Rick

[Guest]

Well, I have done a lot of research today on second place Rick and must say I am not happy with what I see. We just can't go another 4 years with someone so radical. We are suffering thru 4 years with a hard left radical, so to go 4 years to the hard right will cause just as many problems. We must vote for someone that has the best interest of all Americans in mind and not one half or the other half.

GO ROMNEY......

[Guest]

Well, I have done a lot of research today on second place Rick and must say I am not happy with what I see. We just can't go another 4 years with someone so radical. We are suffering thru 4 years with a hard left radical, so to go 4 years to the hard right will cause just as many problems. We must vote for someone that has the best interest of all Americans in mind and not one half or the other half.

GO ROMNEY......

Really? radical? Is that what you call it? Traditional American values is now radical? Maybe you should keep reading.

[Guest]

Really? radical? Is that what you call it? Traditional American values is now radical? Maybe you should keep reading.

Ive read enough. His stance on Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc etc. is frighting. Those issue will not allow him to be elected in this country, but I would hate to see him mess up Romney from getting the nomination. Now keep in mind, he can feel the way he wants, but to use the office of the President to push forward backward thinking is not good for this country. What ever happened to majority rules even if you do not agree with it. I personally do not agree with pro-choice nor with gay marriage, but the majority of this country does and I do believe in the majority rule.

[Guest]

I personally do not agree with pro-choice nor with gay marriage, but the majority of this country does and I do believe in the majority rule.


I can't believe I am saying this but I agree! I think these two things mess up politics more often than anything.

I don't think that the government should be deciding these two things.
If gays want to marry and somehow that is going to cost me money then I may have a problem with it. That is when, if it is healthcare we are talking about, gays have a health problem that causes my healthcare to go up then treat it like smoking." Do the crime do the time." Bad habits = higher premiums for them. If it is benefits they get because of the license so be it.
If they don't get them does not mean I get more. If they earned it, let them have it. You want to be gay, be gay, just don't put it in my face and make it some type of special thing.
Their marraige licence does not diminish mine so I don't care.

Abortion, as I have stated many time on here, is none of my business. That is between them are their god not them and the government.
That being said I don't think that government should be paying for it.

You want an abortion, pay for it, if you can't be more careful, rape well there are plenty of organizations to help you there without the government.

I think these two things are big losers for the GOP!

EB

[Guest]

Ive read enough. His stance on Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc etc. is frighting. Those issue will not allow him to be elected in this country, but I would hate to see him mess up Romney from getting the nomination. Now keep in mind, he can feel the way he wants, but to use the office of the President to push forward backward thinking is not good for this country. What ever happened to majority rules even if you do not agree with it. I personally do not agree with pro-choice nor with gay marriage, but the majority of this country does and I do believe in the majority rule.

By any chance have you read up on Obama's view on Gay marriage and his vocal opinion on it during his valiant run with "Hope & Change".

Just asking, as I still don't believe for a second that you are a conservative.

[Guest]

By any chance have you read up on Obama's view on Gay marriage and his vocal opinion on it during his valiant run with "Hope & Change".

Just asking, as I still don't believe for a second that you are a conservative.

He's not a conservative, he's an American. The ultra right and ultra left would do well to recognize that most of us live in the middle and don't hold rigid conservative or liberal views. And please save the "wishy washy" insults, it is called being realistic and thinking for oneself, rather than staying in line with the ideologues.

[Guest]

He's not a conservative, he's an American. The ultra right and ultra left would do well to recognize that most of us live in the middle and don't hold rigid conservative or liberal views. And please save the "wishy washy" insults, it is called being realistic and thinking for oneself, rather than staying in line with the ideologues.

Insults? Insults are in the eye of the beholder. People sometimes don't think what they say will be perceived as insulting, but their words can be insulting none the less. I am not immune from either side of this thought.

Your words can be taken as insulting also. You are saying above that the person you're conversing with, and most likely myself also, are not thinking for ourselves but only parroting ideologues, while you with your self proclaimed intelligence are a profound thinker.

Being "in the middle" is sort of boring at a minimum, in my opinion. You either have a conviction, or you don't.

[Guest]

Being "in the middle" is sort of boring at a minimum, in my opinion. You either have a conviction, or you don't.

Just what is it about not being ultra right or ultra left equates to not having conviction? Would one be more admirable in terms of conviction by being a socialist?

[Guest]

So when I was saying that I would support Ron Paul as an independent because of issues I had with another possible GOP candidate, I got a downpour of replies telling me that we have to all stick together and vote for whoever is on the GOP ticket...WHOEVER! I was told that it was the only way to get Obama out!...Aren't we playing that way anymore, now that some of you have issues with Santorum?

[Guest]

So when I was saying that I would support Ron Paul as an independent because of issues I had with another possible GOP candidate, I got a downpour of replies telling me that we have to all stick together and vote for whoever is on the GOP ticket...WHOEVER! I was told that it was the only way to get Obama out!...Aren't we playing that way anymore, now that some of you have issues with Santorum?

You should vote your conscience and your ideals - period.

[Guest]

If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, I think I just might GLADLY get to do both! Thanks!...PLUS rid our nation's capital of a man who has no love of this country.

[Guest]

But on a realistic view, American voters want someone they can recognize. Don Trump has name recoginition as an icon of money and as a TV personality. There are probably enough American voters who would vote for a movie star like Brad Pitt or Matt Damon for president to make a reasonable showing.

The whole process is now run with money, money, and money. The television ads are 30 second bites that tell nothing of the candidate. Basically, it is just looking for the best star power - as Richie pointed out earlier when he mentioned the Kennedy-Nixon Debate when Nixon had a stubbly 5 o'clock shadow and sweat on his upper lip. That lost to the well coifed hair and smiling teeth of JFK.

[Guest]

But on a realistic view, American voters want someone they can recognize.......


.... Basically, it is just looking for the best star power - as Richie pointed out earlier when he mentioned the Kennedy-Nixon Debate when Nixon had a stubbly 5 o'clock shadow and sweat on his upper lip. That lost to the well coifed hair and smiling teeth of JFK.

It's ALL about looks and personality 1st, and knowledge/skill 2nd.

I wish that voters overall were not so shallow, valuing only the superficial things, but they are shallow and superficial. This is why I think Santorum does not stand a snowball's chance of defeating Obama. Obama smiles and promises free stuff, and people eat it up.

George Carlin did a standup routine on that once, how Americans like their B.S. with frosting on it. B.S. is what we get.

