1 + 1 + 1 = 3 | Who will win the Republican nomination???

motokid wrote:

It appears Romney has easily won Florida.

(Extremely glad to see Gingrich get a bit of a bitch-slapping. He disgusts me in ways that make me feel like I need to bathe.)

One does have to wonder where the Santorum and Paul votes would go if the only choices were Gingrich or Romney?

Perhaps we'll see soon enough.

They'll go to Gingrich - end of story.

motokid wrote:

It appears Romney has easily won Florida.

(Extremely glad to see Gingrich get a bit of a bitch-slapping. He disgusts me in ways that make me feel like I need to bathe.)

One does have to wonder where the Santorum and Paul votes would go if the only choices were Gingrich or Romney?

Perhaps we'll see soon enough.

I'm with you on Paul. I just have serious doubts about him actually getting the nomination, to the point that I've given up on him. I think Santorum has a better shot, honestly. Niether will get the nod though.

In the end I'll vote for anyone who isn't Obama.

Ron seems like the better fighter, just in the wrong contest....but he knows that better than most, Ièm sure.

Maybe his consistency will lead to a third partyÉ, eventualy...

Seems to me, in Canada, left and right have been loosing support...could southern canuckistan be the sameÉ...
Hopefully a third choice wont be too late, I guesssÉ

Reps need a real socialist party to deal with...Imagine them looking to the Dems as an alli...funny where choices will lead ya.

mucker wrote:

Ron seems like the better fighter, just in the wrong contest....but he knows that better than most, Ièm sure.

Maybe his consistency will lead to a third partyÉ, eventualy..

Just what we need, Ron Paul going third party and siphoning off a few percentage points of votes - still a distant third in the end, but more than enough to guarantee Obama a second term, unfettered about concerns of having to survive the next election.

Boy, what a step forward that would be. When he has the balls to simply DECLARE Congress in recess so he can make appointments without putting them before Congress now... one can only imagine how few limitations he would feel in a second term.

Quote :

Seems to me, in Canada, left and right have been loosing support...could southern canuckistan be the sameÉ...
Hopefully a third choice wont be too late, I guesssÉ

Seems to me quite the opposite is true.

The Conservatives DID just win the first majority government in... how many years? Now, they're closer to being RINO Republicans than true conservatives, but they are definitely on the right and their support has definitely increased - and stayed there pretty much everywhere but Quebec. Meanwhile, the Opposition is now the well-to-the-left NDP, who gained their support at the expense of the Liberals (who are also socialist leaning, but try to play in the middle ground).

Quote :

Reps need a real socialist party to deal with...Imagine them looking to the Dems as an alli...funny where choices will lead ya.

How socialist does it have to be before it's socialism to you?

When Democrats enact legislation that forces banks to give no money down, sub prime mortgages to borrowers who can't afford to pay them back, isn't that wealth redistribution socialism to you?

When a Democrat president uses tax dollars to buy equity positions in financial institutions and openly speaks about "redistributing the wealth", isn't that wealth redistribution socialism to you?

This president's porkulous plans, redistributing wealth, isn't socialist enough for you? Or his most likely opponent - who brought in Romneycare?

Hell, when has Canada ever gone this far to the left in meddling with the private sector and redistributing wealth? When did Canada last dabble in this level of wealth redistribution and takeovers of banks, large manufacturing sectors, etc?

What does it have to be to become socialism? Venezuela? Cuba?

motokid wrote:

(Extremely glad to see Gingrich get a bit of a bitch-slapping. He disgusts me in ways that make me feel like I need to bathe.)

Interesting, that.

A president who was accused of rape, lied to Congress, had articles of impeachment passed again him, had sex with an intern serving under him in his position of authority does not invoke that response.

A president who got his political start in the home of an unapologetic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, who lied about his relationship with Ayers, who sat and listened to a racist preacher spew anti-Semitic and hate speech for two decades does not invoke that response.

But wait... those guys were Democrats. They get a pass.

Quote :

One does have to wonder where the Santorum and Paul votes would go if the only choices were Gingrich or Romney?

There's nothing to wonder about there - Gingrich.

The coming election was the Republicans to lose, and with Romney starting it, it appears they have decided to embark upon that with this course of mutually assured destruction. Rather than concentrate on the issues and the differences they would offer to Obama, they have devolved into tearing each other apart, leaving the issues which should frame the election laying in the dust. 99% of R omney's ads in Florida were negative. Gingrich has abandoned his position of saying he wouldn't get involved in that to dive in as well. And while that cat fight goes on, where is the debate over Obama and his policies and what each of them would offer in return if chosen as the Republican candidate.

Obama and his entourage must be breathing a large sigh of hope as the Republicans drag each other down into the dirt, and at best the choice will be between a RINO and a class warfare Marxist working diligently to divide the country.

