

  

  Romney has won the endorsements of George HW Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain. Its about to come full circle.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1038754 wrote:Lol, Santorum is a terrible candidate and deserves any harsh vetting he gets. Dude is a religious bigot.

  Don't forget he plays with dead babies and loves killing the mooslims.
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants;1038757 wrote:If Santorum is the candidate the GOP loses the national election in a big way. It's that simple.

  My dog would beat the current potus ....... it IS that simple.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1038757 wrote:If Santorum is the candidate the GOP loses the national election in a big way. It's that simple.

  1. Obama isn't going to beat anyone in a "big way" this year. He'd be lucky to get 280-290 electoral votes against a circus monkey.
  
  B. Santorum isn't going to be the nominee. He'll be back in PA before Super Tuesday.