[Guest]

But on a realistic view, American voters want someone they can recognize. Don Trump has name recoginition as an icon of money and as a TV personality. There are probably enough American voters who would vote for a movie star like Brad Pitt or Matt Damon for president to make a reasonable showing.

The whole process is now run with money, money, and money. The television ads are 30 second bites that tell nothing of the candidate. Basically, it is just looking for the best star power - as Richie pointed out earlier when he mentioned the Kennedy-Nixon Debate when Nixon had a stubbly 5 o'clock shadow and sweat on his upper lip. That lost to the well coifed hair and smiling teeth of JFK.

It's true. It's a well known fact that most who listened to the Kennedy/Nixon debates on radio thought Nixon won the debate. Those who watched on TV had an opposite reaction.

But we also have a much more diverse media today and people are generally more savvy. The last election was an emotional affair and lots of people voted their dreams.

Well, the dream has turned into a nightmare and there's no way to clean that up. Obama is going to go totally negative in this campaign because it's the only option open to him. We'll see how that plays in Peoria.

[Guest]

I am not influenced by any candidates campaign rhetoric as it is designed for you to hear what you like/or not to get your vote.

I prefer to look at their past, their resume', their qualifications, their promises kept record (accomplishments).

Isn't that how most of us have been chosen for positions we have had during our lives.

Have you looked at what these people have been doing for the past 10 years?
You will not get what you need to know watching the debates or what they say on television. Do some research and find out what they did.

Far too many voted for the words heard and promises made in 2008...when they should have been looking at qualifications, capability and past performance.

Vote for the potential the man has, who knows his subject VS the actor like scripted performers.

btk

btk

[Guest]

I was a Cain supporter, and it is a shame that he is out, as his detractors crawl back into the woodwork and disappear now that their sham is over.

Now, I will wait and see more from Santorum and Gingrich. All I needed to see from Romney other than how he can't develope more than 25% of support, was John McCain to stand side by side with Romney, as his comments about the Tea Party being Hobbits still fresh in my mind.

Sorry Romney, if you can't do better than 25% in your own party, than 75% must not think you are right for the job.

[Guest]

The Iowa evangelical "Christian" voters turned out and showed they did not approve of Newt at all. His baggage of divorces, affairs, and general lack of morals did him in big time for a Family Value group. This is going to be an issue for him in South Carolina with their Bible-toting voters, too.

Santorum might do okay in South Carolina however the South Carolina voters are pretty close minded about non-Protestants. Religion has a lot of play in South Carolina.

Looks as it will be Romney all the way in New Hampshire, of course, and most likely Romney on the GOP ticket in November. The question is which moderate will be on the ticket as VP candidate? Anyone who is not a moderate will sink the GOP ticket faster than Palin did in 2008.

[Guest]

If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, I think I just might GLADLY get to do both! Thanks!...PLUS rid our nation's capital of a man who has no love of this country.

And just how did you come to the conclusion that our President does not love his country? Unbelievable how some people think. :cus:

[Guest]

And just how did you come to the conclusion that our President does not love his country? Unbelievable how some people think. :cus:

He does he just want admit he was born there:1rotfl::1rotfl: Alas poor birthers continue to receive ridicule

[Guest]

The reason we are having such difficulty with our election system is due to evolution.

It use to be some Democrats voted on the right and some Republican on the left but we have evolved into a bi-partisian system. My Dad and I suspect yours would not recognize the Democrat party of today.
impose their beliefs.

There is little directly that a president can do about the issue of abortion and gay marriage;albeit to appoint those to various courts who share their beliefs. and even then its not clear that such justices would impose their beliefs. Poeple should however consider the ununtentional and salient consequences for spoorting these two issues

[Guest]

And just how did you come to the conclusion that our President does not love his country? Unbelievable how some people think. :cus:

Maybe because he often goes overseas and apologizes for our existence to anyone who will listen.

Okay, maybe I exaggerate, but not by much.

[Guest]

Maybe because he often goes overseas and apologizes for our existence to anyone who will listen.

Okay, maybe I exaggerate, but not by much.

By quite a bit I'd say. It takes a bigger person (country) to admit that they sometimes were wrong or overreached rather than portraying USA as always right. We have not always been right. But what the hell, let's just crush the rest of the world. :cus:

[Guest]

By quite a bit I'd say. It takes a bigger person (country) to admit that they sometimes were wrong or overreached rather than portraying USA as always right. We have not always been right. But what the hell, let's just crush the rest of the world. :cus:

I bask in your display of American Patriotism.

What a crock.

[Guest]

If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, I think I just might GLADLY get to do both! Thanks!...PLUS rid our nation's capital of a man who has no love of this country.

President Obama doesn't hate blacks, hispanics and gays the way the republican candidates do. I don't know how they think they can win an election.

[Guest]

President Obama doesn't hate blacks, hispanics and gays the way the republican candidates do. I don't know how they think they can win an election.


Quite the mass slander you just took care of, but suspect from reading your posts....in your mind...

Democrats = holy, wonderful, without fault, only worried about the poor and downtrodden, non politicians, just all around great people.

Republicans = filthy rich, look down their noses on everyone else, simply hate those who are poor or downtrodden, the ultimate politicians and just all around bad people.


ONLY PROBLEM....Facts do not square with your thinking, and I am not talking about you being liberal or Democrat....you have every right to have any opinion that you want.

What you cannot do or have no right to do is to make damning, slander type statements about ANYBODY with no creditable reason. If you do this to a private citizen you get sued and rightfully so.

[Guest]

Quite the mass slander you just took care of, but suspect from reading your posts....in your mind...

Democrats = holy, wonderful, without fault, only worried about the poor and downtrodden, non politicians, just all around great people.

Republicans = filthy rich, look down their noses on everyone else, simply hate those who are poor or downtrodden, the ultimate politicians and just all around bad people.


ONLY PROBLEM....Facts do not square with your thinking, and I am not talking about you being liberal or Democrat....you have every right to have any opinion that you want.

What you cannot do or have no right to do is to make damning, slander type statements about ANYBODY with no creditable reason. If you do this to a private citizen you get sued and rightfully so.
I guess you haven't been watching much news about the election lately. Did you hear the one where Gingrich said "young black children should work as janitors" or did you the hear the one when Santorum said he wasn't going to give blacks other people's money, or did you hear the one when Santorum equated being gay to being a bigamist (which we know was outlawed by the supreme court), or when Ron Paul wrote in his newsletter that "the LA riots were over when the welfare checks came out, or Rick Perry's "N" word sign at his ranch. I guess you don't get that kind of news on Fox. I rest my case.