Well, in Canada... our conservatives won a majority government with 29.3% of eligible voters ( O and conservatives normally have the highest participation rate, of all parties, in elections, for some time ) . After a 12 yr stint of liberals and on the media blitz of a million dollar "ad scam" involving a few liberals...at least that was the highlight.
Since then, our conservatives have abused election spending laws, by more than that figure, achieving their majority.
Not to mention a 50 million dollar croniism scams in plain public view...not everything, just the most undeniable.
Not to mention multi billion dollar, hosted events, media laden, since election...dwarfing previous governments budgets.
Not to mention an aggressive position on everything non "right", including new mega prisons and criminal laws to fill them. Immigration reform, tax increase on working class, tax breaks for corporations, a public stance against environmental issues...especialy where it interferes with business in western canada.
Not to mention, a move to redistribute the costs of health care away from federal funds, to an each province fends for itself model.

Not to mention, there latest focus is revamping the Canada Pension Plan, to the leaner persuasion.
O ya, tax cuts , for corporations.
Appointed more senators than any other government, while campaining to do the opposite.

By far, I mean guiness record far, the most secretive and non-transparent government Canada has ever had ever.

Those are just the highlights...check the news for yourself if you wish...there is plenty more.

Did I mention they inherited a huge surplus...but now they must do what they must do, because of tough times.

The liberal party failed...and the jackals were waiting to pounce. The left is only divided for a moment...and they, the conservatives are taking advantage of that as visciously as possible...knowing too well their rule is a result of political timing...rather than a true majority decision.

2015 is our next chance to change government...any bets?

Can't blame them for taking advantage of the political timing...though it certainly shows their true, desparate, colours.

Anywho, 2015 will show me full o shit or not...till then...may their god have mercy on their souls.

"A president who got his political start in the home of an unapologetic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon"

So, does this mean that a politician who got his start in Boston is somehow associated with the Boston Strangler?

I find politics amazing in that in any other arena, comments made by either side would and could be used as the basis for a lawsuit. But in a political campaign lies, half truths and innuendo are business as usual, on both sides. And, unfortunately, otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people get caught up in this hysteria.

What is really sad is how effective negative advertising has become in a campaign. I know of very few people who will say that negative campaign ads are good, but look at the results. Romney spent over $20,000,000 in ads in Florida, and 90% were deemed to be negative. The results speak for themselves.

All I can say is thank goodness for TIVO. I can now choose to completely ignore all of the vitriolic rhetoric and watch reruns of The Dukes of Hazzard in peace.

Politics in the USofA has become really slimy and sleazy. The trend seems to be getting worse too.

Both parties, BOTH parties are responsible for the sleazery and corruption of the system.

Together they've created a machine that feeds itself and encourages the very behavior we see today.

Together they've conspired to make it all but impossible for any third-party option to be viable.

Together they've created a duopoly that breeds within itself, and we all know what that creates over time.

The political establishment in the USofA has become grotesque. The entire system is to blame, and the system was created and has been nurtured by

BOTH

the dems ad reps together.

It's just unfortunate that the masses can't see that "more of the same" isn't going to work.

The saying about the definition of insanity being, repeating the same thing over and over yet expecting different results, is perfectly reflected in American politics.

At this point I don't care anymore. One side is just as full of shit as the other. I'm hoping I have enough warning to get the hell out of dodge and out into the desert/canada/baja when it all falls apart.

mucker wrote:

Well, in Canada... our conservatives won a majority government with 29.3% of eligible voters

But to cut to the chase, the "diminishing right" you spoke of just took a majority government. After retaining power as a minority government for... how many elections?

And with a percentage of the popular vote consistent with most majority governments in Canada in the past, correct?

Meanwhile, the "progressive" Liberals and separatists bled all their support to the socialist NDP.

Which indicates, as I said earlier, that the right and the left are not disappearing in Canada as you claimed.

"29.3% of eligible voters" is the usual misleading scam - the fact that a large percentage of the population don't vote is not news, and hasn't been for decades. Why don't you give that damning statistic some context by also providing what percentage of eligible voters voted for "moderate" Liberals?

Actually, being as I just know you cringe at the thought of telling the whole story, let me just help you out with that. Here are the results of that election, with what percentage of those who did vote went to each party:
Conservatives: 39.62%
Dippers: 30.63%
Libs: 18.91%
Seperatists: 6.04%
Greens: 3.91%

As the saying goes, figures don't lie, but liars figger. They take a figure without context, and without background, and throw it on the table like ice cream to be lapped up, hoping nobody will wonder what is behind "Would you like some ice cream, little girl? Doesn't look quite the same as just throwing 29.3% out there, does it? Slightly different picture - funny how that works... However, if 29.3% is so revealing in your mind about the right, perhaps you could offer your views on what the miniscule percentage the Liberals got means in comparison?

