PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Mitt Romney wins Maine


Chocolate Hog
02-11-2012, 05:24 PM
Romney 38%

Paul 36%



Paul can't win a single state. This is pointless.

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:35 PM
Paul can't win a single state. This is pointless.

LMAO

We've been trying to tell you nuts that for a year.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2012, 05:38 PM
LMAO

We've been trying to tell you nuts that for a year.

We've been trying to tell you nuts that he is for longer than that, now we're surely stuck with Hopebama and a 2nd term. Even if he wins we have Hopebama light in Romulan.

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:42 PM
We've been trying to tell you nuts that he is for longer than that, now we're surely stuck with Hopebama and a 2nd term. Even if he wins we have Hopebama light in Romulan.

Yeah, Paul can't win a single state in the GOP process, but he'd clean up against Obama!

Do you people even have the ability to apply logic?

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2012, 05:44 PM
Yeah, Paul can't win a single state in the GOP process, but he'd clean up against Obama!

Do you people even have the ability to apply logic?

Who would pull more Independent voters? Who has a die hard base? Sure as hell isn't Romney.

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:47 PM
Who would pull more Independent voters? Who has a die hard base? Sure as hell isn't Romney.

Yeah, those Indies are sure putting Paul out front right now.

Yes, Paul has a die-hard base of followers. Unfortunately for him and his followers, there aren't enough of them.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2012, 05:47 PM
Paul and Orange have something in common now, they both had their individual asses kicked today

SNR
02-11-2012, 05:49 PM
Yeah, Paul can't win a single state in the GOP process, but he'd clean up against Obama!

Do you people even have the ability to apply logic?
-Republicans will vote for whoever isn't Obama
-Ron Paul isn't Obama
-Republicans will vote for Ron Paul if he's the Republican nominee.

It's that simple. Ron Paul would do a much better job getting independent voters than someone like Rick fucking Santorum. That's what the Republicans need, not more Jesus-talk and social nanny stating.

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:50 PM
-Republicans will vote for whoever isn't Obama
-Ron Paul isn't Obama
-Republicans will vote for Ron Paul if he's the Republican nominee.

It's that simple. Ron Paul would do a much better job getting independent voters than someone like Rick ****ing Santorum. That's what the Republicans need, not more Jesus-talk and social nanny stating.

I think you are wrong on that. I'm a Republican and I'd never vote for Ron Paul. I'd rather not vote at all. I feel that strongly about his idiotic FP.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 05:51 PM
I think you are wrong on that. I'm a Republican and I'd never vote for Ron Paul. I'd rather not vote at all. I feel that strongly about his idiotic FP.

You're not really a Republican though. You're a Tory. There's just no party for a Tory.

Taco John
02-11-2012, 05:51 PM
Romney 38%

Paul 36%



Paul can't win a single state. This is pointless.

They rigged it in Romney's favor by opening up new caucus locations last minute. That's going to happen when you are an insurgent going up against the establishment favorite. I think Paul's best bet to keep the momentum going is to run third party. We'll see what he does.

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:52 PM
They rigged it in Romney's favor by opening up new caucus locations last minute. That's going to happen when you are an insurgent going up against the establishment favorite. I think Paul's best bet to keep the momentum going is to run third party. We'll see what he does.

LMAO

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:52 PM
You're not really a Republican though. You're a Tory. There's just no party for a Tory.

LMAO

Taco John
02-11-2012, 05:55 PM
LMAO

Facts are facts, that's what they did. Politics is a contact sport.

Donger
02-11-2012, 05:56 PM
Facts are facts, that's what they did. Politics is a contact sport.

Okay, let's see the proof of that "fact."

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 05:56 PM
They rigged it in Romney's favor by opening up new caucus locations last minute. That's going to happen when you are an insurgent going up against the establishment favorite. I think Paul's best bet to keep the momentum going is to run third party. We'll see what he does.

I said such things have been going on per some reports, and I predicted it would be going on.
There's was weird stuff even in SC that wasn't the norm. I mean if they actually changed the rules for this primary for Romney what else won't they do. Past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.

The best way to get even with the GOP is to run as a Third Party just to piss 'em all off and get even. This idea would hurt Rand I bought at first....but they will find a way to marginalize him eventually anyway to bar him from ever getting a GOP nomination. This is the party of Goldman Sachs just as much as Obama is.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2012, 06:00 PM
I think you are wrong on that. I'm a Republican and I'd never vote for Ron Paul. I'd rather not vote at all. I feel that strongly about his idiotic FP.

Romney vs Obama = a Pre-Suck my Genital situation.

Taco John
02-11-2012, 06:07 PM
Okay, let's see the proof of that "fact."

*shrug* I couldn't care less whether you believe it or not, so I'll not waste my time in trying to "prove" it to you. I've been following the turn of events over the last week and have been aware of the adjustments they made on the ground that the Paul organization had to react to in real time. It's not like even if I could produce a google timeline of the Maine GOP caucus location changes from their website that you would acknowledge it, so thanks but no thanks.

Baby Lee
02-11-2012, 06:07 PM
We've been trying to tell you nuts that he is for longer than that, now we're surely stuck with Hopebama and a 2nd term. Even if he wins we have Hopebama light in Romulan.

Do you run your posts through some kind of Johnny Cochrane Babelfish app?

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 06:33 PM
*shrug* I couldn't care less whether you believe it or not, so I'll not waste my time in trying to "prove" it to you. I've been following the turn of events over the last week and have been aware of the adjustments they made on the ground that the Paul organization had to react to in real time. It's not like even if I could produce a google timeline of the Maine GOP caucus location changes from their website that you would acknowledge it, so thanks but no thanks.

He'll just ask a Hundred-and-One Questions to waste your time, anyway. And still won't believe it.

My brother and his wife have been caucusing in Maine. He was certain Paul was going to win his state.

SNR
02-11-2012, 06:37 PM
I think you are wrong on that. I'm a Republican and I'd never vote for Ron Paul. I'd rather not vote at all. I feel that strongly about his idiotic FP.LMAO LMAO LMAO

Behind that moral high horse you ride about "defending America's interests" lurks the soul of a Paulite, apparently. You can't stand Obama's policies, and the idea of voting for a man who would cut defense spending significantly would make you abstain from voting. Thus, in a patteeuing world (which you live in 95% of the time) you would be encouraging the election of President Obama.

You see, we're not all that different, you and I.

Calcountry
02-11-2012, 06:42 PM
Do you run your posts through some kind of Johnny Cochrane Babelfish app?LMAO

If he sucked a tit, he must acquit.

Donger
02-11-2012, 06:53 PM
*shrug* I couldn't care less whether you believe it or not, so I'll not waste my time in trying to "prove" it to you. I've been following the turn of events over the last week and have been aware of the adjustments they made on the ground that the Paul organization had to react to in real time. It's not like even if I could produce a google timeline of the Maine GOP caucus location changes from their website that you would acknowledge it, so thanks but no thanks.

Well, you stated it as a fact. It shouldn't be too hard to present your evidence.

Donger
02-11-2012, 06:54 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

Behind that moral high horse you ride about "defending America's interests" lurks the soul of a Paulite, apparently. You can't stand Obama's policies, and the idea of voting for a man who would cut defense spending significantly would make you abstain from voting. Thus, in a patteeuing world (which you live in 95% of the time) you would be encouraging the election of President Obama.

You see, we're not all that different, you and I.

I don't have much of a problem with cuts in everything. You do realize that Paul proposes much more than that, yes?

Donger
02-11-2012, 06:55 PM
My brother and his wife have been caucusing in Maine. He was certain Paul was going to win his state.

Nice to see being wrong is genetic.

whoman69
02-11-2012, 06:55 PM
Another non-binding Republican election to keep the home folk happy and ignorant.

Chocolate Hog
02-11-2012, 06:59 PM
LMAO

We've been trying to tell you nuts that for a year.

Until there's another Republican that's serious about bringing down the debt and cutting taxes they will not be getting my vote.

Chocolate Hog
02-11-2012, 07:02 PM
I don't have much of a problem with cuts in everything. You do realize that Paul proposes much more than that, yes?

His cuts would bring us back to 2006 levels. That's so apocalyptic.

Chocolate Hog
02-11-2012, 07:05 PM
The "Ron Paul has the most delegates" thing is a bunch of shit too. This is just a strategy being used to keep him somewhat relevant.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 07:13 PM
Nice to see being wrong is genetic.

Uh, only 80 percent of the Maine Caucuses are done, Limey! They don't end for more than another week. Right now it's a statistical tie. There was press making the same predictions too. Was that genetic? Careful now, you married an Italian and it's genetic.

One caucus was shut down where Paul was going to swamp. They used inclement weather. Inclement weather my arse. Paul supporters still show in that kind of weather.

You like the cheats don't ya' Limey.

Donger
02-11-2012, 07:15 PM
Uh, only 80 percent of the Maine Caucuses are done, Limey! They don't end for more than another week. Right now it's a statistical tie. There was press making the same predictions too.

One caucus was shut down where Paul was going to swamp. They used inclement weather. Inclement weather my arse. Paul supporters still show in that kind of weather.

You like the cheats don't ya' Limey.

Yes, it's a conspiracy!

LMAO

Chiefshrink
02-11-2012, 07:15 PM
-Republicans will vote for whoever isn't Obama
-Ron Paul isn't Obama
-Republicans will vote for Ron Paul if he's the Republican nominee.

It's that simple. Ron Paul would do a much better job getting independent voters than someone like Rick ****ing Santorum. That's what the Republicans need, not more Jesus-talk and social nanny stating.

I agree with your political analysis here up to the point where your analysis takes a huge nose dive with the Rick Santorum comment.

Donger
02-11-2012, 07:16 PM
His cuts would bring us back to 2006 levels. That's so apocalyptic.

I don't know if that is accurate, but that isn't what I have issue with anyway.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 07:16 PM
Yes, it's a conspiracy!

LMAO

Nice logical fallacy and projection. You're the one who believes in an Iranian conspiracy to get a nuke bomb.

It's a fact that one caucus was shut down in a Paul stronghold.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72758_Page2.html

Donger
02-11-2012, 07:17 PM
Nice logical fallacy. It's a fact that one caucus was shut down.

Proof please.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2012, 07:20 PM
I gave it to you. Get a pair of glasses.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-11-2012, 07:23 PM
Do you run your posts through some kind of Johnny Cochrane Babelfish app?

Wouldn't you like to know.

FD
02-11-2012, 07:23 PM
Does this mean Paul isn't going to win a single state? Are there any states left where he has a good chance?

SNR
02-11-2012, 07:26 PM
I agree with your political analysis here up to the point where your analysis takes a huge nose dive with the Rick Santorum comment.I was rude and crass about it, but I don't take back its truth. Rick Santorum will not beat Obama. The days of social conservatives winning national elections are over.