[Guest]

where does one watch news these days?

Certainly you can't be referring to network new on television.

It is the objective of the networks to be sure to highlight any comment, slip of the lip or blooper that can be turned around to cast a doubt on the chosen offending candidate.

Why was it the same networks who were right there to tell the world every single slip Bush made while Obama has the advantage of a free pass on negative comments, slip of the lip or bloopers.

I do believe there is a pattern in their practice(s)....eh?

btk

[Guest]

I guess you haven't been watching much news about the election lately. Did you hear the one where Gingrich said "young black children should work as janitors" or did you the hear the one when Santorum said he said "blah" not black, or did you hear the one when Santorum equated being gay to being a bigamist (which we know was outlawed by the supreme court). I guess you don't kind of news on Fox. I rest my case.

You have NO case to rest.

What you spout is the party line....do you ever read anything...do you ever read details or are you one who gets the information from the little sound bites ? Do you ever investigate anything ? Have you ever looked into our Presidents past ? I mean really looked.

You show your total ignorance with posts like this. You distort truth but then again that seems to be the game plan.

Frankly people like you are a total disgrace to forums like this...not because of your opinion (you have none unless spoon fed to you by someone else)...that is fine and what it is all about. Some like to come here to read and learn...you distort everything to fit YOUR mold of how you want it to be seen.

I find people like you who call names, make charges with no credibility to be totally out of touch with reality and a total threat first to this forum, and eventually to this country because despite you obvious ill informed ignorance, you are able to vote.

Please leave here....find somewhere to play other than here...you are taking up space that many, who have left this forum because of people like you, could actually discuss issues.

You feel, I am sure because that is what you are, that this is because you are liberal or Democrat...has NOTHING to do with that. You are nothing but a "flamer"....a drive by poster...and NOTHING....NOTHING is to be learned by all your drivel.

There was a time when coming to this forum allowed you to hear other opinions, based on fact and presented with some degree of intelligence and sanity. That is how I learned a lot from posters on here. Folks like you have driven them away.

Please...find the door out

[Guest]

I bask in your display of American Patriotism.

What a crock.

I think they call it jingoism Richie. :cus:

[Guest]

[B]You have NO case to rest.

What you spout is the party line....do you ever read anything...do you ever read details or are you one who gets the information from the little sound bites ? Do you ever investigate anything ? Have you ever looked into our Presidents past ? I mean really looked.

You show your total ignorance with posts like this. You distort truth but then again that seems to be the game plan.

Frankly people like you are a total disgrace to forums like this...not because of your opinion (you have none unless spoon fed to you by someone else)...that is fine and what it is all about. Some like to come here to read and learn...you distort everything to fit YOUR mold of how you want it to be seen.

I find people like you who call names, make charges with no credibility to be totally out of touch with reality and a total threat first to this forum, and eventually to this country because despite you obvious ill informed ignorance, you are able to vote.

Please leave here....find somewhere to play other than here...you are taking up space that many, who have left this forum because of people like you, could actually discuss issues.

You feel, I am sure because that is what you are, that this is because you are liberal or Democrat...has NOTHING to do with that. You are nothing but a "flamer"....a drive by poster...and NOTHING....NOTHING is to be learned by all your drivel.

There was a time when coming to this forum allowed you to hear other opinions, based on fact and presented with some degree of intelligence and sanity. That is how I learned a lot from posters on here. Folks like you have driven them away.

Please...find the door out

Here are some links to get you started:

www.abcnews.go.com/.../gingrichs-naacp-foodstamp-remark-stir-controversy
www.washingtonpost.com/.../rick-perrys-ranch
www.csmonitor.com/.../racistnewslettertimeline-what-ron-paul-has-said
[url]www.washingtonpost.com/.../rick-santoram...black-people...glQAA Unless you don't believe ABC news, the Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor. I'll be awaiting your apology.

[Guest]

I guess you haven't been watching much news about the election lately. Did you hear the one where Gingrich said "young black children should work as janitors" or did you the hear the one when Santorum said he wasn't going to give blacks other people's money, or did you hear the one when Santorum equated being gay to being a bigamist (which we know was outlawed by the supreme court), or when Ron Paul wrote in his newsletter that "the LA riots were over when the welfare checks came out, or Rick Perry's "N" word sign at his ranch. I guess you don't get that kind of news on Fox. I rest my case.

I'm not going to defend the long ago newsletters which had Ron Pauls masthead. He needed to know what was in them, and if he didn't that's his tough luck.

Gingrich: "I will go to the NAACP convention and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." He also said “Young children who are poor ought to learn how to go to work,” he continued. “What I’ve said is, for example, it would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. Some of the things they could do is work in the library, work in the front office. Some of them frankly, could be janitorial. Gingrich continued, “this all started when people on the Left laughed about and derided what they call hamburger flipping jobs. I did an entire thing in one of my courses on the number of people whose first job was at McDonald’s who are now very successful multi-millionaires. And my point is, any work that gets you in the habit of working beats no work.”
http://theminorityeye.com/newt-gingrich-says-teaching-poor-black-kids-to-be-janitors-would-stop-them-p1167-158.htm

Santorum: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money." "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money and provide for themselves and their families," he added. "The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling."

(postscript: Santorum's remarks were made while the employment rate for blacks has risen to 16%; 17% among black men and a staggering 41% among black teens; all while President Obama claims "recovery")
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/06/20/black-unemployment-at-16-percent.html

Santorum: On the subject of gay marriage, he was asked by a student “How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ...” “What about three men?” Santorum interjected. “Reason says that if you think it’s OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it’s not OK for three,” he added. “Let’s just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”

Anyone with any honesty knows that Santorum was only responding to someone who wants to change the definition on what is marriage. Once you change it for one group aren't you discriminating against other groups who want to enact into law their definition on what constitutes a marriage?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/9840271-418/gop-rivals-romney-not-conservative-enough.html

Amazing what putting things in context will do. It all about making you think. I know it's tough, but try it.

[Guest]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:He does he just want admit he was born there:1rotfl::1rotfl: Alas poor birthers continue to receive ridicule

rubicon~ It took me a minute...but then :1rotfl: :1rotfl: :1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

[B]

Here are some links to get you started:

www.abcnews.go.com/.../gingrichs-naacp-foodstamp-remark-stir-controversy
www.washingtonpost.com/.../rick-perrys-ranch
www.csmonitor.com/.../racistnewslettertimeline-what-ron-paul-has-said
[url]www.washingtonpost.com/.../rick-santoram...black-people...glQAA Unless you don't believe ABC news, the Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor. I'll be awaiting your apology.