Quote :

After a 12 yr stint of liberals and on the media blitz of a million dollar "ad scam" involving a few liberals...at least that was the highlight.

You are indeed the master of understatement - as it suits you. Suffice it to say that "a few Liberals" also included the two Liberal prime ministers. You know, like the claims that one, a lawyer, couldn't remember all the details of the golf course he sold because he wrote the sale contract selling it on a napkin while at lunch. Right...

Quote :

Since then, our conservatives have abused election spending laws, by more than that figure, achieving their majority. etc and so forth

Okay, you don't like conservative governments and have no hesitation in putting your talents at overstatement and understatement to work to push that. Got it.

Quote :

Appointed more senators than any other government, while campaining to do the opposite.

Let me help you out with your confusion on Canadian government and this particular issue - and, once again, your clumsy attempts at misleading.

The Conservatives did indeed campaign for elected, rather than appointed Senators. What you forgot to include is the fact the reason they haven't been able to put that in place up until now is that the other parties - meaning the Liberals and the Dippers and the Seperatists - have blocked all their attempts to date. Which leads to the rather common sense question: how can they hold Senate elections, when the other parties have prevented bringing in legislation to make that possible?

Of course, you also forgot to mention that where provinces have elected "senators in waiting" - the Conservatives respected those choices when filling vacancies.

Finally, here's how the Senate works. When a vacancy occurs in the Senate, it has to be filled (duh). In the absence of legislation to change the Senate to an elected rather than appointed body, it is the DUTY of the Prime Minister to appoint people to fill those vacancies.

So here's the question: are you outraged because the other parties have blocked having an elected Senate? - Never mind, scratch that, I can figure out you aren't.

No, here's the question: are you outraged because in the absence of changing the legislation, are you outraged that the government fulfilled their duty to fill those vacancies? Or are you outraged because they didn't refuse to do their duty - so that some future government of your choice could eventually appoint those senators instead? Given the current rules of the Canadian Senate, what is your claim about what they should have done with all those vacancies?

Quote :

By far, I mean guiness record far, the most secretive and non-transparent government Canada has ever had ever.

If you truly believe that, you're awfully young.

Quote :

Did I mention they inherited a huge surplus...but now they must do what they must do, because of tough times.

You forgot to mention that "surplus" was built by clawing back health care transfer payments to provinces - thereby offloading the costs to provinces to make up by cutting medical coverage or upping provincial taxation.

You forgot to mention that "surplus" was built by overcharging workers on their EI premium payments - and then instead of paying it back, stealing it from the EI fund for federal government use. Billions of dollars.

You forgot to mention that "surplus" was built by raiding federal employee pension and superannuation plans. Billions of dollars.

Not to mention overtaxing taxpayers... Billions of dollars.

Such gifted financial government management lost when the conservatives took power...

BTW, you know what a "surplus" is, don't you? That's when a government takes more from taxpayers than they need to finance the annual budget - overtaxation. What's even more pathetically amusing is that the previous government was running this "surplus" at a time when Canada's debt was approaching critical proportions. How smart is that?

Well, it's smart like somebody bragging they have $1000 in the bank while they have $20,000 in credit card debt they're paying interest on. But them dirty rotten evil conservatives, instead of keeping a "surplus" to impress morons who don't get what that means in the face of critical national debt, they took it and paid as much of the bills as possible. Boy, what a bunch of dummies.

Quote :

The left is only divided for a moment...

Yeah, yeah, working people of the world unite, etc and so forth. I've been hearing that song and dance for generations, and yet, here you are...

Quote :

and they, the conservatives are taking advantage of that as visciously as possible...knowing too well their rule is a result of political timing...rather than a true majority decision.

This is obviously news to you, but you, being Canadian and all, should know that the last Canadian government with a "true majority decision" was 1958 - a year I'm pretty sure you weren't even alive.

In fact, in the last hundred years, there have been only three or four Parliaments where the governing party had over 50% of the vote.

My guess is you don't have a problem with all those previous governments that didn't have "a true majority decision" - you're just grasping at reasons to cry about the current one. And, like your 29% figure, without any context whatsoever.

Quote :

Anywho, 2015 will show me full o shit or not...till then...may their god have mercy on their souls.

Don't think we'll have to wait that long...

bmwrider1946 wrote:

"A president who got his political start in the home of an unapologetic terrorist who bombed the Pentagon"

So, does this mean that a politician who got his start in Boston is somehow associated with the Boston Strangler?

No.

It's not that Obama lived in the same town as Bill Ayers. I'm not sure why you'd think it had anything to do with where you live.

It's that he befriended Bill Ayers, and worked with him, and got his political start courtesy of Bill Ayers - and then lied about knowing him and dismissed him as "just some guy in the neighborhood". In fact, Bill Ayers didn't pick Barack Obama, Barack Obama picked Bill Ayers.