Donger
02-11-2012, 07:30 PM
I gave it to you. Get a pair of glasses.

You added that link, sugar.

Donger
02-11-2012, 07:32 PM
You added that link, sugar.

Okay, a caucus was shut down due to inclement weather. How do you know that it was shut down to "keep Paul down"?

Chiefshrink
02-11-2012, 07:39 PM
I was rude and crass about it, but I don't take back its truth. Rick Santorum will not beat Obama. The days of social conservatives winning national elections are over.

You sound pretty sure. If so would you like to make a wager? I already a have a wager with Mis-directed that Repubs will win the WH.

How about all my casino cash(which ain't much) that Santorum is our Repub nominee and if he is he will beat Obama? I mean seriously Santorum has to do 2 things here;become the nominee and then beat Obama. That ought a be a shoe-in easily won bet for you!!:thumb:

Chiefshrink
02-11-2012, 07:44 PM
I was rude and crass about it, but I don't take back its truth. Rick Santorum will not beat Obama. The days of social conservatives winning national elections are over.

BTW, if as you said all Repubs will vote for whoever the Repub nominee is then Rick Santorum will win because the majority of Independents will fall in line with making sure OMarxist goes back to his Chicago Gulag.

SNR
02-11-2012, 07:46 PM
You sound pretty sure. If so would you like to make a wager? I already a have a wager with Mis-directed that Repubs will win the WH.

How about all my casino cash(which ain't much) that Santorum is our Repub nominee and if he is he will beat Obama? I mean seriously Santorum has to do 2 things here;become the nominee and then beat Obama. That ought a be a shoe-in easily won bet for you!!:thumb:
Absolutely. If Santorum is the nominee, I'm not sure I'll remember this bet all the way into this November, so you may have to remind me. I will double whatever it is you have in your coffer at that time. If you have more than me at that point, I give you all of my casino cash and call it good.

I will take that bet.

Also, I don't really care about this if Santorum doesn't beat Romney for the party nod. I absolutely know it's possible he can beat Romney among Republican voters. The real issue is a national election against Obama. The bet's off if Santorum doesn't advance.

Chiefshrink
02-11-2012, 07:49 PM
Absolutely. If Santorum is the nominee, I'm not sure I'll remember this bet all the way into this November, so you may have to remind me. I will double whatever it is you have in your coffer at that time. If you have more than me at that point, I give you all of my casino cash and call it good.

I will take that bet.

Also, I don't really care about this if Santorum doesn't beat Romney for the party nod. I absolutely know it's possible he can beat Romney among Republican voters. The real issue is a national election against Obama. The bet's off if Santorum doesn't advance.

COOL!! America is that angry and afraid of Obama so Santorum will do just fine!:thumb:

Der Flöprer
02-11-2012, 07:52 PM
LMAO

We've been trying to tell you nuts that for a year.

Yep. You have. Good job! Enjoy round 2 of Hope and Change.

Dave Lane
02-11-2012, 08:02 PM
I was rude and crass about it, but I don't take back its truth. Rick Santorum will not beat Obama. The days of social conservatives winning national elections are over.

They have been "Left Behind"

:)

Donger
02-11-2012, 08:07 PM
Yep. You have. Good job! Enjoy round 2 of Hope and Change.

Meh. While I'm far from enthusiastic, I think Romney has a good chance against Obama. I just have to decide whether or not to cast a vote for him.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2012, 11:15 PM
..
Paul can't win a single state. This is pointless.

Welcome to reality. :toast:

The clock's run out, time's up over, bloah!
Snap back to reality, Oh there goes gravity
Oh, there goes Rabbit, he choked
He's so mad, but he won't give up that

http://youtu.be/hO2wA0Te0wM

Aries Walker
02-11-2012, 11:24 PM
Meh. While I'm far from enthusiastic, I think Romney has a good chance against Obama. I just have to decide whether or not to cast a vote for him.
He certainly has the best chance of the four, if for no other reason that the other three are just begging for a third-party candidate to split the conservative vote.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 12:13 AM
COOL!! America is that angry and afraid of Obama so Santorum will do just fine!:thumb:

I've voted Republican in the last 2 presidential elections (the only 2 presidential elections I was old enough for). Now that I am a Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for in this election. If Newt or Romney gets the nominee, I'll write in Ron Paul's name. If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I will vote for Obama. If Rick Santorum were to get the nomination for president, it will probably be the only time that I will ever vote Democrat in my life. Just about every Republican I know believes the same way. I'm also a veteran, and 90% of the people that I know in the military support Ron Paul.

As far as Ron Paul winning a state, we feel very confident he will win up here in Washington. Washington was his best state in 2008 (he was only 3% away from a win), and our ground game up here is superb. I'm a Precinct Leader for his campaign, so I have access to the campaign information, and it is looking like we will do very well.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 12:16 AM
BTW, if as you said all Repubs will vote for whoever the Repub nominee is then Rick Santorum will win because the majority of Independents will fall in line with making sure OMarxist goes back to his Chicago Gulag.

Of the 4 Republican candidates, Rick Santorum has the lowest support from Independents. Social conservatives have been on the wrong side of every civil rights issue, ever. People are tired of it.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 12:24 AM
LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Tonight the campaign of 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul sent an email to supporters regarding today’s caucus results from the state of Maine. See below for a portion of comments from Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Manager John Tate.

“Ron Paul will win the most delegates out of Maine tonight.

“In fact, he will probably even win the ‘beauty contest’ straw poll the media has already called for Mitt Romney – even before all the votes have been tallied.

“In Washington County – where Ron Paul was incredibly strong – the caucus was delayed until next week just so the votes wouldn’t be reported by the national media today.

“Of course, their excuse for the delay was ‘snow.’

“That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches – that turned into nothing more than a dusting - was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight.

“This is MAINE we’re talking about. The GIRL SCOUTS had an event today in Washington County that wasn’t cancelled!

“And just the votes of Washington County would have been enough to put us over the top.

“This is an outrage. But our campaign is in this race to win, and will stay in it to the very end.

“Congressman Paul’s message of liberty and Constitutional principles is resonating with Americans everywhere who are sick and tired of the status quo establishment, and we plan to take this campaign on to ‘Super Tuesday’ and beyond.”

Ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!

Taco John
02-12-2012, 05:20 AM
The establishment with Romney had a plan. Win CPAC, and call Maine for Romney at all costs, even if they have to delay the count. So long as they can get the narrative out that Mitt is stringing together wins...

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 10:23 AM
Writes Eli Cryderman:

"The Maine Republican party chairman, Charlie Webster, predicted, in an interview with the Portland Press Herald, that the result will be close.

'What will happen is that either Paul or Romney will win by 200 votes, in my opinion, one way or the other,' Webster said.'

Coincidence or did he know the game plan ahead of time?"


This is the number Paul, to date, lost by.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/02/gop-chairman-predicted-close-race/

Linked to this original article:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/11/maine-caucuses-ron-paul-mitt-romney?cat=world&type=article

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 10:29 AM
A Report from Maine (http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2012/02/a-report-from-maine/)

Writes Jean Carbonneau:

"Looks like something fishy took place up here. I attended my local GOP caucus. When you first registered, you were given 2 cards. A yellow card to vote in the straw poll, and a green card to vote for delegates to the Maine State GOP Convention, where the delegates will be choose to go to the National Convention. I threw my name in the hat to be a delegate.

Well, when it came time to vote for the delegates, during the count, the caucus chair announced there was a problem. There were 19 more ballots that were turned in verses the number of green cards were turned in. According to party rules, the vote is voided.

Of course, it was asked why not just take the ballots that are there, and count those, and announce who were going to be the delegates. The chair announced that it didn't matter if there was 1 more ballot or a million more ballots, the vote was void. As of this moment, I have no idea what is going to happen. I can tell you that of the 73 delegates that were allocated to Portland to go to the State Convention, a majority of them would have been Ron Paul supporters. The turnout was awesome for Dr. Paul. Young, middle aged, older etc. The spokesman who spoke on behalf of Dr. Paul was a military vet, and probably the same age as Dr. Paul."



Just like Nevada, where last minute boxes of extra ballots appeared, requiring a count that went on for a few more days, behind closed doors. Fishy indeed. No, I am not saying it means Paul would win this nomination, but just enough needs to be done to prevent any momentum or Paul being able to claim he won some states. Need to keep it more realistic and not too far from polling data. Gotta prove he's only on the "fringe" and no one is listening or likes his message. Dana Bash on CNN was right "they" have been very worried about the Paul movement. She said that just before the Iowa caucus started.

banyon
02-12-2012, 10:40 AM
Ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!


“Of course, their excuse for the delay was ‘snow.’

“That’s right. A prediction of 3-4 inches – that turned into nothing more than a dusting - was enough for a local GOP official to postpone the caucuses just so the results wouldn’t be reported tonight.

LOL, the Paul people can't even get the weather report right:

EAST MACHIAS, Maine -- The Republican caucus in eastern Maine has been postponed because of bad weather.

The Washington County caucus was originally scheduled to take place Saturday at Washington Academy in East Machias. But organizers have pushed back the caucus to next Saturday after the National Weather Service issued a winter storm warning, which calls for six to 10 inches of snow and hazardous driving conditions.

Read more: http://www.wmtw.com/news/30435539/detail.html#ixzz1mBcgW6sJ

And it wasn't cancelled, it was just postponed a week. That shouldn't really hurt Paul that much should it?
Wait, that's the "National Weather Service"! As in the national Totalitarian government?!? I bet Obama's really the one behind the conspiracy!

Cave Johnson
02-12-2012, 11:08 AM
BTW, if as you said all Repubs will vote for whoever the Repub nominee is then Rick Santorum will win because the majority of Independents will fall in line with making sure OMarxist goes back to his Chicago Gulag.

Yes, indies will flock to the man on dog culture warrior. ;)

whoman69
02-12-2012, 11:53 AM
He certainly has the best chance of the four, if for no other reason that the other three are just begging for a third-party candidate to split the conservative vote.

If a Republican like Paul goes third party and gets as little as 5% then its all over. Obama re-election.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 12:18 PM
I've voted Republican in the last 2 presidential elections (the only 2 presidential elections I was old enough for). Now that I am a Ron Paul supporter, Ron Paul is the only Republican I would vote for in this election. If Newt or Romney gets the nominee, I'll write in Ron Paul's name. If Rick Santorum gets the nomination, I will vote for Obama. If Rick Santorum were to get the nomination for president, it will probably be the only time that I will ever vote Democrat in my life. Just about every Republican I know believes the same way. I'm also a veteran, and 90% of the people that I know in the military support Ron Paul.