You will be waiting for quite some time to receive an apology from me on this item. I have apologized to others on this forum publicly, but in your case, that has no chance of every happening. I would doubt that your arrogant attitude even allows you to understand that word.

As always, you distort and in each case there is more than one side to the story but AS USUAL again, you ignore any fact that does not serve your flaming agenda.

I am betting that you would take great offense to anyone bringing up President Obamas relationship with a racist minister for 20 years whom he called him mentor, and I could understand your taking offense. While it is troubling, nobody has shown any concrete evidence of the President sharing those thoughts although his mentor had those thoughts and spewed them.

As always, you are so totally closed minded and full of hate for anyone who does not subscribe to your wishes and thoughts, you look only for that hate.

I will not defend those you choose to malign and will not malign those I oppose without looking at both sides of what is happening or asking questions. You will continue to do what you do....post inane half truths on here instead of any conversation. You are predictable, boring, ill informed and tiring.

You are not any of those things because of your political leanings. It is very informative and helpful when folks with whom you disagree list how they feel and why, but cut and paste smear jobs by immature hacks and general name calling of anyone who disagrees with you along with your tiring use of the party lines and spins is just overwhelming.

PS...by the way, none of your links worked but that is ok....EVERYONE in the universe has heard or read this spin but smartly felt it was nothing that was important enough to share on here....thankfully, there are posters who have pride in what they post !

[Guest]

I'm not going to defend the long ago newsletters which had Ron Pauls masthead. He needed to know what was in them, and if he didn't that's his tough luck.

Gingrich: "I will go to the NAACP convention and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." He also said “Young children who are poor ought to learn how to go to work,” he continued. “What I’ve said is, for example, it would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. Some of the things they could do is work in the library, work in the front office. Some of them frankly, could be janitorial. Gingrich continued, “this all started when people on the Left laughed about and derided what they call hamburger flipping jobs. I did an entire thing in one of my courses on the number of people whose first job was at McDonald’s who are now very successful multi-millionaires. And my point is, any work that gets you in the habit of working beats no work.”
http://theminorityeye.com/newt-gingrich-says-teaching-poor-black-kids-to-be-janitors-would-stop-them-p1167-158.htm

Santorum: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money." "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money and provide for themselves and their families," he added. "The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling."

(postscript: Santorum's remarks were made while the employment rate for blacks has risen to 16%; 17% among black men and a staggering 41% among black teens; all while President Obama claims "recovery")
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/06/20/black-unemployment-at-16-percent.html

Santorum: On the subject of gay marriage, he was asked by a student “How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ...” “What about three men?” Santorum interjected. “Reason says that if you think it’s OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it’s not OK for three,” he added. “Let’s just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”

Anyone with any honesty knows that Santorum was only responding to someone who wants to change the definition on what is marriage. Once you change it for one group aren't you discriminating against other groups who want to enact into law their definition on what constitutes a marriage?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/9840271-418/gop-rivals-romney-not-conservative-enough.html

Amazing what putting things in context will do. It all about making you think. I know it's tough, but try it.

I would like to thank janmcn for the posting that prompted this response and thanks to Richielion for the "rest of the story"!

[Guest]

I'm not going to defend the long ago newsletters which had Ron Pauls masthead. He needed to know what was in them, and if he didn't that's his tough luck.

Gingrich: "I will go to the NAACP convention and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." He also said “Young children who are poor ought to learn how to go to work,” he continued. “What I’ve said is, for example, it would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. Some of the things they could do is work in the library, work in the front office. Some of them frankly, could be janitorial. Gingrich continued, “this all started when people on the Left laughed about and derided what they call hamburger flipping jobs. I did an entire thing in one of my courses on the number of people whose first job was at McDonald’s who are now very successful multi-millionaires. And my point is, any work that gets you in the habit of working beats no work.”
http://theminorityeye.com/newt-gingrich-says-teaching-poor-black-kids-to-be-janitors-would-stop-them-p1167-158.htm

Santorum: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money." "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money and provide for themselves and their families," he added. "The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling."

(postscript: Santorum's remarks were made while the employment rate for blacks has risen to 16%; 17% among black men and a staggering 41% among black teens; all while President Obama claims "recovery")
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/06/20/black-unemployment-at-16-percent.html

Santorum: On the subject of gay marriage, he was asked by a student “How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ...” “What about three men?” Santorum interjected. “Reason says that if you think it’s OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it’s not OK for three,” he added. “Let’s just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”

Anyone with any honesty knows that Santorum was only responding to someone who wants to change the definition on what is marriage. Once you change it for one group aren't you discriminating against other groups who want to enact into law their definition on what constitutes a marriage?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/9840271-418/gop-rivals-romney-not-conservative-enough.html

Amazing what putting things in context will do. It all about making you think. I know it's tough, but try it.


RICH,...thanks for the work you have done to embarrass this poster for being so shallow and limited in ability. Not only ill informed, also well behind the times !

[Guest]

Whatever Richie and Bucco say is to their credit for looking up the full quotations - however, the damage is already on the Internet without all the explanations for people to read - and to have their own minds made up.

It does not matter if a candidate makes a statement that can be explained easily but just does not sound good, the implication is already out there on the Internet with possibly other explanations of what was really meant.

Many times, it is a case of presumed guilty until proven innocent and the masses will not accept the proof of innocense because it is not what they wanted to hear in the first place.

Candidates should be very careful in choosing their words the first time and too often they do not - and the spectre will haunt them for a long time in voter's minds.

[Guest]

Whatever Richie and Bucco say is to their credit for looking up the full quotations - however, the damage is already on the Internet without all the explanations for people to read - and to have their own minds made up.

It does not matter if a candidate makes a statement that can be explained easily but just does not sound good, the implication is already out there on the Internet with possibly other explanations of what was really meant.

Many times, it is a case of presumed guilty until proven innocent and the masses will not accept the proof of innocense because it is not what they wanted to hear in the first place.

Candidates should be very careful in choosing their words the first time and too often they do not - and the spectre will haunt them for a long time in voter's minds.

You make good points here Buggyone. BUT the circles I travel in are made of people like Richielion, who dig much deeper to find the facts on issues. There are more of them out there than you might suspect.

[Guest]

Most American voters, unfortunately, are not like the circle you travel with. They are not digging deep but feeding on the headlines without reading deep into the articles.