It's not a criminal act to hang out with and form partnerships with convicted terrorists, child rapists, etc, once they get out of jail after completing their sentence. But it does speak to character and what kind of values you identify with.

motokid wrote:

Who thinks Ron Paul can win this?

I'd LOVE it if he won - but I see not a snowballs chance in hell that he could do that.

Kindred spirits when it comes to thoughts on race (ignoring his free market domestic philosophy)?

What's there to love about the following - taken from his article on "race terrorism"? An article he can't claim somebody else wrote and he simply never read, incidentally...

The criminals who terrorize our cities-in riots and on every non-riot
day-are not exclusively young black males,but they largely
are.

The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history
and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology, Like the communists
who renounced all that was bourgeois, the blacks reject all that is
"Eurocentric." They demand their own kind of thinking, and deny the
possibility of non-blacks understanding.

The cause is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently
through legal channels (i.e. the riots being the welfare-state minus the
middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism... Order was only
restored in L,A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare
checks three days after rioting began. The "poor" lined up at the post
office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) - and then
complained about slow service.

Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our
country is being destroyed by groups of actual and potential
terrorists - and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

lndeed,it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinions among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only
about 5% of blacks haves sensible political opinions i. e. support
the free market, individual liberty, and at the end of welfare and
affirmative action".

Anyone else ALSO love to have the politician who wrote that and his mindset as a presidential candidate????

You'd vote for somebody who wrote that?

Never mind whether you'd vote for that or not - do you think black voters would vote for the candidate who wrote that?

Wow....three state sweep for Santorum????

click me


Once again an entertaining face-palm to Gingrich.

heh...just put 'em on survivor island and let the most...well...um...resourceful man win.

gatorfan wrote:

I'm all for bringing all the troops home from EVERYWHERE but this cannot not be done overnight like Paul is suggesting. You have to give allies a chance to build armies. Now if Paul had a 10- 20 year plan to let Europeans arm themselves then I'm all for it. They're getting a free lunch now.

Assuming they're getting "a free lunch" is a bit simplistic. A lot of our interests are served by having those troops in various places. Which is not to say that every base is necessary to our interests, but the assumption that it does nothing for us is not correct either.

A quick review of Ron Paul's claims on US troops outside of the US:

Ron Paul’s strange claim about bases and troops overseas

We don't need to pay all this money to keep troops all over the country, 130 countries, 900 bases.
But also, just think, bringing all the troops home rather rapidly, they would be spending their money
here at home and not in Germany and Japan and South Korea, tremendous boost to the economy.

— Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), Feb. 7, 2012

This comment by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul after Tuesday night’s caucuses caught the ear of our editor. Paul’s phrasing could have left the impression that he thinks there are 900 bases in 130 countries, but normally he makes it clear he is talking about two different things.

For instance, in the GOP debate Sept. 12, Paul said: “We're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world.”

We will lay aside Paul’s loose definition of “occupy” — which denotes taking away a country’s sovereignty. You could also quibble with the concept of a “base,” but we’ll accept that he’s talking about any military facility.

Are there any facts to back up these eye-popping figures?

The Facts

First of all, Paul needs to update his rhetoric. He is still using the same numbers now that he used in September, but since then, the United States pulled out of Iraq, closing scores, if not hundreds, of facilities. So one would have to scratch Iraq off the “occupy” list. (A Paul spokesman did not respond to a query.)

In any case, the Defense Department every year publishes a list of military facilities in the United States and around the world. As of Sept. 30, 2010, the DOD list shows a list of 611 military facilities around the world (not counting war zones), though only 20 are listed as “large sites,” which means a replacement value of more than $1.74 billion.

Most of these — 549 — are small sites, sometimes very, very small.

In fact, some sites appear to be double-counted. There is Spangdahlem Air Force base in Germany, which houses the 52nd Fighter Wing and is counted as a large site. But a separate “base” on the list is the sprawling Spangdahlem Waste Annex, all of three acres, with four buildings totaling 6,500 square feet.

The DOD list does not include war zones, but we know that Iraq has no U.S. troops now, so that would just leave Afghanistan. GlobalSecurity.org, a comprehensive Web site for military information, lists 106 U.S. military facilities in Afghanistan. So, it is hard to see how one gets the list above 750 overseas military facilities, and that’s only if one generously concludes even waste dumps and the like as “military bases.”

The DOD report also shows that these bases are housed on the soil of about 40 countries. (Again, you can quibble over whether Guantanamo Bay in Cuba or certain military-only islands count as foreign countries.) So how does Paul get to the claim that U.S. troops are in 130 countries?

Another DOD document tells the story. It lists how many personnel are based in the United States and other countries.

