Catholic Santorum winning the South ... our next Prez ?

[Dale_M]

Joy62, you accidentally deleted the closing quote tag when you edited Scipio337’s quote.

This is what a closing quote tag looks like

[noparse][/noparse]

If that closing quote tag were included, Scipio337’s words would have appeared in a quote box. Without that quote box, anyone quoting your post will have your words attributed to Scipio337.

For example, this is what a quote of your post currently would look like.

scipio337;9079185:

A private citizen should be in jail for wishing to limit confiscator taxes?

No - politicians who sign pledges to support the interests of a lobbyist should be in jail. I have no problem with them agreeing with his position - but, to actually sign a pledge saying that is how you are going to base your decisions in congress - sorry, that is NOT okay. And I say that for anyone - either party. The three Dems who signed it should be in a cell as well.

I told you that I was a Republican for years and that is true. If you don’t choose to believe it - that is fine. And from your perspective I can see why - because I am not fund of the “new” but definitely “not improved” GOP. Or maybe, it is just because I am older and wiser now than I was when I was younger. Have a good day.

And this is what a quote of your post would look like if that closing quote tag had not been deleted.

scipio337;9079185:

A private citizen should be in jail for wishing to limit confiscator taxes?

No - politicians who sign pledges to support the interests of a lobbyist should be in jail. I have no problem with them agreeing with his position - but, to actually sign a pledge saying that is how you are going to base your decisions in congress - sorry, that is NOT okay. And I say that for anyone - either party. The three Dems who signed it should be in a cell as well.

I told you that I was a Republican for years and that is true. If you don’t choose to believe it - that is fine. And from your perspective I can see why - because I am not fund of the “new” but definitely “not improved” GOP. Or maybe, it is just because I am older and wiser now than I was when I was younger. Have a good day.

 

[Josephene]

Politians signing pledges , on being faithful to protect the freedom of citizens , in choosing how they want to spend their income is not an evil thing !

It would help them to think twice hopefully , to hold the reins when temptations to spend and spend to buy unjust power is presented !

We now have reports on how the Obama ( Robama ) plan, is already to cost twice what it was thought to have originally cost !

The costs , as any believer would know , can already be lots more , for all of eternity too , if it forces , one way or other , to get most of the country , to be like in the Book of Rev - having the mark imprinted on their right hands , of being part of the death culture !

Romney , for all his astuteness in business , how could he not have foreseen this !

Or is it that , being part of a system that systematically disorts truths, he is /was unable to care about or grasp the truth !

He lied to the whole nation , on this very topic - Romnet flip flop life site news

It is very likley that the funding of these immmoral practices would make the expenses for health care and even other situations go higher , where as a compassionate Pres. with enough wisdom in this area , could encourage the nation , to come up with enough preventive means , through education about the adverse effects of all these , to help the whole country long term !

That could also serve as the best antiterrorism tool , so that the Muslims would have less reason to hate us , let alone the Godly protection from such measures and hopefully , also to increase our potential , to be thus a nation of good influence world over !

Our efforts to help families at these levels can cut to the very root of poverty and keep enough money, to help the real needy , such as those with real chronic illnesses !

At present , the system is bloated with corruption - parents being lured to get their children declared disabled , inorder to get the $ 600 - 700 a month , on bebehalf of the child , even for minor and often easily controlled ilnesses such as asthma !

A good system would have enough Godly wisdom in it , to correct many such areas and keep enough for the needy , at just levels for all !

For Cathollics who are esp. to know clearly the importance of these areas , the choice is more and more crystal clear !

May the intercession of St.Patrick who drove away the snakes help us and the nation !

 

[Geist]

Listen,

Percentages mean nothing. Zip, zero, zilch.

How many, in actual numbererical value, Catholics go to the poles during election year?

Now, same thing, how many blacks?

I dont think you realize how votes for President work here.

See, populous states get more electoral delegates than less populous states. It just so happens the most populous states also have alot of blacks. So their votes do count more.

You keep harping on the number of Catholics (while simultaneously saying percentages don’t matter ) who vote, but they both vote Democrat as evidenced by last time.