Lots and lots of the statements will stay with the candidate even though it may not true. Some is due to the stupidity of the candidate - such as the rock with the N-word on Perry's hunting lodge. Why couldn't that have just been buried or broken up years ago instead of just turned over? Even though Perry had nothing to do with it, that stain will stay with him.

It is a mistake to mention race in a campaign because some will take it as a slur no matter what was said. It is a lose-lose situation.

Same thing goes for gay and lesbian issues. No matter what is said, someone will take offense to it.

[Guest]

Most American voters, unfortunately, are not like the circle you travel with. They are not digging deep but feeding on the headlines without reading deep into the articles.

Hell, the vast majority aren't even reading the headlines - they are getting their information from paid ads -- at best!

[Guest]

Where do you get your facts on how well informed people are and how well the dig for the facts? ...Ads and headlines?

[Guest]

Where do you get your facts on how well informed people are and how well the dig for the facts? ...Ads and headlines?

It's my opinion, based on personal observation - never meant it as fact and didn't think anyone would see it as such.

[Guest]

It's my opinion, based on personal observation - never meant it as fact and didn't think anyone would see it as such.

ditto

[Guest]

Most American voters, unfortunately, are not like the circle you travel with. They are not digging deep but feeding on the headlines without reading deep into the articles.

Lots and lots of the statements will stay with the candidate even though it may not true. Some is due to the stupidity of the candidate - such as the rock with the N-word on Perry's hunting lodge. Why couldn't that have just been buried or broken up years ago instead of just turned over? Even though Perry had nothing to do with it, that stain will stay with him.

It is a mistake to mention race in a campaign because some will take it as a slur no matter what was said. It is a lose-lose situation.

Same thing goes for gay and lesbian issues. No matter what is said, someone will take offense to it.

I have to agree with you here most forthrightly my friend Buggy. By your own words here you allude to the fact that Democrats count on people who are shallow, ill informed and misinformed. It's facts that get in the way of Democrats keeping power.

Here's hoping there's more informed people than there are Democrat voters.

[Guest]

I have to agree with you here most forthrightly my friend Buggy. By your own words here you allude to the fact that Democrats count on people who are shallow, ill informed and misinformed. It's facts that get in the way of Democrats keeping power.

Here's hoping there's more informed people than there are Democrat voters.

So you're saying that Democrat voters are uninformed. Pretty arrogant statement in my opinion. Does that mean anyone who votes for any Democrat, or just those that vote a straight Democrat ticket? Do you have a link that indicates that is the case?

[Guest]

Richie, I meant voters of all parties. Lots of uninformed on both sides of the aisle. Those who say they will vote for anyone but Republican and those who say they would never vote Republican no matter who the candidate is.

Both parties want voters who are shallow and ill-informed. They count on the 30 second sound bites to sway voters.

Of course, that would never happen here in The Villages since everyone here is savvy enough to read all the information available in newspapers online and to listen to different news channels to get all the viewpoints - and then sort it out for themselves.

[Guest]

[quote=eweissenbach;437343]

No, I'm saying that is what Buggy alluded to in his post I was commenting on. Trouble with comprehension?

No, not in this case, at least. It was your editorial comment at the end. Must be nice to live in your world, where it is always the other person who doesn't comprehend, or is unintelligent.

[Guest]

So you're saying that Democrat voters are uninformed. Pretty arrogant statement in my opinion. Does that mean anyone who votes for any Democrat, or just those that vote a straight Democrat ticket? Do you have a link that indicates that is the case?


No, I'm saying that is what Buggy alluded to in his post I was commenting on. Trouble with comprehension?

[Guest]

[quote=RichieLion;437352]

No, not in this case, at least. It was your editorial comment at the end. Must be nice to live in your world, where it is always the other person who doesn't comprehend, or is unintelligent.

Sorry if you don't get my humor. Although behind my humor is the truth. I do believe that the more informed the American, the more conservative in political thought he would be. (the key word above is "American"; think about my meaning before jumping to conclusions)

I know what the essence of being an American is. Too many have forgotten what this country represents and now believe that "being their brother's keeper" is now a government mandate and not just a moral ideal.

I can get way more detailed in this conversation if you desire, but you should glean my meaning and my intent from the little I've written.

[Guest]

No, I'm saying that is what Buggy alluded to in his post I was commenting on. Trouble with comprehension?

No, not in this case, at least. It was your editorial comment at the end. Must be nice to live in your world, where it is always the other person who doesn't comprehend, or is unintelligent.

[Guest]

[quote=eweissenbach;437391]

Sorry if you don't get my humor. Although behind my humor is the truth. I do believe that the more informed the American, the more conservative in political thought he would be. (the key word above is "American"; think about my meaning before jumping to conclusions)

I know what the essence of being an American is. Too many have forgotten what this country represents and now believe that "being their brother's keeper" is now a government mandate and not just a moral ideal.

I can get way more detailed in this conversation if you desire, but you should glean my meaning and my intent from the little I've written.

The truth? Really? If you really beleive that, it explains a lot about your viewpoint, and illustrates your arrogance.

[Guest]

No, I'm saying that is what Buggy alluded to in his post I was commenting on. Trouble with comprehension?

No, not in this case, at least. It was your editorial comment at the end. Must be nice to live in your world, where it is always the other person who doesn't comprehend, or is unintelligent.

Not everyone has trouble deciphering my thought and intent in my posts. I'm sorry you are.

[Guest]

[quote=eweissenbach;437399]

Not everyone has trouble deciphering my thought and intent in my posts. I'm sorry you are.

I too am sorry not to be in your wide circle of admirers. Apparently your thought processes are far above my limited level of comprehension.

[Guest]

[quote=RichieLion;437405]

I too am sorry not to be in your wide circle of admirers. Apparently your thought processes are far above my limited level of comprehension.

Wait; I just thought of something. Obviously I hit a nerve with my comment about Democrat voters. Actually, I love that. I'm sorry if you find fault in my description about what constitutes a desirable voter to the Democrat Party, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

I've never passed a pot I didn't want to stir.

(P.S.: You really need to learn how to "quote". The quote of yours above looks like it was said by me. I don't know what you're doing, but you're doing it wrong)

[Guest]

[quote=eweissenbach;437413]

Wait; I just thought of something. Obviously I hit a nerve with my comment about Democrat voters. Actually, I love that. I'm sorry if you find fault in my description about what constitutes a desirable voter to the Democrat Party, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

I've never passed a pot I didn't want to stir.