For instance, as of Sept. 30, 2011, there were 53,766 military personnel in Germany, 39,222 in Japan, 10,801 in Italy and 9,382 in the United Kingdom. That makes sense.

But wait, scanning the list, you also see nine troops in Mali, eight in Barbados, seven in Laos, six in Lithuania, five in Lebanon, four in Moldova, three in Mongolia, two in Suriname and one in Gabon. Most of the countries on the list, in fact, have puny military representation.

Not only that, but we count 153 countries with U.S. military personnel, actually higher than the 130 cited by Paul.

What’s going on here? The answer is that the list essentially tracks with places where the United States has a substantial diplomatic presence. (The United States has diplomatic relations with about 190 countries.)

In other words, Paul is counting Marine guards and military attaches as part of a vast expanse of U.S. military power around the globe. (In fact, under Paul’s logic, dozens of other countries are “occupying” Washington when they send attaches and other militray personnel to their embassies here.) But this document indicates that only 11 countries actually house more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel.

The Pinocchio Test

As evidence of the United States occupying “so many countries” or the “all this money” spent on the military, Paul’s statistics barely pass the laugh test. He has managed to turn small contingents of Marine embassy guards into occupying armies and waste dumps into military bases. A more accurate way to treat this data would be to say that the United States has 20 major bases around the world, not counting the war in Afghanistan, with major concentrations of troops in 11 countries.

Awesome.

Quote :

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

"The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square."
Santorum's latest foray into the hot-button, faith-based issues that so fire up the party's evangelical base comes as his chief rival for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, begins to pull ahead slightly in the state of Michigan, where he was born and raised.

Quote :

He's been unapologetic about some of his more controversial remarks, even reiterating Sunday his past remarks that Kennedy's 1960 speech in Houston made "me want to throw up."

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says," Santorum said.

"That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith."
America is all about embracing diversity, he added.

"What we saw in Kennedy's speech was just the opposite, and that's what's so upsetting about it," he said.

motokid wrote:

Awesome.

Awesome indeed. A candidate that not only isn't a RINO like Romney, but isn't an apologetic cull trying to suck up to the resident socialists and statists as well.

Let's look at this for a moment...

"To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? What makes me throw up is someone who is now trying to tell people that you will do what the government says," Santorum said.

"That now we're going to turn around and impose our values from the government on people of faith. America is all about embracing diversity."

"What we saw in Kennedy's speech was just the opposite, and that's what's so upsetting about it," he said."

That will truly upset those who make a religion out of hating religion - and those who embrace religion. But he's quite correct - we have an Imperial President who is now telling faith-based institutions that their health care plans MUST offer women contraceptives and abortive drugs. Or, they pay an insurer to do that for them - presumably Obama and his acolytes feel this allows them to wash their hands of this.

The same gibbering fools who think "separation of church and state" means we should reject anyone who doesn't hide their faith have no problem whatever with the state forcing the church to provide something that contravenes their religious beliefs. In other words, these morons really aren't about a separation of church and state - they're just for it in one direction. Church and those who go to church should never be allowed near government - but for government to dictate what churches must do is perfectly fine with them. No problems with a lack of separation of church and state there.

It's a good thing Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Lincoln etc are not running for their party's nomination today. Or even Roosevelt for that matter. Considering how badly the religion-haters drop their guts over what somebody like Santorum says, what truly great past presidents have said that joined their religious beliefs and governance would have the haters in babbling hysterics.

They act like that, and then tell us it is people like Santorum who are intolerant. Amusing. They want an Obama clone who says he's a Christian but who goes to church about twice a year - that's about the limit of what they'll take as acceptable faith.

Meanwhile, Obama is proposing cutting health care benefits to active duty and retired military personnel - but you won't see a squeak of protest posted about that. Now, if Santorum had proposed that... they'd be crawling all over that like flies on shyte.

Or, the CBO just releasing the fact that, under Obama's presidency, we now have the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Not a peep about that either.

But, let's just recall what spurred all these questions of faith towards Santorum and others - but not Obama:

Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

Responding to a firestorm of opposition from pro-life organizations, Catholics groups and even some Democrats, the Obama administration has revised the mandate in a way that pro-life advocates are saying is even worse.

The revised Obama mandate will make religious groups contract with insurers to offer birth control and abortion-causing drugs to women at no cost. The revised mandate will have religious employers refer women to their insurance company for coverage that still violates their moral and religious beliefs. Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide coverage at no cost.

Essentially, religious groups will still be mandated to offer plans that cover both birth control and the ella abortion drug

According to Obama administration officials on a conference call this morning, a woman’s insurance company “will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it.”

The birth control and abortion-causing drugs will simply be “part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer,” White House officials said.

“We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions,” the White House said because they “understand how contraception works” and it “makes sense financially.”