As far as Ron Paul winning a state, we feel very confident he will win up here in Washington. Washington was his best state in 2008 (he was only 3% away from a win), and our ground game up here is superb. I'm a Precinct Leader for his campaign, so I have access to the campaign information, and it is looking like we will do very well.

What kind of demented logic brings someone to a position like this. What makes you more comfortable with Republicans that is so insignificant that you can so easily throw it overboard and vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee? It makes no sense to me.

I can understand the people who are not too thrilled by social conservatism (I fall in that category myself), but there are issues at stake in this election that are so much more important than lip service against gay marriage and abortion that it's inconceivable that anyone predisposed to the Republicans could choose Barack Obama over any of the Republican candidates.

banyon
02-12-2012, 12:28 PM
What kind of demented logic brings someone to a position like this. What makes you more comfortable with Republicans that you can so easily throw overboard and vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee? It makes no sense to me.

I can understand the people who are not too thrilled by social conservatism (I fall in that category myself), but there are issues at stake in this election that are so much more important than lip service against gay marriage and adoption that it's inconceivable that anyone predisposed to the Republicans could choose Barack Obama over any of the Republican candidates.

It's the same reason I voted for Nader in 2000. There was no reason to support Gore. The difference between Gore and Bush in terms of supporting the same status quo policies wasn't big enough to matter. The same things were going to happen. Just like here, neither Obama nor Romney are serious about the national debt. They'll both keep warmongering and putting in place more pro-outsourcing corporatist policies which destroy our job base.

The goal in our two party system is to make them aware that you're paying attention if they don't pull the party in your direction, then they're going to lose you as part of the base. Obama, to some degree was a reaction to the poor left base support which Gore and Kerry had. Obama talked a good game to the left and energized them to some degree. The teaparty did the same thing to the right, particularly by defeating several "mainstream" republican candidates. Unfortunately, Obama's talk was just talk, and that's why the progressive left isn't very excited by the 2012 reelection campaign. 4 more years of what? speeches? I think that's the problem on the right too. This may turn out to be one of the lower turnout elections in recent history with neither base very excited about the general election. Once the republicans settle on Romney, it might be an interesting year for a true 3rd party type to come forward like Bloomberg or someone. They might be able to get people interested again.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 12:33 PM
It's the same reason I voted for Nader in 2000. There was no reason to support Gore. The difference between Gore and Bush in terms of supporting the same status quo policies wasn't big enough to matter. The same things were going to happen. Just like here, neither Obama nor Romney are serious about the national debt. They'll both keep warmongering and putting in place more pro-outsourcing corporatist policies which destroy our job base.

The goal in our two party system is to make them aware that you're paying attention if they don't pull the party in your direction, then they're going to lose you as part of the base. Obama, to some degree was a reaction to the poor left base support which Gore and Kerry had. Obama talked a good game to the left and energized them to some degree. The teaparty did the same thing to the right, particularly by defeating several "mainstream" republican candidates. Unfortunately, Obama's talk was just talk, and that's why the progressive left isn't very excited by the 2012 reelection campaign. 4 more years of what? speeches? I think that's the problem on the right too. This may turn out to be one of the lower turnout elections in recent history with neither base very excited about the general election. Once the republicans settle on Romney, it might be an interesting year for a true 3rd party type to come forward like Bloomberg or someone. They might be able to get people interested again.

That can't be right because he said he'd write in Paul's name if Romney or Gingrich if they won the nomination. But if Santorum gets it, he'll go full blown Obama. Your explanation works for the former, but not the latter.

banyon
02-12-2012, 12:44 PM
That can't be right because he said he'd write in Paul's name if Romney or Gingrich if they won the nomination. But if Santorum gets it, he'll go full blown Obama. Your explanation works for the former, but not the latter.

If works if there is just something about Santorum that is just so offensive that he couldn't stomach him no matter the scenario.

In other words.

Candidate A & B are both bleh, whatever who cares even though they are in different parties, it doesn't make much difference, and Candidate D makes the message to the party point you wanted to make.

Candidate C, though is terrible and shouldn't be trusted with the reins of power no matter what the bleh candidates are doing.

A&B are Obama and Romney "Obamney". C is Santorum and D is Paul.

I don't think I've met many people who had those feelings on Santorum and Obama, but that's how it works i guess.

There are many I've heard who feel that candidate C is actually Gingrich who is too outlandish and nutty when in power no matter the political dynamics.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 02:48 PM
Paul mentions the cancelled caucus that was in Maine.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BzRi1L1W9rM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Saul Good
02-12-2012, 02:52 PM
Paul mentions the cancelled caucus that was in Maine.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BzRi1L1W9rM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They canceled a caucus?

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 02:55 PM
What kind of demented logic brings someone to a position like this. What makes you more comfortable with Republicans that is so insignificant that you can so easily throw it overboard and vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee? It makes no sense to me.

I can understand the people who are not too thrilled by social conservatism (I fall in that category myself), but there are issues at stake in this election that are so much more important than lip service against gay marriage and abortion that it's inconceivable that anyone predisposed to the Republicans could choose Barack Obama over any of the Republican candidates.

Sounds like a guy who thinks it's his duty to vote, but he has no earthly idea what he believes yet.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Welcome to reality. :toast:

The clock's run out, time's up over, bloah!
Snap back to reality, Oh there goes gravity
Oh, there goes Rabbit, he choked
He's so mad, but he won't give up that

http://youtu.be/hO2wA0Te0wM

I'm still voting for Ron Paul in the caucus here. Like I said there isn't another candidate that's going to lower the debt.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 02:59 PM
They canceled a caucus?

Go back and read the thread or listen to the video for what that means. Not gonna re-post for the reading-impaired.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 03:01 PM
What kind of demented logic brings someone to a position like this. What makes you more comfortable with Republicans that is so insignificant that you can so easily throw it overboard and vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee? It makes no sense to me.

I can understand the people who are not too thrilled by social conservatism (I fall in that category myself), but there are issues at stake in this election that are so much more important than lip service against gay marriage and abortion that it's inconceivable that anyone predisposed to the Republicans could choose Barack Obama over any of the Republican candidates.


I don't see a difference between Obama and Romney/Gingrich. They are all 3 for big government and further divorcing from our constitution. I don't care for any of the 3, and we are screwed regardless if any of them is president in 2012.

Rick Santorum is a religious nut job who wants to turn the United States into a Theocracy. His blatant hatred for homosexuals is so appalling, that I would rather help Obama be reelected than let someone like Rick Santorum become president. He is even more for big government than Obama.

Baby Lee
02-12-2012, 03:04 PM
What kind of demented logic brings someone to a position like this. What makes you more comfortable with Republicans that is so insignificant that you can so easily throw it overboard and vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee? It makes no sense to me.

I can understand the people who are not too thrilled by social conservatism (I fall in that category myself), but there are issues at stake in this election that are so much more important than lip service against gay marriage and abortion that it's inconceivable that anyone predisposed to the Republicans could choose Barack Obama over any of the Republican candidates.

Perhaps, as bad as things might be, the next 4 years being spent stamping the Republicans as the party of Santorum would actually be worse than spent reinforcing the Democrats as the party of Obama?

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 03:05 PM
They canceled a caucus?

A caucus in a Ron Paul stronghold was postponed due to "inclement weather". There is a very good chance that Ron Paul would've won the straw vote with that caucus. The GOP in Maine decided they would declare a winner saturday evening, rather than wait for the results.

BucEyedPea
02-12-2012, 03:07 PM
A caucus in a Ron Paul stronghold was postponed due to "inclement weather". There is a very good chance that Ron Paul would've won the straw vote if that caucus. The GOP in Maine decided they would declare a winner saturday evening, rather than wait for the results.

It was posted earlier in the thread besides being right in the video he quoted. Perhaps he's listening challenged as well?

What was also posted was the GOP predicted Romney to win by 200 votes and that's how many he won by....that is with only 80% of caucuses completed.

SNR
02-12-2012, 03:09 PM
Perhaps, as bad as things might be, the next 4 years being spent stamping the Republicans as the party of Santorum would actually be worse than spent reinforcing the Democrats as the party of Obama?DING DING DING DING DING

Saul Good
02-12-2012, 03:15 PM
Go back and read the thread or listen to the video for what that means. Not gonna re-post for the reading-impaired.

Oh, I've read it. I've come to the conclusion that you're lying through your teeth. I was trying to give you the opportunity to clarify your statement, but you've chosen to insult my intelligence instead.

I've noticed that you lie an awful lot.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 04:31 PM
I don't see a difference between Obama and Romney/Gingrich. They are all 3 for big government and further divorcing from our constitution. I don't care for any of the 3, and we are screwed regardless if any of them is president in 2012.

Rick Santorum is a religious nut job who wants to turn the United States into a Theocracy. His blatant hatred for homosexuals is so appalling, that I would rather help Obama be reelected than let someone like Rick Santorum become president. He is even more for big government than Obama.

The first paragraph is wrong but I can understand how those thoughts can seem reasonable to a not yet fully mature idealist.

The second paragraph is pure ignorance. Ron Paul sure does feast on your kind. Bigger government than Obama? Hatred of homosexuality? Theocracy? Please.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 04:52 PM
Anyone who bases their vote this year on their opposition to social conservatism is just as lame as the social conservatives they oppose. Good Lord (haha), there are more important issues at stake.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 05:05 PM
The first paragraph is wrong but I can understand how those thoughts can seem reasonable to a not yet fully mature idealist.

The second paragraph is pure ignorance. Ron Paul sure does feast on your kind. Bigger government than Obama? Hatred of homosexuality? Theocracy? Please.

You must not be familiar with Santorums voting record. Figures most of his supporters aren't.

go bowe
02-12-2012, 05:06 PM
Anyone who bases their vote this year on their opposition to social conservatism is just as lame as the social conservatives they oppose. Good Lord (haha), there are more important issues at stake.

you say lame like it's a bad thing... :(

patteeu
02-12-2012, 05:10 PM
You must not be familiar with Santorums voting record. Figures most of his supporters aren't.

None of his votes in support of GWBush-style big government put him in a class with Obama-style EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT. Nor is there anything in his voting record that can reasonably be construed as support for Theocracy or hatred of homosexuals.

But feel free to educate me.

CoMoChief
02-12-2012, 05:11 PM
ROFL @ morons who really think Romney is a republican.

SNR
02-12-2012, 05:19 PM
Anyone who bases their vote this year on their opposition to social conservatism is just as lame as the social conservatives they oppose. Good Lord (haha), there are more important issues at stake.This is for the long-term benefit of conservatism, dude.