(P.S.: You really need to learn how to "quote". The quote of yours above looks like it was said by me. I don't know what you're doing, but you're doing it wrong)

The statement was yours, I don't know why it had my name on it, but that is among many things I need to learn. Yes you hit a nerve with your unintelligent comment about Democrat voters. I have voted for many democrats and many republicans, and have always put a great deal of thought into my votes. I also respect people who have different views, though not when they show disrespect for different views.

[Guest]

Richie, what I said in my post was "Lots and lots of the statements will stay with the candidate even though it may not true. Some is due to the stupidity of the candidate - such as the rock with the N-word on Perry's hunting lodge. Why couldn't that have just been buried or broken up years ago instead of just turned over? Even though Perry had nothing to do with it, that stain will stay with him.

It is a mistake to mention race in a campaign because some will take it as a slur no matter what was said. It is a lose-lose situation.

Same thing goes for gay and lesbian issues. No matter what is said, someone will take offense to it."

These incidents were about the Republican candidates and therefore, the Republican electorate was the target. It was not for the Democrats - but Democrats are not immune from this 30 second sound bite campaigning by any means.

The Republican candidates are aiming for those Republican voters who are shallow and ill-informed - since Democrat voters cannot vote in Republican primaries.

[Guest]

I'm not going to defend the long ago newsletters which had Ron Pauls masthead. He needed to know what was in them, and if he didn't that's his tough luck.

Gingrich: "I will go to the NAACP convention and tell the African-American community why they should demand paychecks instead of food stamps." He also said “Young children who are poor ought to learn how to go to work,” he continued. “What I’ve said is, for example, it would be great if inner city schools and poor neighborhood schools actually hired the children to do things. Some of the things they could do is work in the library, work in the front office. Some of them frankly, could be janitorial. Gingrich continued, “this all started when people on the Left laughed about and derided what they call hamburger flipping jobs. I did an entire thing in one of my courses on the number of people whose first job was at McDonald’s who are now very successful multi-millionaires. And my point is, any work that gets you in the habit of working beats no work.”
http://theminorityeye.com/newt-gingrich-says-teaching-poor-black-kids-to-be-janitors-would-stop-them-p1167-158.htm

Santorum: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money." "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money and provide for themselves and their families," he added. "The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling."

(postscript: Santorum's remarks were made while the employment rate for blacks has risen to 16%; 17% among black men and a staggering 41% among black teens; all while President Obama claims "recovery")
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/06/20/black-unemployment-at-16-percent.html

Santorum: On the subject of gay marriage, he was asked by a student “How you justify your belief based on these morals you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry the person that they love ...” “What about three men?” Santorum interjected. “Reason says that if you think it’s OK for two, you have to differentiate with me why it’s not OK for three,” he added. “Let’s just have a discussion about what that means. If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”

Anyone with any honesty knows that Santorum was only responding to someone who wants to change the definition on what is marriage. Once you change it for one group aren't you discriminating against other groups who want to enact into law their definition on what constitutes a marriage?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/9840271-418/gop-rivals-romney-not-conservative-enough.html

Amazing what putting things in context will do. It all about making you think. I know it's tough, but try it.

RichieLion: Thank you for posting these links better than I could. Some people on this forum think I make this stuff up, even though it's been running on TV 24/7 for weeks and in print. How do these statements help republicans build a wider tent by including African Americans, hispanics and gays and lesbians?

[Guest]

RichieLion: Thank you for posting these links better than I could. Some people on this forum think I make this stuff up, even though it's been running on TV 24/7 for weeks and in print. How do these statements help republicans build a wider tent by including African Americans, hispanics and gays and lesbians?

They don't if you're an ignorant American. IMHO

[Guest]

[quote=RichieLion;437421]

The statement was yours, I don't know why it had my name on it, but that is among many things I need to learn. Yes you hit a nerve with your unintelligent comment about Democrat voters. I have voted for many democrats and many republicans, and have always put a great deal of thought into my votes. I also respect people who have different views, though not when they show disrespect for different views.

You're still not posting quotes correctly. All you have to do is click on the "quote button" at the bottom of the quote you want to reference. Then write below that quote. Somehow the way you're attempting to do this you put my name on your quote here.

I don't know what you're doing to post them the way you do.

[Guest]

They don't if you're an ignorant American. IMHO

I don't understand. Who's ignorant? The candidates that say these things, the people that vote for them, or the people that don't vote for them? How does saying these things help the republican party?

[Guest]

RichieLion: Thank you for posting these links better than I could. Some people on this forum think I make this stuff up, even though it's been running on TV 24/7 for weeks and in print. How do these statements help republicans build a wider tent by including African Americans, hispanics and gays and lesbians?

NOBODY thinks you make anything up......what you do is quote things OUT OF CONTEXT....you try to make folks look bad....that is wrong to do, dont you think ? You take a few quotes OUT OF CONTEXT...no explanation..come on here and call a lot of people racists and other names.....that is just flat out wrong...totally !!!

[Guest]

[quote=RichieLion;437421]

The statement was yours, I don't know why it had my name on it, but that is among many things I need to learn. Yes you hit a nerve with your unintelligent comment about Democrat voters. I have voted for many democrats and many republicans, and have always put a great deal of thought into my votes. I also respect people who have different views, though not when they show disrespect for different views.
:agree:

[Guest]

NOBODY thinks you make anything up......what you do is quote things OUT OF CONTEXT....you try to make folks look bad....that is wrong to do, dont you think ? You take a few quotes OUT OF CONTEXT...no explanation..come on here and call a lot of people racists and other names.....that is just flat out wrong...totally !!!
:agree:

[Guest]

You're still not posting quotes correctly. All you have to do is click on the "quote button" at the bottom of the quote you want to reference. Then write below that quote. Somehow the way you're attempting to do this you put my name on your quote here.

I don't know what you're doing to post them the way you do.

I don't know either, but you are doing the same thing :undecided:

[Guest]

NOBODY thinks you make anything up......what you do is quote things OUT OF CONTEXT....you try to make folks look bad....that is wrong to do, dont you think ? You take a few quotes OUT OF CONTEXT...no explanation..come on here and call a lot of people racists and other names.....that is just flat out wrong...totally !!!

Thanks to RichieLion, you can read the full quotes and decide for yourself. I don't understand how this type of language helps the republican party reach out and be all-inclusive.

[Guest]

I don't understand. Who's ignorant? The candidates that say these things, the people that vote for them, or the people that don't vote for them? How does saying these things help the republican party?