The policy will have insurance companies create a policy not including birth control and early abortion drug coverage in the contract for religious employers who don’t want it but the company must also simultaneously offer that coverage to all employees without charging any additional premiums. The Obama administration believe this will save health insurance companies money by preventing pregnancies that may otherwise require the company to pay out additional money to beneficiaries.

The new rule will be published as soon as possible and go into effect August 1, 2012 — thus removing the one-year grace period religious employers had previously because it supposedly would not adversely affect them.

One top pro-life source on Capitol Hill said the revised mandate is “a distinction without a difference.”

“The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it to the employees anyway. Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell their conscience that they aren’t really paying for the objectionable coverage and they didn’t really sign up for it anyway.”

Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said in response to the revised mandate that it violates the right to religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It’s a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs,” he said. “This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law.”

“The liberal Obama administration thinks its political goals trump the religious faith of American citizens. That isn’t right, fair, or constitutional,” he said.

Al Kresta, who hosts a syndicated Catholic talk show, says the revised mandate is not something pro-life advocates can support.

“Our bishops have made clear that we cannot, we will not, comply. And this so-called accommodation sounds a hollow gesture. We call on the Catholic faithful and all who value freedom of conscience to continue the battle for true conscience protection for religious organization and individuals. Make no mistake, we are in a fight for the future of religious freedom in this country,” he said.

Even mainstream media outlets realize the “compromise” will not be taken as a good one by pro-life advocates.

“The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance,” ABC News indicates. “But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization hostile to that care in order to obtain it,” ABC indicated.

Richard Doerflinger, the leading pro-life spokesman for the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, has already said something like this revised mandate is not acceptable because it would still have Catholic and other religious employers sending women for coverage for drugs that violate their moral beliefs.

“Just a few days ago the White House was saying that this is just about coverage, that no one has to be involved in getting people to the actual services they object to. It would be no improvement to say: “Sure, you don’t have to include the coverage, you just have to send all your lay employees and women religious to the local Planned Parenthood clinic.” The Administration’s press release of January 20 hinted at such a requirement,” Doerflinger continued. “That would not be a compromise. In some ways it would be worse.”

Meanwhile, the Republican presidential candidates have been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the mandate on religious employers, which is not popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some Democrats oppose.

Congressman Steve Scalise has led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the Obama Administration to reverse its unconstitutional mandate forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.

Bishops across the country have spoken out against the mandate and are considering a lawsuit against it — with bishops in more than 164 locations across the United States issuing public statements against it or having letters opposing it printed in diocesan newspaper or read from the pulpit.

“We cannot — we will not comply with this unjust law,” said the letter from Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.”

Responding to the announcement, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

“To force Americans to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. . . It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom,” he added.

The mandate is so egregious that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates religious freedom.”

Jäger wrote:

mucker wrote:

That Ron Paul seems like a nice, smart fella...can't picture that gettin him anywhere in this race.

His racist and anti-semetic diatribes in his newsletters from a few decades ago will kill him eventually if nothing else does.

And the idea that if we just ignore Iran, it won't be a problem is anything but smart and marks him as a moron where foreign policy is concerned.

Isolationism just isn't going to work these days.

He isn't advocating that Iran is not a problem. He isn't advocating Isolationism. He is saying that the Federal Government is too powerful, and is spending too much money. He is saying that we are slowly losing our Freedoms in the name of Safety. He says our foreign policy is too expensive for us right now, and to let other countries that would be more affected by the situation in Iran handle it. He means what he says and doesn't try to appeal to people for the sake of his "Elect-ability". This guy has been saying the same thing since the 70's.

I say if Ron Paul can't win, let Obama stay in office.

Do away with both partys.

hooah

Romney wins Michigan and Arizona.

"Super Tuesday" is right around the corner.

Some press releases are mentioning "brokered convention".

Super Tuesday....

Quote :

It wasn't pretty and it wasn't impressive, but Mitt Romney came out a winner Tuesday night.
He came into Super Tuesday with one significant goal: winning Ohio. And, it appears that he did - albeit by a narrower margin than he had wanted.

He won the most delegates. He won more states than anyone else.
He didn't win over the hearts of GOP voters, but he won their heads.

Funny thing is...I follow U.S. politics more eagerly, than Canadian, at election times.
I haven't watched TV in years, though I look for entertainment on the web.
....I still don't know where to cast my vote in this thread....but it's comin down to it.

Romney wins again. Time for at least Paul and Gingrich to throw in the towel! Santorum needs to start considering that he's got an uphill battle....especially when in his own state its going to be a close race. The GOP needs to get a candidate, get behind them, and focus everything on getting that douche bag Obama out of office!

Swagger wrote:

Romney wins again. Time for at least Paul and Gingrich to throw in the towel! Santorum needs to start considering that he's got an uphill battle....especially when in his own state its going to be a close race. The GOP needs to get a candidate, get behind them, and focus everything on getting that douche bag Obama out of office!