Half the people in this country STILL have a sour taste in their mouths from the GWB presidency- his folksy, church chat-style, ways of communicating with Americans drove people nuts. It made him look uneducated. Which looks REALLY bad for the general reputation of the Republican party. GWB set them back decades in the image department.

This isn't about if Rick Santorum actually hates homosexuals and wants to regulate the social decisions people in this country make. It's about the PERCEPTION that he does. And another term of that bullshit will leave people questioning if the Republican party is actually capable of electing anything more than sociopathic copies of Ned Flanders.

Because frankly, if Santorum is their nomination, I will lose faith in them completely. I will think that the general mindset of the party lacks the common sense to come up with a candidate that remotely resembles the tiniest smidgen of rationality and reason. I may never vote for a Republican for as long as I live if Santorum is the nod.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 05:27 PM
The first paragraph is wrong but I can understand how those thoughts can seem reasonable to a not yet fully mature idealist.

The second paragraph is pure ignorance. Ron Paul sure does feast on your kind. Bigger government than Obama? Hatred of homosexuality? Theocracy? Please.

If you want to say my thoughts are not yet fully mature idealist thoughts because I'm younger than you, I'll take that. Every generation for the past 100 years has made America worse than the generation before it. My generation is here to reverse that trend. Ron Paul's message isn't going to die with Ron Paul. It will continue, and when Rand Paul runs for president, he will win.

If you believe the second paragraph is false, you don't listen to the stupidity that spews out every time Santorum opens his mouth. Santorum is a neocon and a social conservative, the two worst types or republicans, combined into one.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 05:28 PM
This is for the long-term benefit of conservatism, dude.

Half the people in this country STILL have a sour taste in their mouths from the GWB presidency- his folksy, church chat-style, ways of communicating with Americans drove people nuts. It made him look uneducated. Which looks REALLY bad for the general reputation of the Republican party. GWB set them back decades in the image department.

This isn't about if Rick Santorum actually hates homosexuals and wants to regulate the social decisions people in this country make. It's about the PERCEPTION that he does. And another term of that bullshit will leave people questioning if the Republican party is actually capable of electing anything more than sociopathic copies of Ned Flanders.

Because frankly, if Santorum is their nomination, I will lose faith that they are incapable of representing anything that remotely resembles the tiniest smidgen of rationality and reason. I may never vote for a Republican for as long as I live.

Ronald Reagan gave voice to social conservatism just as much as Rick Santorum. I'm no social conservative, but the reality is that gay marriage is inevitable no matter who gets elected (perhaps the timing might be affected) and the abortion battle will be about where to draw the line on limitations (as opposed to unfettered abortion on demand versus no abortion at all). Concern over theocracy is about as reality based as concern over Obama being a manchurian candidate born in Kenya and programmed to do the bidding of communist China (or alternatively Islamic extremists).

I'm more worried about the real damage that a second Obama term would do, particularly in terms of court appointments.

Chocolate Hog
02-12-2012, 05:29 PM
None of his votes in support of GWBush-style big government put him in a class with Obama-style EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT. Nor is there anything in his voting record that can reasonably be construed as support for Theocracy or hatred of homosexuals.

But feel free to educate me.

Lol yeah the medicine program and doubling the department of education aren't socialist.

Donger
02-12-2012, 05:31 PM
ROFL @ morons who really think Romney is a republican.

Are you aware that Paul quit the Republican party once?

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 05:31 PM
None of his votes in support of GWBush-style big government put him in a class with Obama-style EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT. Nor is there anything in his voting record that can reasonably be construed as support for Theocracy or hatred of homosexuals.

But feel free to educate me.

His rhetoric can reasonbly be construed as support for Theocracy and hatred of homosexuals.

Donger
02-12-2012, 05:33 PM
If you want to say my thoughts are not yet fully mature idealist thoughts because I'm younger than you, I'll take that. Every generation for the past 100 years has made America worse than the generation before it. My generation is here to reverse that trend. Ron Paul's message isn't going to die with Ron Paul. It will continue, and when Rand Paul runs for president, he will win.

If you believe the second paragraph is false, you don't listen to the stupidity that spews out every time Santorum opens his mouth. Santorum is a neocon and a social conservative, the two worst types or republicans, combined into one.

I think Rand would have a better chance than Ron. He doesn't seem quite as nuts as his old man.

Donger
02-12-2012, 05:35 PM
His rhetoric can reasonbly be construed as support for Theocracy and hatred of homosexuals.

Examples?

I mean, I've heard Ron Paul say some stuff that could certainly be construed as racist and anti-homosexual.

SNR
02-12-2012, 05:37 PM
Concern over theocracy is about as reality based as concern over Obama being a manchurian candidate born in Kenya and programmed to do the bidding of communist China (or alternatively Islamic extremists).And the best way to communicate that to independent voters is to... elect Santorum?

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 05:39 PM
Examples?

I mean, I've heard Ron Paul say some stuff that could certainly be construed as racist and anti-homosexual.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes that the federal government has no right to prohibit gay marriage, he voted for the repeal of don't ask don't tell, and he's been fighting against the drug war since the 1980s. What has Rick done to prove he's not anti-gay?

Donger
02-12-2012, 05:41 PM
Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes that the federal government has no right to prohibit gay marriage, he voted for the repeal of don't ask don't tell, and he's been fighting against the drug war since the 1980s. What has Rick done to prove he's not anti-gay?

No, no. You made a statement about Santorum. Please back it up with specific examples that support your opinion.

Oh, and WTF does the "drug war" have to do homosexuality?

patteeu
02-12-2012, 05:41 PM
Lol yeah the medicine program and doubling the department of education aren't socialist.

You're not doing a very good job of replying to what I post. Try it again, but take your time.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 05:42 PM
His rhetoric can reasonbly be construed as support for Theocracy and hatred of homosexuals.

If by "reasonably", you mean "irrationally", we agree.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 05:51 PM
No, no. You made a statement about Santorum. Please back it up with specific examples that support your opinion.

Oh, and WTF does the "drug war" have to do homosexuality?

I was giving you examples of Ron Paul fighting against anti-gay and racism.

As far as Santorum

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.”



“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.”

This one is a perfect example of, "I'm not racist, but ...". No, you are racist.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 05:57 PM
No, no. You made a statement about Santorum. Please back it up with specific examples that support your opinion.

Oh, and WTF does the "drug war" have to do homosexuality?

“I know it may sound like a huge exaggeration, particularly in light of the recent attack on America, but this may truly be the most important letter I ever write you… For the last year, Matt Daniels has been working behind the scenes with conservative legal scholars like Robert Bork, Princeton University’s Robert George and Harvard Law School’s Mary Ann Glendon as well as conservative leaders in Congress like myself and Congressman J.C. Watts to draft an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the holy sacrament of marriage from those who would legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’… Our opposition, the Gay Rights Movement, is organized.”


“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”


Discussing gay marriage: “This is an issue just like 9-11… We didn’t decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?”


“You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father… I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”





Because gays are terrorists...

Donger
02-12-2012, 06:14 PM
I was giving you examples of Ron Paul fighting against anti-gay and racism.

As far as Santorum

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.”

“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.”

This one is a perfect example of, "I'm not racist, but ...". No, you are racist.

I don't see anything in those that has to do with race. And, I still don't understand what the drug war has to do with either homosexuality. Anyway.

And, what he is saying is true. Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is abnormal. You can state those facts without being "anti-homosexual."

Donger
02-12-2012, 06:15 PM
“I know it may sound like a huge exaggeration, particularly in light of the recent attack on America, but this may truly be the most important letter I ever write you… For the last year, Matt Daniels has been working behind the scenes with conservative legal scholars like Robert Bork, Princeton University’s Robert George and Harvard Law School’s Mary Ann Glendon as well as conservative leaders in Congress like myself and Congressman J.C. Watts to draft an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the holy sacrament of marriage from those who would legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’… Our opposition, the Gay Rights Movement, is organized.”


“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”


Discussing gay marriage: “This is an issue just like 9-11… We didn’t decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?”


“You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father… I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”





Because gays are terrorists...

Are you under the impression that certain homosexuals are not trying to normalize and equalize homosexuality?

patteeu
02-12-2012, 06:48 PM
And the best way to communicate that to independent voters is to... elect Santorum?

If Santorum is elected, independents will already be adequately aware of it, pretty much by definition. Conservatives who oppose Santorum and cite some kind of "crazy religiosity" rational are doing more harm than good. It's just feeding a potential misconception with irrational hyperbole.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 06:49 PM
I don't see anything in those that has to do with race. And, I still don't understand what the drug war has to do with either homosexuality. Anyway.


You said that Ron Paul has said things that make seem racist and anti-gay. I listed his actions that show otherwise. When I first looked at your post, I didn't read that you had quoted me and asked for examples. I was only replying to the second part of your post.


And, what he is saying is true. Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is abnormal. You can state those facts without being "anti-homosexual."

He stated a lot more than those facts. He compared homosexuals to some of the most hated acts in society, pedophillia, incest, and beastiality. He compared homosexual acts to bygamy, polygamy, and adultery. He compared the LGBT community to terrorists. I consider those comparisons hateful rhetoric, as do most people.

Then he says "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." AKA: I don't hate you, I just hate you being you.



Everyone is up in arms about Obama trying to make religious institutions cover birth control. Why is everyone not up in arms when social conservatives try to tell churches who they can and cannot perform marriage ceremonies for?

Go ahead and nominate Santorum. Just don't be upset when he gets beat by double digits.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 06:53 PM
If Santorum is elected, independents will already be adequately aware of it, pretty much by definition. Conservatives who oppose Santorum and cite some kind of "crazy religiosity" rational are doing more harm than good. It's just feeding a potential misconception with irrational hyperbole.

Conservatives who support Santorum might want to look up the definition of "conservative" and choose a new word to describe their own political beliefs.

Donger
02-12-2012, 06:57 PM
He stated a lot more than those facts. He compared homosexuals to some of the most hated acts in society, pedophillia, incest, and beastiality. He compared homosexual acts to bygamy, polygamy, and adultery. He compared the LGBT community to terrorists. I consider those comparisons hateful rhetoric, as do most people.

Then he says "I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts." AKA: I don't hate you, I just hate you being you.

I'm not sure he was making a direct comparison between homosexuality and those. It seems he was just using the "slippery slope" argument against normalizing something which has long been held as being deviant to the mainstream and given equality with heterosexuality and marriage. Probably a bit over the top, but I still don't see the extreme anti-homosexuality.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 06:59 PM
He compared homosexuals to some of the most hated acts in society, pedophillia, incest, and beastiality. He compared homosexual acts to bygamy, polygamy, and adultery.

He most certainly did not, you lying pillowbiter.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 07:05 PM
He most certainly did not, you lying pillowbiter.