How do you feel about President Obama's relationship with a public and known racist based on his remarks...ie, calling him his MENTOR...attending his church for over 20 years and having him officiate at his wedding?

I dont want to discuss the issue....just want to know what you might think based on someone posting on here the Reverends quotes, the Presidents quotes on how he feels about the reverend and then jumping to a conclusion about how the President feels about race just simply based on a few out of context items that you ran across.

Please try to respond to this.

[Guest]

I don't know either, but you are doing the same thing :undecided:

That's only because I'm quoting your quotes that you attribute to me.

This one is right because I was able to just quote you.

[Guest]

NOBODY thinks you make anything up......what you do is quote things OUT OF CONTEXT....you try to make folks look bad....that is wrong to do, dont you think ? You take a few quotes OUT OF CONTEXT...no explanation..come on here and call a lot of people racists and other names.....that is just flat out wrong...totally !!!

Go to You Tube and you will see exactly what Gingrich said as reported by me.

[Guest]

How do you feel about President Obama's relationship with a public and known racist based on his remarks...ie, calling him his MENTOR...attending his church for over 20 years and having him officiate at his wedding?

I dont want to discuss the issue....just want to know what you might think based on someone posting on here the Reverends quotes, the Presidents quotes on how he feels about the reverend and then jumping to a conclusion about how the President feels about race just simply based on a few out of context items that you ran across.

Please try to respond to this.

I have no idea why President Obama did what he did for 20 years. All I know is he got 95% of the African American vote in 2008. I get one vote, you get one vote. The voters will decide in November.

[Guest]

I have no idea why President Obama did what he did for 20 years. All I know is he got 95% of the African American vote in 2008. I get one vote, you get one vote. The voters will decide in November.

YOU make no sense whatsoever !!! You dont even get the point...WOW

[Guest]

Really? radical? Is that what you call it? Traditional American values is now radical? Maybe you should keep reading.Oh c'mon, Richie. President Obama won both the popular vote as well as the electoral vote by a wide majority based on values considerably different than Rick Santorum's. The values cited by Santorum are only supported by a minority of Americans, nowhere near close to the 50%+ needed to elect him POTUS. His positions are a long, long way from being "traditional American values".

[Guest]

i don't agree with you, kahuna...i do think the great majority of americans hold the same or similar values as Rick Santorum....we are just bombasted with liberal values in every comedy show, news report, movie, etc so that we don't even notice it any more...but as we look around and see what has become of our society, our morals, our own grandchildren's misguided ideas in some cases, it is time we consider what our own values really mean to us and stand up for them.

[Guest]

Oh c'mon, Richie. President Obama won both the popular vote as well as the electoral vote by a wide majority based on values considerably different than Rick Santorum's. The values cited by Santorum are only supported by a minority of Americans, nowhere near close to the 50%+ needed to elect him POTUS. His positions are a long, long way from being "traditional American values".

Then you have lost all comprehension of what the true meaning of "American Values" are Kahuna. I'm sorry for that, for you.

Maybe you just think "American Values" change in the same way you probably believe the Constitution is a "living document". When most people think that way, our American way of life is doomed.

[Guest]

I agree 100%, chachacha and RichieLion.

[Guest]

Does ANYBODY believe that today's values represent those the majority of Americans prefer?

We have become so permissive there is almost no such thing as doing wrong.

And if someone does do something wrong the system will not attempt to do anything about it for fear of some retribution coming from ANYWHERE.

The majority is losing it day by day.....and they continue to allow it...hence we have what we have.

btk

[Guest]

Does ANYBODY believe that today's values represent those the majority of Americans prefer?

We have become so permissive there is almost no such thing as doing wrong.

And if someone does do something wrong the system will not attempt to do anything about it for fear of some retribution coming from ANYWHERE.

The majority is losing it day by day.....and they continue to allow it...hence we have what we have.

btk

While I agree with you btk, I have hope above hope that it can be turned around...Each generation has enabled and pampered and spoiled the next, in the name of tolerance and forgiveness. Accountability has been thrown out the window and the "lack of charactor" snowball continues to roll.

[Guest]

Is it TeaParty jingoism or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

[Guest]

Is it TeaParty crap or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

Some tea partiers have not evolved since that incident in Boston in 1773.

[Guest]

Is it TeaParty jingoism or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

Lord help me Jesus. I just agreed with Buggy.

[Guest]

Is it TeaParty jingoism or just general ignorance that the US Constitution is not a living and evolving document?

It lives and evolves with each amendment that is added and this has been done 27 times over 200+ years.

The writers of the Constitution did not have all the answers to future issues so the amendment process is used to add on (evolve) to the Constitution.

If it were not living and evolving, we would still have slavery in the USA and women could not vote. Is that the TeaParty line?

That's not what people mean when the term "living document" is spoken. It's now taken by leftists to mean that the Constitution can be interpreted differently according to new ideas. Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation.

This is why the Amendment process is all but obsolete in our country. If only the Constitution was changed with the Amendment process we wouldn't be having these arguments......if only.

[Guest]

Richie, my good drinking buddy, your viewpoint of a living and evolving Constitution is certainly your viewpoint - however, it is definitely not what the term means. You are welcome to take the uber-conservative view to say a living constitutution means only interpretation by a court. However, just saying so does not make it so. We have to look at what is really meant by the term. The amendment process is what makes the Constitution a living and evolving document.

However, once again, it is always in the conservative view as to whose ox is being gored. The Republicans were jumping right in to have a federal court declare The Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. Isn't that interpreting the Constitution to your own way? I thought it was a liberal thing to do according to your post. "Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation."

That, however once again, is not the meaning of the term. As we both know, the amendment process is a long process and takes sometimes years to do. That is why we have only 27 amendments in over 200 years.

The Republicans now want to add more amendments to trump states rights. A constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman would take away the state rights of each state. The "marriages" that are in place now would be rendered null and void according to Santorum. WRONG on two counts. It would be a prime example of an ex post facto law and trampling on the 10th Amendment.

You planning to be at the watering hole tomorrow night?

[Guest]

That's not what people mean when the term "living document" is spoken. It's now taken by leftists to mean that the Constitution can be interpreted differently according to new ideas. Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation.


This is one place where I agree 100% with Richie.

You want to change the meaning of something in the Costitution? We have an app for that - it's called the Ammendment Process!

[Guest]

Chacha: What values are you talking about?

If you're talking about abortion, poll after poll shows that Americans really wish the issue would go away - "you live your life, I'll live mine" - but a majority still would not outlaw it.