Why is there such an obsessive rush for people to shove candidates out of the primary so states that haven't voted yet don't get the same choices as the first states did when there was a full slate? This is the same mindset that has states trying to shove their primary elections earlier and earlier - so they can get their vote in before their choices get whittled down.

Primaries are supposed to be about learning about the candidates, to listen to their philosophy and policies. AND... equally importantly, for prospective candidates to assess how their party's voters react to the policies of other candidates, even if that candidate ultimately does not win the nomination. Romney is just barely scraping by with each election. Whaddya say we demand everybody else but Ron Paul take a hike, so the results after that will look like Romney - and more importantly, his policies - have the enthusiastic endorsement of voters? Would it really be that terrible if prospective candidates had to go to convention, where they had to tailor a platform to win the nomination? Think that scenario might cause some or all of these candidates to change their political platform somewhat. There is some significant value in the type of leadership convention countries like Canada have, where prospective party leadership candidates have to win the position in a day of voting at a convention.

Whatever... this Primary has been turned into a Republican disaster area, and Obama must by now be transitioning from deep sighs of relief, to outright chuckles of glee. The upcoming presidential election has been the Republicans to lose. Unfortunately, Romney's blind ambition and attitude about doing whatever it takes to win have left us in a situation where, at best, I think Republicans have less than a 50% chance of removing the Marxist currently occupying the White House.

Republicans should have run this primary with a focus on themselves, their policies, and how their political beliefs and policies differed from what our current failed president has done and is doing. Because the last thing Obama wants to do is fight the upcoming election on his record. But instead of doing that, Romney and his super PACs came out swinging, with negative ads and compaigning against other candidates - not the opponent the winner will face in the election. To Gingrich and Santorum's credit, for the beginning at least they tried to keep the Primaries about policies and the opponent. But eventually (inevitably, I suppose, given the non-stop personal attacks from Romney that could not go unanswered forever), it became what it is now: a dog and pony show of prospective candidates, each arguing about how utterly incompetent and unsuitable their fellow Republicans are for the presidency.

And while the Republicans are busily eating their own, without the Democrats even having to raise a finger, an increasingly tyrannical president gets a pass - operates without barely a comment from these candidates.

We have a president who, not long ago, declared Congress to be in recess when in fact they weren't - so he could make his appointments without having to go through Congressional review. The Republican candidates were too busy quarreling among themselves for any of them to take the time to point out how bloody unconstitutional this power grab was. Separation of powers? Checks and balances? Ah, who needs that shit anyways.

We have a president who, just in the last few days, chose to publicly say he expects SCOTUS to find Obamacare constitutional - because he says it is, and because it would be "unprecedented" for find it unconstitutional, judicial activism at it's worst. SCOTUS finding a law unconstitutional is "unprecedented"? Really? Because Obama says so? Is there anyone here who can't think of at least one law that federal courts have struck down as unconstitutional? And while Obama has gone where no president has gone before - telling the judiciary how they should decide a case to suit him - where were the Republican candidates, loudly pointing out how this President is attempting to make the Executive Branch a power in government, beyond the checks and balances of the other branches?

Nah... why should issues like that be important in the next government we're about to choose? Let's see Romney's tax returns instead. Or argue for weeks over whether Santorum or Romney are "political insiders" or not. Yes, that's more important.

We have a president killing pipeline deals that would provide not just energy but tens of thousands of jobs, while claiming his administration is doing more drilling than ever before. So while oil the US needs (not to mention jobs) goes to China from our Canadian allies instead, where were the Republican candidates pointing out that the president is - yet again - lying his ass off to the American people. Where were the candidates pointing out that all that drilling is occuring on private lands, primarily in the Dakotas and Montana, land outside of the President's reach to shut down? Where were the candidates pointing out that Obama has essentially shut the oil industry down where it was within his power to do so, and the drilling he is claiming credit for now is due to private land, or leases set up under the previous Bush and Clinton administrations. Where are the candidates pointing out that Obama said he wanted gas prices to go up, and that's exactly what he's doing?

To really add to the fun, we have the clip of Obama telling Putin's aid that after the next election, he doesn't have to concern himself with public opinion and facing election, he'll be free to do as he wants in his quest to "fundamentally change America". That's what we face... and what did the Republican candidates say to respond to that when that clip was televised? Nothing - they were more concerned with beating each other up.

Yup. This president assumes powers the Constitution does not give him, bullies Congress and the Judiciary to give him what he wants, lies his ass off practically every time he opens his mouth, spends our children into penury - and the Republican candidates who want to run against him in the upcoming election can't spare the time to contrast his actions and his record against what they would be doing if they were in office. Obama can't tell the truth, he demonizies every industry he thinks will get him some points, and his modus operandi is to divide the country and set Americans against each other - by the book Alinsky tactics. And the Republican candidates say nothing of this, preferring to rip up each other instead. This is how you take an election that was yours to lose, and work your ass off to do just that.