Ergo, more votes for Obama.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Well, it has to be expedient or they would be thrown out of office before they could get anything done. We get the government we deserve. But a lot of change needs to take place in the culture.

By politically expedient I mean they look for ways to profit politically from a subject, they push a little here and there but never for a solution.

Don’t know about Arkansas or Oklahoma, but do know that the people in Mississippi who are in entrenched poverty would like to escape.

I’m sure there are some.

Abortion is related to poverty. During the Bush years, the abortion rate started going up after a period of long decline. Most likely, it was because during Bush’s time in office, poverty began increasing again, and abortion is concentrated among the poor.

I didn’t say abortion an poverty were not related, I said they are not comparable.

You can pass a law to ban abortion and slavery, but you can not pass a law banning poverty.

Will be interesting to see how long Ireland and Malta can fund their endeavors.

 

[LovePatience]

I’m sure there are some.

It has failing schools where large numbers of people are trafficked to special education and fail out. It has classrooms where teachers don’t bother to teach. Near the top in federal funding and the bottom in per pupil spending? Heh.

ACROSS MISSISSIPPI — The U.S. Census Bureau has released “Public Education Finances: 2008,” and it shows Mississippi is still near the bottom in per pupil spending and near the top in federal funding for education in the U.S.

msbusiness.com/2010/06/mississippi-still-lags-in-education-spending/

Mississippi has a reputation of having the lowest ranked education system in the United States. In 2008, Mississippi ranked last in academic achievement by the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Report Card on Education with the lowest average ACT score and the 6th lowest spending per pupil in the nation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Education_in_Mississippi

Texas, Mississippi among 10 poorest states by percent in poverty

blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2011/09/13/texas-mississippi-among-10-poorest-states-by-percent-in-poverty/

It is also the poorest by median income.

In Mississippi, the average household earned a median of just $35,693 per year in 2008 and 2009, 45% less than New Hampshire households and the lowest income of any state.

Not surprisingly, it also had the highest poverty rate, with one in five households living under the poverty line.

money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/economy/Americas_wealthiest_states/index.htm

It is racially segregated;

Morgan Freeman Brings Integrated Prom To Mississippi School…: the actor donated $17,000 to his local high school in Charleston, Mississippi, so that the high school students could finally hold their first integrated prom.

jezebel.com/5133644/morgan-freeman-brings-integrated-prom-to-mississippi-school

 

[Jeanne_S]

Well, it has to be expedient or they would be thrown out of office before they could get anything done. We get the government we deserve. But a lot of change needs to take place in the culture.

Don’t know about Arkansas or Oklahoma, but do know that the people in Mississippi who are in entrenched poverty would like to escape.

The Virgin Mary at Fatima:

Abortion is related to poverty. During the Bush years, the abortion rate started going up after a period of long decline. Most likely, it was because during Bush’s time in office, poverty began increasing again, and abortion is concentrated among the poor.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Some people seem to think that abortion can be ended without also ending poverty and divisions in this country. If that is possible, we’ll be the very first in the world. The only pro-life countries in existence care for their underpriveleged better than we do.

Abortion has nothing to do with poverty. Poor women don’t get abortions. The homeless shelter where I volunteer has women with 5 and six kids, and the moms are only 25.

Malta has near zero percent. Ireland has around 5%. Not only does Ireland have a low rate, the Irish write about visiting the United States and seeing poverty in Mississippi and say they have nothing like we have. irish.typepad.com/irisheyes/2005/07/irish_poverty.html

Yes, and they are very Catholic countries.

 

[LovePatience]

Abortion has nothing to do with poverty. Poor women don’t get abortions. The homeless shelter where I volunteer has women with 5 and six kids, and the moms are only 25.
Yes, and they are very Catholic countries.

ABORTION HAS BECOME MORE CONCENTRATED AMONG POOR WOMEN
Rising Poverty, Economic Recession May Be Factors

The proportion of abortion patients who were poor increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008, according to “Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008,” by Rachel K. Jones, Lawrence B. Finer and Susheela Singh of the Guttmacher Institute. This shift is the most striking change in the profile of women obtaining abortions.