If you're talking about gay rights, well, Satorum just got booed off a stage here in New Hampshire because he's sticking to his position that, some time back, he stated where he equated gay sex with bestiality.

He may very well have more mainstream opinions when it comes to economic issues but those I mentioned above are not going to sit well with people. It's those kinds of positions that make many people uncomfortable and reinforce the idea that the GOP wants to be in your bedroom (as opposed to the Democrats who want to be in your wallet).

My daughter, who is more conservative than her peers and lives in PA, is overjoyed that he was not only beaten but beaten SOUNDLY. Casey got almost half-again as many votes as Santorum did.

[Guest]

President Obama doesn't hate blacks, hispanics and gays the way the republican candidates do. I don't know how they think they can win an election.

Already dumbest post of 2012. Congrats!

[Guest]

Richie, my good drinking buddy, your viewpoint of a living and evolving Constitution is certainly your viewpoint - however, it is definitely not what the term means. You are welcome to take the uber-conservative view to say a living constitutution means only interpretation by a court. However, just saying so does not make it so. We have to look at what is really meant by the term. The amendment process is what makes the Constitution a living and evolving document.

However, once again, it is always in the conservative view as to whose ox is being gored. The Republicans were jumping right in to have a federal court declare The Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. Isn't that interpreting the Constitution to your own way? I thought it was a liberal thing to do according to your post. "Leftists now use the courts to reinterpret what the founders words might be if the founders lived today and use liberal courts to enforce this new interpretation."

That, however once again, is not the meaning of the term. As we both know, the amendment process is a long process and takes sometimes years to do. That is why we have only 27 amendments in over 200 years.

The Republicans now want to add more amendments to trump states rights. A constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman would take away the state rights of each state. The "marriages" that are in place now would be rendered null and void according to Santorum. WRONG on two counts. It would be a prime example of an ex post facto law and trampling on the 10th Amendment.

You planning to be at the watering hole tomorrow night?

This is one place where I agree 100% with Richie.

You want to change the meaning of something in the Costitution? We have an app for that - it's called the Ammendment Process!

You've got it absolutely backwards. The Republicans in trying to get an amendment passed is the absolutely correct way of trying to add to, or in effect, change (amend) our Constitution. You may not agree with their proposal and many agree with you and hence they have had little success in changing the Constitution the way they want to.

ObamaCare is not a Constitutional Amendment. Quit mixing apples and oranges.

Using the courts to reinterpret the Constitution with the lame "living document" argument is a tool most closely associated with the leftists in our country who are the driving force behind today's Democrat Party.

P.S.: I will definitely be there tonight after a 2 Monday absence for holiday visits up north. Would love to see you there.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by janmcn View Post
"President Obama doesn't hate blacks, hispanics and gays the way the republican candidates do."

We could read this statement mean that Democrats hate blacks, hispanics and gays differently than the Republicans.

And then the conclusion of a logical syllogism could be:

therefore Democrats and Republicans both hate blacks, hispanics and gays.

I am only presenting back what was written and not restating it to mean something other than the writer intended....which happens too frequently on this forum.

btk

[Guest]

You have to admit that janmcn did not use the best of grammar in her posting.

Let's not even talk about Republicans or Democrats hating blacks, hispanics and gays. That is just counter-productive to absolutely everything. You will find a very few bigots and racists wherever you look but certainly no major political party is racist or bigoted.

BTK seems to be facinated with restructuring a meaning in this post as well as his strange post regarding a "I know this is not true - but, WHAT IF it were true" on a YouTube hoax about healthcare. Did someone hijack your computer as usually your posts are good?

[Guest]

sorry to disappoint you buggyone I was not trying to do anything. I know what I meant and intended. I meant nothing more than written...in fact it was more tongue in cheek than anything else. I worded it that way purposely.

You can imagine what ever your hearts desire in restating what YOU THINK were my intents and then using the restatement as a basis for your obsessive catharsis on the subject. HOWEVER.....you are wrong again.

Preach all you like on what you believe and not preaching what YOU THINK others said/believe.

btk

[Guest]

one would expect new hampshire voters to not hold conservative views on abortion and "gay rights". the reason gay marriage is not a state issue is that it has effects when these couples move to another state and also that it affects other laws such as adoption, etc....our position to have an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman is to avoid further interpretations such as three way relationships, etc which you can imagine can be endless varieties. we do not allow mormons to marry polygamously for this same reason...it has nothing to do with hating gays. we understand that they want to be able to have legal partnerships to protect their assets, etc...we do not need to call it marriage to accomplish this....we see this as a further undermining of the traditional family, the backbone of society.

as for casey beating him in his third senatorial race, casey won in part because he is a pro-life democrat, thus negating part of santorum's appeal to voters. he was also the son of a popular governor.

where is the watering hole? maybe you should all spend your monday evenings at the tea party meeting and then we would all really need a drink afterwards :)

[Guest]

one would expect new hampshire voters to not hold conservative views on abortion and "gay rights". the reason gay marriage is not a state issue is that it has effects when these couples move to another state and also that it affects other laws such as adoption, etc....our position to have an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman is to avoid further interpretations such as three way relationships, etc which you can imagine can be endless varieties. we do not allow mormons to marry polygamously for this same reason...it has nothing to do with hating gays. we understand that they want to be able to have legal partnerships to protect their assets, etc...we do not need to call it marriage to accomplish this....we see this as a further undermining of the traditional family, the backbone of society.

where is the watering hole? maybe you should all spend your monday evenings at the tea party meeting and then we would all really need a drink afterwards :)

A bunch of guys have a "boys night out" and we sit and have an adult beverage or two and talk about life, sports, politics and our wonderful way of life here. "It's a good thing", as Martha Stewart might say. There are spirited discussions at these gatherings, and also much camaraderie.

The only disappointment is for the single women who see this table full of men who are not on the menu:) (Just a joke chachacha)

[Guest]

not to worry, richie...this single woman is not interested in invading your watering hole...please note that i edited the post you cited afterwards to add a fact concerning Santorum's third race for senate, which he lost.

[Guest]

"You can imagine what ever your hearts desire in restating what YOU THINK were my intents and then using the restatement as a basis for your obsessive catharsis on the subject. HOWEVER.....you are wrong again.

Preach all you like on what you believe and not preaching what YOU THINK others said/believe.

btk "
___________________________

??????????? ROFLMAO!!! What did he say? I have not seen such "gobbledegook" since leaving my government job.
????????????????????????????????????

[Guest]

selective...

understanding...

is...

a...

very...

convenient...

malady!!


btk