I believe the future of the United States and the current Obamacare case before SCOTUS will determine the fate of the United States. If Obama is reelected, I believe he will complete the transition of the Executive Branch into an Imperial Presidency. Congress will be expected not to be a check and balance on the President (also called "a do nothing Congress" when they won't go along), but to get their asses in line and give the President what he wants. And if they don't, any day off will become "Congress is in recess" and the president will do as he chooses. The Judiciary will be told how they are expected to decide when the constitutionality of the President's legislation and actions is before them. Obama will also be appointing the next justices - no doubt, activists like Kagan and Sotamayor who think the Constitution is still in a state of ongoing Constitutional Convention, where the all-knowing judges can increase government powers and decrease individual liberties as they see fit. Amend the constitution, get citizen approval to make changes in government power and individual freedoms? How inconvenient, let's just not bother.

We are a Republic, albeit a badly wounded one, not a mob democracy. We are a country with a constitution that declares we prize individual rights and freedom, with a government that is supposedly limited and holding only narrow, specific, enumerated powers. We stand on the verge of losing all of that, replaced by governance with little to no limits, where the Commerce Clause can be used to empower government to force you into commerce that you don't even want to be involved in, to insert the government and bureaucrats into any field of human endeavor.

I appreciate that there are Obama fans out there, who think all of this is a great step forward for the US, and the Anointed One is leading us forward. I won't debate the idiocy of that viewpoint here, but instead point out an essential truth - Obama will not be president forever. We will not always have a Marxist president who believes there is no such thing as government too big. Sooner or later - inevitably - we will have a president who is the exact opposite of Obama in political views and philosophy. If and when we have allowed Obama to set the precedent of an Imperial presidency, an Executive Branch who can kick Congress around, declare them in recess when they're not, use the President's Office to instruct the courts on how they will decide cases... that future President who is the exact opposite of Obama in political beliefs and desires will be every bit as unshackled by checks and balances as we allowed Obama to be. When people protest that this future president is exceeding his powers, ignoring the checks and balances that the Constitution says apply - that future president will simply, and very truthfully, say he is doing nothing different than what his predecessor President Obama did and was allowed to do.

So then, no matter what party you identify with, is that the form of government you want for the future? Will you like an Obama style of presidency just as much in the future, when his political and philosophical opposite sits in the Oval Office?

As for Romney... when his chief staffer was asked about his negative advertising strategy in the Primary, he said they would merely "hit the reset button" when it came time to fight the Presidential Election?

Seriously? Really, seriously? Are they dumb enough to believe that, or is it just the convenient line?

Will the electorate forget all the shit Republicans have been heaping on each other, while Obama was campaigning unmolested and unchallenged using taxpayer dollars? Romney has been outspending his opponents by vast sums in his negative campaign - but when he faces Obama, not only will his funds look like a joke compared to what Obama will bring to the battle, but he'll be fighting the mainstream media bias as well. Much of the opportunity to contrast his philosophy and highlight Obama's failed presidency while the focus was on the Primary will be long gone.

For statists and short sighted leftist/socialist/Marxists, this perhaps looks like the best of times. For constitutionalists who believe in a Republic, limited government with narrow and specific enumerated powers, with the ideal being individual rights and liberty, this country stands on the brink of a disaster we are unlikely to ever recover from if we take those final steps. It is not about Democrats versus Republicans. It is about their fidelity to the Constitution, regardless of their party affiliation.

Republicans need to step away from the social issues they cling to, and and down-play the righteous-religious side of their platform.

If the sole and solitary focus was fiscal, they'd be able to win the hearts and minds of millions.

Unfortunately the push has been to go deeper into religio-politcal issues and social fronts that drive many people away in fear. Those kinds of issues are the exact opposite of freedom. They are restrictions.

Republicans have made huge mistakes this year. They've done the equivalent of what the dems did when the "best they could offer" was John Kerry.

The whole party is in a back-flush situation, and very little in terms of a "true leader" is even remotely recognizable through the slop.

The tea party really fucked themselves by latching on to the nuttiest of the nuts and swallowed up people like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, Michelle Bachmann, and now to a lesser extent Santorum. Throw in the Glenn Becks and you've got a recipe for embarrassed laughter and snickering behind their backs.

When one of your main two candidates states this:

Quote :

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy's assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC's "This Week."

and this:

Quote :

"our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."

you've got serious problems in your party.


Funny though, if Obama is such a shitty president, and so detrimental to the country and world at large, finding an electable candidate should be pretty damn easy.

Yet somehow the opposing party has done little more than cut off their own legs before the race has even really begun.