Good one.

SNR
02-12-2012, 07:29 PM
If Santorum is elected, independents will already be adequately aware of it, pretty much by definition. Conservatives who oppose Santorum and cite some kind of "crazy religiosity" rational are doing more harm than good. It's just feeding a potential misconception with irrational hyperbole.And I'd argue that for the sake of future elections if Santorum gets the nod, Republicans need to be taught a permanent lesson that if they want the Democrat in office out on his ass, it's far better to nominate a guy whose religious fanaticism WON'T be called into question by independents, no matter how irrational it may be. Just so we never have to run this risk of losing to an Obama in the near future.

For once I'd like to see the general consensus in the country be that the Republican Party is the party of reason and rationality. Right now that is absolutely not the case and will not be for a very, very, long time if we keep trotting out fucking assclowns to get beaten by incompetent speech givers with no substance like Obama.

God, it's like I'm talking to a true fan who doesn't care that Cassel can't make a proper read or throw a 20-yard out accurately. "The Republicans are going to the playoffs! Wooo! We don't need a better QB, we've got Rick Santorum!"

Donger
02-12-2012, 07:35 PM
And I'd argue that for the sake of future elections if Santorum gets the nod, Republicans need to be taught a permanent lesson that if they want the Democrat in office out on his ass, it's far better to nominate a guy whose religious fanaticism WON'T be called into question by independents, no matter how irrational it may be. Just so we never have to run this risk of losing to an Obama in the near future.

For once I'd like to see the general consensus in the country be that the Republican Party is the party of reason and rationality. Right now that is absolutely not the case and will not be for a very, very, long time if we keep trotting out ****ing assclowns to get beaten by incompetent speech givers with no substance like Obama.

God, it's like I'm talking to a true fan who doesn't care that Cassel can't make a proper read or throw a 20-yard out accurately. "The Republicans are going to the playoffs! Wooo! We don't need a better QB, we've got Rick Santorum!"

Santorum isn't going to the nominee, although he stands a better chance than Paul does. Romney is going to be the nominee. It's basically a fait accompli.

I realize that Paul followers are all excited that Santorum won last week and are feebly trying to spin and turn that into "See!!! You should vote for Paul!" but it isn't working.

SNR
02-12-2012, 07:39 PM
Santorum isn't going to the nominee, although he stands a better chance than Paul does. Romney is going to be the nominee. It's basically a fait accompli.

I realize that Paul followers are all excited that Santorum won last week and are feebly trying to spin and turn that into "See!!! You should vote for Paul!" but it isn't working.Don't put words in my mouth. I've never once had any faith that Paul would win this election. I said he'd do much better and be more relevant than he was in 2008, and that's exactly what happened. Your beef is with Taco and BEP and not me, whether it has to do with the shady results of the Maine caucus or Paul's strategy to force a brokered convention. I've never once bought any of that.

Also, I'm speaking in the hypothetical about Santorum. I know I didn't mention that, but I figured people would figure it as an obvious assumption.

SNR
02-12-2012, 07:41 PM
Also, rape is funny.

banyon
02-12-2012, 07:42 PM
And I'd argue that for the sake of future elections if Santorum gets the nod, Republicans need to be taught a permanent lesson that if they want the Democrat in office out on his ass, it's far better to nominate a guy whose religious fanaticism WON'T be called into question by independents, no matter how irrational it may be. Just so we never have to run this risk of losing to an Obama in the near future.

For once I'd like to see the general consensus in the country be that the Republican Party is the party of reason and rationality. Right now that is absolutely not the case and will not be for a very, very, long time if we keep trotting out ****ing assclowns to get beaten by incompetent speech givers with no substance like Obama.

God, it's like I'm talking to a true fan who doesn't care that Cassel can't make a proper read or throw a 20-yard out accurately. "The Republicans are going to the playoffs! Wooo! We don't need a better QB, we've got Rick Santorum!"

I'm not a Republican, but (...oh wait I forgot I am one LOL) if I were, I would agree with everything in this post. It seems the days of William Buckley and Noam Chomsky debating policy is a thing of the past. It has to fit in small soundbytes and be easily understood by the lowest common denominator of a wide array of dumba**es.

I happen to think that right now the Republicans are worse about this than the Dems, but it's not as if either side is immune to this. I wonder sometimes if it's just a sign of the utter deterioration of the state of our country. I mean when we look at politicians in the third world, they are always saying unbelievably outrageous stuff and don't seem to care too much for the truth. Maybe it's our dumbed down education system or the tv/texting/internet cultural dumbing down. I'm not sure, but I agree it is most demoralizing.

Donger
02-12-2012, 07:42 PM
Don't put words in my mouth. I've never once had any faith that Paul would win this election. I said he'd do much better and be more relevant than he was in 2008, and that's exactly what happened. Your beef is with Taco and BEP and not me, whether it has to do with the shady results of the Maine caucus or Paul's strategy to force a brokered convention. I've never once bought any of that.

Also, I'm speaking in the hypothetical about Santorum. I know I didn't mention that, but I figured people would figure it as an obvious assumption.

Fair enough. However, I'm pretty sure that TJ is on record as believing that Paul has never had a chance at being the nominee (I don't really care what BEP thinks or believes).

I haven't looked at Paul's results so far compared to last time. Has he done better?

Donger
02-12-2012, 07:44 PM
I'm not a Republican, but (...oh wait I forgot I am one LOL) if I were, I would agree with everything in this post. It seems the days of William Buckley and Noam Chomsky debating policy is a thing of the past. It has to fit in small soundbytes and be easily understood by the lowest common denominator of a wide array of dumba**es.

I happen to think that right now the Republicans are worse about this than the Dems, but it's not as if either side is immune to this. I wonder sometimes if it's just a sign of the utter deterioration of the state of our country. I mean when we look at politicians in the third world, they are always saying unbelievably outrageous stuff and don't seem to care too much for the truth. Maybe it's our dumbed down education system or the tv/texting/internet cultural dumbing down. I'm not sure, but I agree it is most demoralizing.

As a Republican, I'm far from happy about the field that I get to chose from in this election. I'm hoping that Romney will make a good selection for VP (maybe Rubio?) that will give us some energy for the future.

banyon
02-12-2012, 07:45 PM
As a Republican, I'm far from happy about the field that I get to chose from in this election. I'm hoping that Romney will make a good selection for VP (maybe Rubio?) that will give us some energy for the future.

Rubio's a dumb phony too. I can count the number of non-phonies in Congress on probably 2 hands.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 07:48 PM
Santorum isn't going to the nominee, although he stands a better chance than Paul does. Romney is going to be the nominee. It's basically a fait accompli.

I realize that Paul followers are all excited that Santorum won last week and are feebly trying to spin and turn that into "See!!! You should vote for Paul!" but it isn't working.

I've never claimed that Paul has a better chance of becoming the nominee than Santorum. I will claim that Paul has a better chance of beating Obama than Santorum. Santorum drives people away from the Republican party. Paul brings people to the Republican party.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 07:49 PM
Fair enough. However, I'm pretty sure that TJ is on record as believing that Paul has never had a chance at being the nominee (I don't really care what BEP thinks or believes).

I haven't looked at Paul's results so far compared to last time. Has he done better?

His numbers have at least doubled in every state except Nevada.

Donger
02-12-2012, 07:51 PM
I've never claimed that Paul has a better chance of becoming the nominee than Santorum. I will claim that Paul has a better chance of beating Obama than Santorum. Santorum drives people away from the Republican party. Paul brings people to the Republican party.

If Paul does what you claim in your last sentence, I'm done with the Republican party. And, he doesn't, thankfully. Or, he'd be winning (at least one state).

Donger
02-12-2012, 07:53 PM
His numbers have at least doubled in every state except Nevada.

Okay, I'll take your word for it. But, still nowhere near close to being a VIABLE candidate. That's kind of the operative and relevant word.

Paul followers would be wise to look up the definition of that word.

dirk digler
02-12-2012, 07:53 PM
As a Republican, I'm far from happy about the field that I get to chose from in this election. I'm hoping that Romney will make a good selection for VP (maybe Rubio?) that will give us some energy for the future.

It certainly will be interesting in the GE watching all the conservatives tie themselves into knots to defend Romney. Looking at his history he has been more liberal than Obama on certain issues.

Donger
02-12-2012, 07:55 PM
It certainly will be interesting in the GE watching all the conservatives tie themselves into knots to defend Romney. Looking at his history he has been more liberal than Obama on certain issues.

As the Governor of Massachusetts? Well, yeah. Did you expect something else?

dirk digler
02-12-2012, 07:59 PM
As the Governor of Massachusetts? Well, yeah. Did you expect something else?

Well he says he ran Massachusetts as a true conservative. Do you think he did?

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 08:00 PM
If Paul does what you claim in your last sentence, I'm done with the Republican party. And, he doesn't, thankfully. Or, he'd be winning (at least one state).

Obama won the military vote in 2008. Ron Paul is highly-favored by the military over the other 3 Republicans and Obama. Being a veteran, I can attest to this since most of my friends are still in the military and almost all support Ron Paul. Ron Paul also gets more donations from the military than Obama, Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich combined. It's pretty sad when Republicans lose the military votes.

He brings in the gay conservatives who vote Democrat solely for social issues.

He is favored by minority voters, young voters, and independents over the other 3 candidates.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 08:03 PM
Conservatives who support Santorum might want to look up the definition of "conservative" and choose a new word to describe their own political beliefs.

That's pretty rich coming from the guy who's thinking about voting for Obama.

Baby Lee
02-12-2012, 08:04 PM
None of his votes in support of GWBush-style big government put him in a class with Obama-style EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT. Nor is there anything in his voting record that can reasonably be construed as support for Theocracy or hatred of homosexuals.

But feel free to educate me.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

The only thing worse than Democrats who say that in fiscal matters are Republicans like Santorum and Huckabee who say that for every FUCKING aspect of your life.

Give me Republicans who say our form of government can make the best society to help yourself find your bliss.

Quit telling me what goes into my body or what should be able I press against it in love or lust. Quit telling me how much legally acquired wealth is fair. Quite telling me if I follow your rules you''ll give me a subsistence living if I fall in line. Just protect me against those who would harm me, and make sure the things I use are useful and reliable.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 08:07 PM
That's pretty rich coming from the guy who's thinking about voting for Obama.

I'm going to vote for the most conservative candidate for president regardless, and that is Ron Paul. The Rick Santorum comment was purely hypothetical, because there is no way he will get the nomination.

I can make that claim as a conservative, because Obama is more conservative than Rick Santorum.

dirk digler
02-12-2012, 08:16 PM
I can make that claim as a conservative, because Obama is more conservative than Rick Santorum.

and Mittens

banyon
02-12-2012, 08:25 PM
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

.

Am I wrong, or did that phrase originally come from the movie HUD?

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 08:29 PM
If you want to say my thoughts are not yet fully mature idealist thoughts because I'm younger than you, I'll take that. Every generation for the past 100 years has made America worse than the generation before it. My generation is here to reverse that trend.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL :clap:

patteeu
02-12-2012, 08:40 PM
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

The only thing worse than Democrats who say that in fiscal matters are Republicans like Santorum and Huckabee who say that for every ****ING aspect of your life.

Give me Republicans who say our form of government can make the best society to help yourself find your bliss.

Quit telling me what goes into my body or what should be able I press against it in love or lust. Quit telling me how much legally acquired wealth is fair. Quite telling me if I follow your rules you''ll give me a subsistence living if I fall in line. Just protect me against those who would harm me, and make sure the things I use are useful and reliable.

You idealize Ronald Reagan if you don't remember that he too preached social conservatism. I think it's fair to argue, in hindsight, that Reagan was really only giving lip service to that part of his coalition with the notable exception of his drug policies, but let's not forget that Reagan talked a lot like Huckabee and Santorum when he campaigned. I think there's a strong argument to be made that Rick Santorum is the closest of the four remaining candidates to candidate Reagan.

I'm all for a more social libertarianism in my preferred brand of conservative, but Santorum's social conservatism is far from a call for theocracy and even farther from hatred of homosexuals.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 08:57 PM
I was giving you examples of Ron Paul fighting against anti-gay and racism.

As far as Santorum

“Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.”



“I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.”

This one is a perfect example of, "I'm not racist, but ...". No, you are racist.

“I know it may sound like a huge exaggeration, particularly in light of the recent attack on America, but this may truly be the most important letter I ever write you… For the last year, Matt Daniels has been working behind the scenes with conservative legal scholars like Robert Bork, Princeton University’s Robert George and Harvard Law School’s Mary Ann Glendon as well as conservative leaders in Congress like myself and Congressman J.C. Watts to draft an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the holy sacrament of marriage from those who would legalize same-sex ‘marriage.’… Our opposition, the Gay Rights Movement, is organized.”


“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”


Discussing gay marriage: “This is an issue just like 9-11… We didn’t decide we wanted to fight the war on terrorism because we wanted to. It was brought to us. And if not now, when? When the supreme courts in all the other states have succumbed to the Massachusetts version of the law?”


“You can say I’m a hater. But I would argue I’m a lover. I’m a lover of traditional families and of the right of children to have a mother and father… I would argue that the future of America hangs in the balance, because the future of the family hangs in the balance. Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”





Because gays are terrorists...

Opposition to gay marriage is not hatred of gays. Just as saying that you favor tax credits for people with children is not hatred of childless people.

Saying that he has "nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual" is not hatred of gays. It sounds like just the opposite to me.

Saying that court rulings imposing gay marriage are using constitutional arguments that would be difficult to distinguish from similar arguments in favor of polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage (I disagree with him on the incest example though) is not hatred of gays. It's a reference to a legal argument, not a moral judgment, much less a moral judgment of the person.

Pointing out that courts have forced the issue of gay marriage by drawing an analogy to the way terrorists forced the issue of radical islamic aggression is not equating gays with terrorists.

Is it your position that Ron Paul hates government employees who work in the department of education and soldiers who serve overseas?

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 09:28 PM
Opposition to gay marriage is not hatred of gays. Just as saying that you favor tax credits for people with children is not hatred of childless people.

Saying that he has "nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual" is not hatred of gays. It sounds like just the opposite to me.

Saying that court rulings imposing gay marriage are using constitutional arguments that would be difficult to distinguish from similar arguments in favor of polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage (I disagree with him on the incest example though) is not hatred of gays. It's a reference to a legal argument, not a moral judgment, much less a moral judgment of the person.

Pointing out that courts have forced the issue of gay marriage by drawing an analogy to the way terrorists forced the issue of radical islamic aggression is not equating gays with terrorists.

Is it your position that Ron Paul hates government employees who work in the department of education and soldiers who serve overseas?



The courts aren't forcing the issue on heterosexuals. They aren't telling churches that they are required to marry homosexual couples. They aren't telling people that you have to marry someone of the same sex. If you aren't gay, then the courts decision on gay marriage has no effect on you. The problem started when states refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and then legislated against gay marriage. If the states would've just granted the marriage licenses and not have disciminated against homosexuals, this never would have been an issue. There was no law saying that homosexual couples could not marry.

Maybe "hate" is not the right word, although I do believe Rick Santorum does hate gays. However, he does discriminate against homosexuals.

For the record, I am not gay. However, my brother is, so the issue is important to me. I don't think that he should be treated any differently because he was born with a different sexual preference than other people.

dirk digler
02-12-2012, 09:28 PM
If it was up to Rick gay people would be arrested for what they do in their bedroom and gays wouldn't be serving in the military in any capacity.

yeah yeah I know he says he doesn't hate gays...

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 09:29 PM
Opposition to gay marriage is not hatred of gays. Just as saying that you favor tax credits for people with children is not hatred of childless people.

Saying that he has "nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual" is not hatred of gays. It sounds like just the opposite to me.

Saying that court rulings imposing gay marriage are using constitutional arguments that would be difficult to distinguish from similar arguments in favor of polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage (I disagree with him on the incest example though) is not hatred of gays. It's a reference to a legal argument, not a moral judgment, much less a moral judgment of the person.

Pointing out that courts have forced the issue of gay marriage by drawing an analogy to the way terrorists forced the issue of radical islamic aggression is not equating gays with terrorists.

Is it your position that Ron Paul hates government employees who work in the department of education and soldiers who serve overseas?



Ron Paul doesn't believe that DoE employees or soldiers who serve overseas should be discriminated against.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 09:29 PM
If it was up to Rick gay people would be arrested for what they do in their bedroom and gays wouldn't be serving in the military in any capacity.

yeah yeah I know he says he doesn't hate gays...

This

patteeu
02-12-2012, 09:32 PM
Obama won the military vote in 2008. Ron Paul is highly-favored by the military over the other 3 Republicans and Obama. Being a veteran, I can attest to this since most of my friends are still in the military and almost all support Ron Paul. Ron Paul also gets more donations from the military than Obama, Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich combined. It's pretty sad when Republicans lose the military votes.

He brings in the gay conservatives who vote Democrat solely for social issues.

He is favored by minority voters, young voters, and independents over the other 3 candidates.

Since our votes are anonymous, it's impossible to know for sure, but according to the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/06/world/fg-troops6), the National Election Pool exit poll found that John McCain won 54% of the military veteran vote in 2008 and according to the Military Times, McCain enjoyed an overwhelming majority of military support (68% compared to Obama's 23%) just two months before the election. Furthermore, it was John McCain seeking to have all absentee ballots from the military counted, not Barack Obama. The idea that Obama won the military vote is dubious at best.

Your assertion that Ron Paul is highly-favored by the military is equally suspect and in all likelihood, just as incorrect. The donation edge that he has over the other candidates is based on such a tiny amount of money and such a non-random sample that it's worthless as an indicator of overall military preference.

If Ron Paul were to make it into the general election, he'd be destroyed by Obama's campaign when his radical solutions (which I like) and skeletons from bygone years were brought to light for mainstream voters for what would effectively be the first time. He skates by without too much scrutiny in the primaries because no one takes him seriously as a threat to win the nomination.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 09:41 PM
Since our votes are anonymous, it's impossible to know for sure, but according to the LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/nov/06/world/fg-troops6), the National Election Pool exit poll found that John McCain won 54% of the military veteran vote in 2008 and according to the Military Times, McCain enjoyed an overwhelming majority of military support (68% compared to Obama's 23%) just two months before the election. Furthermore, it was John McCain seeking to have all absentee ballots from the military counted, not Barack Obama. The idea that Obama won the military vote is dubious at best.

Your assertion that Ron Paul is highly-favored by the military is equally suspect and in all likelihood, just as incorrect. The donation edge that he has over the other candidates is based on such a tiny amount of money and such a non-random sample that it's worthless as an indicator of overall military preference.

If Ron Paul were to make it into the general election, he'd be destroyed by Obama's campaign when his radical solutions (which I like) and skeletons from bygone years were brought to light for mainstream voters for what would effectively be the first time. He skates by without too much scrutiny in the primaries because no one takes him seriously as a threat to win the nomination.


I misread the article I read. The article I read said that Obama won the vote in military communities, not the military vote.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 09:50 PM
The courts aren't forcing the issue on heterosexuals. They aren't telling churches that they are required to marry homosexual couples. They aren't telling people that you have to marry someone of the same sex. If you aren't gay, then the courts decision on gay marriage has no effect on you. The problem started when states refused to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and then legislated against gay marriage. If the states would've just granted the marriage licenses and not have disciminated against homosexuals, this never would have been an issue. There was no law saying that homosexual couples could not marry.

The courts are forcing the issue because they are telling states that they must recognize gay marriage even if the majorities in those states prefer not to.

You're right that courts aren't telling churches that they have to marry homosexuals, but the Santorums of the world aren't telling churches that they can't marry homosexuals either. This is about state sanction, not about the ability of like-minded people to get together, hold a ceremony, and consider themselves married.

Maybe "hate" is not the right word, although I do believe Rick Santorum does hate gays. However, he does discriminate against homosexuals.

For the record, I am not gay. However, my brother is, so the issue is important to me. I don't think that he should be treated any differently because he was born with a different sexual preference than other people.

If your brother was bisexual and he wanted to be married to a man and a woman at the same time, would it be important to you that he not be treated any differently because he was born with a different sexual preference than other people? Or would you draw a line (i.e. "discriminate" using your terminology) and say that two person partnerships are OK but three person partnerships aren't?

The good news for your brother is that gay marriage is here and it's here to stay. It will take a while to spread across the nation, but it will happen. It's not a civil right to have your marriage recognized by the state though. When interest groups want to get favored status from the state, persuasion is the tool they should use. Convince a majority that it's the right thing to do and pass a law. I'll be on your side of that argument.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 09:51 PM
I misread the article I read. The article I read said that Obama won the vote in military communities, not the military vote.

OK, thanks. :thumb:

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 09:59 PM
The courts are forcing the issue because they are telling states that they must recognize gay marriage even if the majorities in those states prefer not to.

You're right that courts aren't telling churches that they have to marry homosexuals, but the Santorums of the world aren't telling churches that they can't marry homosexuals either. This is about state sanction, not about the ability of like-minded people to get together, hold a ceremony, and consider themselves married.



If your brother was bisexual and he wanted to be married to a man and a woman at the same time, would it be important to you that he not be treated any differently because he was born with a different sexual preference than other people? Or would you draw a line (i.e. "discriminate" using your terminology) and say that two person partnerships are OK but three person partnerships aren't?

The good news for your brother is that gay marriage is here and it's here to stay. It will take a while to spread across the nation, but it will happen. It's not a civil right to have your marriage recognized by the state though. When interest groups want to get favored status from the state, persuasion is the tool they should use. Convince a majority that it's the right thing to do and pass a law. I'll be on your side of that argument.



The difference is that outlawing gay marriage is telling gay people they cannot marry at all. I don't know about you, but if heterosexual marriage was illegal and gay marriage was the normal, I wouldn't be able to make myself marry a man. Gay people are the same way, they can't make themselves be straight.

Our government was designed so that a majority cannot rule the minority on issues like this. There is absolutely no reason to legislate against gay marriage. You don't see atheists arguing against gay marriage. The people who are against gay marriage, are because of their religious beliefs whether directly or indirectly.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 10:29 PM
The difference is that outlawing gay marriage is telling gay people they cannot marry at all. I don't know about you, but if heterosexual marriage was illegal and gay marriage was the normal, I wouldn't be able to make myself marry a man. Gay people are the same way, they can't make themselves be straight.

As ClevelandBronco mentioned in another thread, there's a distinction between spiritual marriage and state-sanctioned marriage complete with a bundle of state benefits. Gay people in our country have always been free to form spiritual marriages, so no one, not even Rick Santorum, is telling them that they can't marry at all. They're telling them that they can't get the special government incentives for marriage that traditional marriages get.

Our government was designed so that a majority cannot rule the minority on issues like this. There is absolutely no reason to legislate against gay marriage. You don't see atheists arguing against gay marriage. The people who are against gay marriage, are because of their religious beliefs whether directly or indirectly.

This not true. Our government was not designed to prevent majority rule on this topic. Even advocates of gay marriage as a civil right don't make that claim. Instead, they argue that the 14th amendment, ratified in the 1868, establishes that principle. Of course, that would be shocking news to the people who voted to ratify the 14th amendment.

There are reasons to legislate for traditional marriage (e.g. encouraging male/female unions for the purposes of child bearing and child rearing). You may not like the reasons or find them compelling (and I don't blame you, because I don't find them compelling either), but they exist.

patteeu
02-12-2012, 10:31 PM
...

BTW, what was your answer to this question:

If your brother was bisexual and he wanted to be married to a man and a woman at the same time, would it be important to you that he not be treated any differently because he was born with a different sexual preference than other people? Or would you draw a line (i.e. "discriminate" using your terminology) and say that two person partnerships are OK but three person partnerships aren't?

go bowe
02-12-2012, 11:07 PM
Opposition to gay marriage is not hatred of gays. Just as saying that you favor tax credits for people with children is not hatred of childless people.

Saying that he has "nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual" is not hatred of gays. It sounds like just the opposite to me.

Saying that court rulings imposing gay marriage are using constitutional arguments that would be difficult to distinguish from similar arguments in favor of polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage (I disagree with him on the incest example though) is not hatred of gays. It's a reference to a legal argument, not a moral judgment, much less a moral judgment of the person.

Pointing out that courts have forced the issue of gay marriage by drawing an analogy to the way terrorists forced the issue of radical islamic aggression is not equating gays with terrorists.

Is it your position that Ron Paul hates government employees who work in the department of education and soldiers who serve overseas?

hell yes, everybody hates them government employees...

go bowe
02-12-2012, 11:19 PM
BTW, what was your answer to this question:

three ways are great fun, but why not a 6 way marriage?

if you can afford it and are completely crazy, you ought to be able to have as many husbands and wives and sister-wives and whatever as you want...

i'm a little bit opposed to bestiality though, since animals shouldn't have humans performing sex acts on them can't give consent...

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 11:26 PM
This not true. Our government was not designed to prevent majority rule on this topic. Even advocates of gay marriage as a civil right don't make that claim. Instead, they argue that the 14th amendment, ratified in the 1868, establishes that principle. Of course, that would be shocking news to the people who voted to ratify the 14th amendment.

There are reasons to legislate for traditional marriage (e.g. encouraging male/female unions for the purposes of child bearing and child rearing). You may not like the reasons or find them compelling (and I don't blame you, because I don't find them compelling either), but they exist.


We do not have a population problem in the United States that we need to enact legislation to fix. Additionally, it is factually false that legislating for traditional marriage encourages male/female unions for the purpose of child bearing. Nor is it the governments business on why 2 people get married. This is why I can't call a social conservative, conservative at all. They want to impose new legislation to expand government into our private lives. Government is too big, and Rick wants to make it even bigger.


BTW, what was your answer to this question:


Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu
If your brother was bisexual and he wanted to be married to a man and a woman at the same time, would it be important to you that he not be treated any differently because he was born with a different sexual preference than other people? Or would you draw a line (i.e. "discriminate" using your terminology) and say that two person partnerships are OK but three person partnerships aren't?

There is a difference between providing special benefits to one group, and providing the same benefits to all. Prohibiting gay marriage, prohibits gays from marrying. Therefore, special benefits are provided to heterosexuals over homosexuals. Marrying 2 people isn't allowed for anyone, so no group is discriminated against.

DementedLogic
02-12-2012, 11:29 PM
As ClevelandBronco mentioned in another thread, there's a distinction between spiritual marriage and state-sanctioned marriage complete with a bundle of state benefits. Gay people in our country have always been free to form spiritual marriages, so no one, not even Rick Santorum, is telling them that they can't marry at all. They're telling them that they can't get the special government incentives for marriage that traditional marriages get.

So homosexuals can't get the special government incentives that heterosexuals get.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 11:42 PM
So homosexuals can't get the special government incentives that heterosexuals get.

Let's not quibble over the terms you use. For this exercise let's both just accept that your statement above is true in the way you've worded it.

Now, what is the remedy you favor for such a situation? Is our best remedy to persuade the people and their elected representatives to change the situation, or is it best to have judges administer the remedy immediately whether we want it or not?

If you prefer another way that I haven't included, by all means let's have it.

ClevelandBronco
02-12-2012, 11:55 PM
Prohibiting gay marriage, prohibits gays from marrying.

Prohibiting gay marriage doesn't actually prohibit a homosexual person from marrying. It does, however, prohibit a homosexual person from marrying a person of the same sex. It also prohibits a heterosexual person from marrying a person of the same sex. That's about as equal as it can be.

I am willing to grant homosexuals special options, however.

DementedLogic
02-13-2012, 12:12 AM
Prohibiting gay marriage doesn't actually prohibit a homosexual person from marrying. It does, however, prohibit a homosexual person from marrying a person of the same sex. It also prohibits a heterosexual person from marrying a person of the same sex. That's about as equal as it can be.

I am willing to grant homosexuals special options, however.

I don't know what sexual preference you are, but imagine trying to go against your sexual preference. Could you? I know I couldn't. From talking to gay people, they feel the same way about the opposite sex, as heterosexual people feel about the same sex. So yes, they are prevented from marrying.

Let's not quibble over the terms you use. For this exercise let's both just accept that your statement above is true in the way you've worded it.

Now, what is the remedy you favor for such a situation? Is our best remedy to persuade the people and their elected representatives to change the situation, or is it best to have judges administer the remedy immediately whether we want it or not?

If you prefer another way that I haven't included, by all means let's have it.

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which 2 people, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in a relationship in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

ClevelandBronco
02-13-2012, 12:17 AM
I don't know what sexual preference you are, but imagine trying to go against your sexual preference. Could you? I know I couldn't. From talking to gay people, they feel the same way about the opposite sex, as heterosexual people feel about the same sex. So yes, they are prevented from marrying.



The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which 2 people, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in a relationship in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

All very well and good. Now try answering the questions.

I assume that since you're a Ron Paul kind of guy, your answers will show the utmost respect for the Constitution.

DementedLogic
02-13-2012, 12:45 AM
Let's not quibble over the terms you use. For this exercise let's both just accept that your statement above is true in the way you've worded it.

Now, what is the remedy you favor for such a situation? Is our best remedy to persuade the people and their elected representatives to change the situation, or is it best to have judges administer the remedy immediately whether we want it or not?

If you prefer another way that I haven't included, by all means let's have it.



I believe the attempt to prevent 2 people from entering into a voluntary contract is a violation of free speech. So any law that tries to prevent it is a violation of the first ammendment. Therefore, I side with the judges protecting us from the states trying to violate our civil liberties.

I also agree that it violates the 14th ammendment.

ClevelandBronco
02-13-2012, 12:48 AM
I believe the attempt to prevent 2 people from entering into a voluntary contract is a violation of free speech. So any law that tries to prevent it is a violation of the first ammendment. Therefore, I side with the judges protecting us from the states trying to violate our civil liberties.

I also agree that it violates the 14th ammendment.

I understand why you say you could vote for Obama. Sir, you are a disgrace.

DementedLogic
02-13-2012, 12:53 AM
I understand why you say you could vote for Obama. Sir, you are a disgrace.

It's a good thing we waited for the states to get it right in 1968.

I'm not even proposing a constitutional amendment like Rick Santorum wants.

ClevelandBronco
02-13-2012, 12:59 AM
It's a good thing we waited for the states to get it right in 1968.

1968?

I'm not even proposing a constitutional amendment like Rick Santorum wants.

I know. I'd actually have some respect for you if you were proposing an amendment.

DementedLogic
02-13-2012, 01:14 AM
1968?

Sorry, 1964. I crossed the dates of the 14th amendment (1868) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I know. I'd actually have some respect for you if you were proposing an amendment.

We already have an amendment that handles this issue.

ClevelandBronco
02-13-2012, 01:23 AM
We already have an amendment that handles this issue.

Whatever you say, Barack.

DementedLogic
02-13-2012, 01:32 AM
Whatever you say, Barack.

I value your opinion so much, what can I do to make you think differently of me?

ClevelandBronco
02-13-2012, 02:08 AM
I value your opinion so much, what can I do to make you think differently of me?

You've been dismissed, soldier.

Aries Walker
02-13-2012, 02:15 AM
Seeing as how we have separation of church and state in this country, I see no reason why we don't split the institution into marriage (which would be a function of the church, with the rules and benefits defined wholly by them) and union (which would be an entirely legal entity). It seems like that would solve all of the problems.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 08:39 AM
We do not have a population problem in the United States that we need to enact legislation to fix. Additionally, it is factually false that legislating for traditional marriage encourages male/female unions for the purpose of child bearing. Nor is it the governments business on why 2 people get married. This is why I can't call a social conservative, conservative at all. They want to impose new legislation to expand government into our private lives. Government is too big, and Rick wants to make it even bigger.

You are entitled to those opinions, but that's all they are despite your attempt to claim them as facts. Others don't share your opinions and we have legislatures to sort all that out and come to conclusions on behalf of our entire society.

You're no better than the social conservatives who want to expand government into our lives by endorsing traditional marriage because you want to do the same thing for gay marriage at the expense of 3 or more party unions (not to mention bachelorhood).

There is a difference between providing special benefits to one group, and providing the same benefits to all. Prohibiting gay marriage, prohibits gays from marrying. Therefore, special benefits are provided to heterosexuals over homosexuals. Marrying 2 people isn't allowed for anyone, so no group is discriminated against.

You're being hypocritical. No gay person has been prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex in a traditional marriage. In fact, it has happened on many occasions. You complain that that's not fair because a gay person should be able to marry someone that they are attracted to instead of only having the traditional marriage option. I bring up a case where a person isn't allowed to be fully fulfilled in marriage even if it's expanded to allow same sex unions and you don't seem to have any sympathy.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 08:42 AM
So homosexuals can't get the special government incentives that heterosexuals get.

They can if they enter into the types of unions that the government is trying to incentivize. Apartment dwellers can't get home mortgage deductions either. The whole point of creating incentives is to get more people to do what you're offering the incentive for.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 08:46 AM
I believe the attempt to prevent 2 people from entering into a voluntary contract is a violation of free speech. So any law that tries to prevent it is a violation of the first ammendment. Therefore, I side with the judges protecting us from the states trying to violate our civil liberties.

I also agree that it violates the 14th ammendment.

You're out of step with Ron Paul on this. BTW, there's no reason why gay people can't enter into voluntary contracts. In fact, in addition to their freedom to join in lifelong, committed, spiritual partnerships, they can also mimic many of the benefits of government sanctioned marriage by entering these contracts. For example, they can make wills so that upon death their assets will pass to their beloved partner. They can give each other powers of attorney so that they can make important decisions for each other.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 08:50 AM
Seeing as how we have separation of church and state in this country, I see no reason why we don't split the institution into marriage (which would be a function of the church, with the rules and benefits defined wholly by them) and union (which would be an entirely legal entity). It seems like that would solve all of the problems.

I don't think it would solve all the problems. There would still be traditionalists who would oppose gay unions and progressives who wouldn't settle for anything short of calling gay unions "marriages". What it probably would do, though, is create a solid majority of people in the middle who would embrace the idea (at least for now). Personally, I like the idea.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 08:56 AM
Maine Caucus results – a vote of ‘No Confidence’

February 12, 2012. Augusta, Maine. For the third time in this young primary election season, there are cries of vote fraud concerning the way the Republican Party is handling its caucuses and primaries. This time, the setting was the Maine Caucus. With each County free to schedule their vote any time over a month-long period, some local caucuses were held last week, while the majority were held yesterday. More than 16 percent of Maine’s precincts will hold their caucuses in the coming days and weeks.

Or will they?

Those election watchers who closely followed the events of yesterday’s Maine Caucus have some serious and legitimate questions. With the types of answers emanating from Maine GOP officials this morning, those questions are now turning into allegations – allegations of election fraud.

The cries of foul play aren’t only coming from one campaign this time, as they did from the Santorum campaign in Iowa, the Gingrich campaign in South Carolina or the Paul campaign in Nevada. Instead, cries of fraud and outrage are surfacing from anyone who values free and fair elections and America’s system of democracy itself.

Here is how the events of the Maine Caucus unfolded:

In the days preceding the Saturday caucuses, a small handful of precincts held their votes early. The state GOP announced that the results of those precincts would be kept secret, so as not to influence the remaining precincts. Individual precinct results were leaked by various Precinct Captains and campaign representatives from multiple candidates. According to the leaks, Ron Paul had an impressive and early lead. Politico even quoted John Grooms, Newt Gingrich’s Maine campaign director saying, “I think Ron Paul is going to take it.”

Saturday, caucus day for most of Maine, national media outlets declare Mitt Romney the winner of the Maine Caucus only seconds after polls close and the instant the first results are reported. As more and more precinct results were released, reported or otherwise made available, they actually showed a neck and neck race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Slowly moving from 15 percent of precincts reporting to 50 percent, the race appeared to be a dead heat.

By late evening Saturday night, it appeared that all votes had been counted and reported, except for the precincts whose caucuses are schedule in the coming days and the one that was postponed due to snow. Mitt Romney was declared the official winner, with Party officials claiming that the remaining votes aren’t enough to have any effect on the final results.

The results as of midnight Saturday:

83.7% reporting (502 of 600 precincts)

Mitt Romney – 2,190 (39.2%)

Ron Paul – 1,996 (35.7%)

Rick Santorum – 989 (17.7%)

Newt Gingrich – 349 (6.2%)

Other – 61 (1.1%)

Ron Paul supporters are frustrated and outraged yet again by the blatant electioneering being perpetrated by the nation’s media. Not only did they declare Mitt Romney the winner in the first minutes, they’re now calling the election over with a virtual tie and 16 percent of precincts yet to report. Paul backers remind us that it shouldn’t be any surprise. Take NBC and its empire of media outlets for example. The network is owned by General Electric – one of the largest Defense Dept contractors in the world. Their profits will be affected by tens of billions of dollars depending on which candidate, Romney or Paul, would become the next US President.

From midnight to dawn, Ron Paul supporters do the math on their own to arrive at the conclusion that not only is the caucus not over, but Ron Paul has a very good chance of actually winning. They explain:

83.7 percent of the vote cast is 5,585 votes. Mitt Romney leads Ron Paul by 194 votes. 16.3 percent of precincts outstanding amounts to 894 voters in 98 precincts still yet to vote. Ron Paul would only need to win by less than 2 votes per precinct to win, hardly an impossible feat for a candidate with the best ground game in the state and a week or more to motivate his troops.

Sunday morning, Maine voters wake up to the unofficial news that the Republican Party of Maine has announced it is cancelling all remaining caucuses. Almost immediately, news outlets begin changing their vote tracking and headlines. Instead of Mitt Romney being the winner of the Maine Caucus with 16 percent of the vote yet to report, he is now the winner with 100 percent reporting. Those 98 precincts, and the voters who make up their caucuses, will not be allowed to vote.

Nevada Caucus

News of the election irregularities in Maine comes right on the heels of a questionable Republican Nevada Caucus. In that race, the first half of the state was counted and reported within an hour. The second half of the state, having been completely turned over to state party officials, was suddenly taking 2 days to count. Precinct captains claimed their totals didn’t match the state party’s numbers, just like in Iowa. CNN live unofficial exit polls and live vote counting all showed Ron Paul the overwhelming winner, but results announced by the state party showed the exact opposite. It didn’t help when the State Chair of the Nevada Republican Party – the one person in charge of certifying the results – resigned in the middle of the chaos rather than play a part in what was going on behind closed doors.

Read the article, ‘Paul Camp cries Fraud over Nevada Caucus Results’ for further details.

Iowa Caucus

For skeptics who find it too painful to admit to themselves that there are serious election irregularities occurring this election season and who insist these are nothing more than conspiracy theories, this author need only remind readers that the Iowa Republican Party had to publicly and officially reverse its results two weeks after they proclaimed Mitt Romney the winner last month. That was no fairy tale or conspiracy theory. And just as in Nevada, the Chair of the Iowa Republican Party promptly resigned as a result.

Now in Maine, it’s again no fairy tale or conspiracy theory to say the Maine Caucus was stolen. Regardless of which candidate had a probable victory taken from him is debatable. What’s not debatable is the fact that more than 16 percent of the Republican voters in Maine are going to be denied the right to vote, simply because the establishment elites don’t like the results so far. According to Texas Congressman Ron Paul on today’s Sunday morning news circuit, the precincts in Maine being denied the right to vote are located in Ron Paul strongholds where the campaign expected to win overwhelmingly.

If there’s one bright spot in this dilemma, it’s that unlike the previous states, it may not be too late to fight the injustice. Proving party officials changed vote totals without witnesses or evidence is one thing. Demanding that 98 precincts in Maine be allowed their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote is another. If enough pressure and outrage is thrust upon officials in Maine, they may be persuaded to let the remaining caucuses take place as previously planned. Then, rightfully angry Ron Paul supporters might get what they believe was stolen from them – a win in the Maine Caucus.

For more information on illegitimate tactics taken by both the Republican Party leadership, as well as the nation media, read any of the following articles:

Paul Camp cries Fraud over Nevada Caucus Results

Mainstream Media not so Mainstream

CNN Changing Election Outcome

Subscribe to this independent political column. It’s FREE and you can unsubscribe at any time. Simply click on the ‘Subscribe’ link at the top of the page.

Continue reading on Examiner.com Maine Caucus results – a vote of ‘No Confidence’ - National Independent | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-national/maine-caucus-results-a-vote-of-no-confidence#ixzz1mH3LFeIf

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 09:11 AM
The Maine vote totals reflected about 84 percent of the state's precincts. The contests scheduled for the coming days -- including an entire county that postponed its caucuses because of a snow storm -- will not be counted, according Webster, the state GOP chairman.

"We're not going to even accept the ballots. No one's going to keep track of them," he said, noting that those were the rules established by the party.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_19949325

LMAO fair and balanced.

patteeu
02-13-2012, 09:14 AM
Complaints of voting irregularities seem to follow Ron Paul and his wild-eyed cult around. I suspect a false flag operation. :Poke:

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 09:17 AM
Complaints of voting irregularities seem to follow Ron Paul and his wild-eyed cult around. I suspect a false flag operation. :Poke:

Of course you do, as long we have someone to *hrmph* challenge Obama that mirrors him in about every way, why should we worry?

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:20 AM
Seeing as how we have separation of church and state in this country, I see no reason why we don't split the institution into marriage (which would be a function of the church, with the rules and benefits defined wholly by them) and union (which would be an entirely legal entity). It seems like that would solve all of the problems.

Yeah well, you'd have to make each state do that since there's nothing in the Federal Constitution involving the Federal govt in marriage—at ALL! For good reason.

So I don't know how you can do that when there's nothing at the Federal level regarding rules for can get married. Couples need a license from the state they are to get married in.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:24 AM
Actually the Paul campaign has remained mum about most of the voting irregularities which as far as I know are a total of 3. It's only the Maine one they spoke out about. The others have been just from other reports by others outside the campaign. In Nevada it was a pac for Paul who are going after the situation. But it's not the Paul campaign because they knew they'd just have it used against them. Maine and Nevada are the main two.

In Virginia it's actually the AG of that state that is going after the Gingrich campaign for fraud. That doesn't even affect Paul since he's on that ballot.