The growing concentration of abortion among women with incomes below the federal poverty line likely reflects a combination of factors. Between 2000 and 2008, the proportion of women in the overall population who were poor increased by 25%”
guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/05/04/index.html

The poorer you are, the more likely you are to have an abortion. Prior to 2000, abortion had less of a linkage with poverty. But fewer women proportionately were poor in 2000.

Almost half of the women who get abortions are poor women. Almost half of the women in America are NOT poor.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I dont think you realize how votes for President work here.

See, populous states get more electoral delegates than less populous states. It just so happens the most populous states also have alot of blacks. So their votes do count more.

You keep harping on the number of Catholics (while simultaneously saying percentages don’t matter ) who vote, but they both vote Democrat as evidenced by last time.

Ergo, more votes for Obama.

All right, let me see if I can’t help you using percentages that you like so much.

Democrats get roughly 90 percent of the black vote right?

The population of blacks In this country is what 13%? Or roughly 40 million?

I’m posting from my phone and givin roundabout figures do bear with me.

13 PERCENT of the BLACK population SHOWED up to VOTE FOR OBAMA.

I don’t know how good you are at math, but that’s pretty insignificant even in our system of government because their population is spread out amongst the 50 states.

See, I like numbers, because percentages mean NOTHING without them.

The Catholic vote for Obama was a little over 50 percent if I remember right, with approximately 60 or 70 million Catholics in this country and being a group who tend to show up in higher numbers, they tend to influence the election quite a bit more than blacks. Also, there was quite an uptick, if I remember right, for Obama. So, I don’t think it’s a group he can rely on this go around.

75 percent doesn’t tell me anything unless I have the actual numbers to go along with it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The poorer you are, the more likely you are to have an abortion. Prior to 2000, abortion had less of a linkage with poverty. But fewer women proportionately were poor in 2000.

Almost half of the women who get abortions are poor women. Almost half of the women in America are NOT poor.

What is your definition of poor? The poor women I work with have lots of kids. So are they aborting one child for each child they keep?

Seems to me the focus ought to be taking responsibility for your choices rather than making the federal government responsible. Mixing in federal aid increases the likelihood these people will remain dependent on government aid.

How can you get a job when you have so many children with different fathers and a new one just around the corner? How can you help your kids do their homework and make sure they get to school well-nourished, well rested, and willing to learn when the new boyfriend is either playing video games with them all night or abusing them?

There is no discipline or routine in these homes.

There are federal programs, school breakfast, lunch, child care, subsidized housing. We spend more money on public education in this country than any country in the world.

Is it helping? What is the state of our inner city schools? Who wants to teach in them?

Money has not helped the problem. The only success stories I have seen are those run by religious communities. We have Catholic schools here that accept at risk kids. They make the parents be involved. When my daughter was in Catholic high school, she volunteered at St. Vincent de Paul’s after school care. Part of the program was to help mothers learn parenting. The Catholic homeless shelters offer solutions and help women gain independence. The hardest mindset to overcome is one where people feel they are victims. Federal programs encourage that.

These are facts. I see it every day.

 

[LovePatience]

What is your definition of poor? The poor women I work with have lots of kids. So are they aborting one child for each child they keep?

Seems to me the focus ought to be taking responsibility for your choices rather than making the federal government responsible. Mixing in federal aid increases the likelihood these people will remain dependent on government aid.

How can you get a job when you have so many children with different fathers and a new one just around the corner? How can you help your kids do their homework and make sure they get to school well-nourished, well rested, and willing to learn when the new boyfriend is either playing video games with them all night or abusing them?

There is no discipline or routine in these homes.

There are federal programs, school breakfast, lunch, child care, subsidized housing. We spend more money on public education in this country than any country in the world.

Is it helping? What is the state of our inner city schools? Who wants to teach in them?

Money has not helped the problem. The only success stories I have seen are those run by religious communities. We have Catholic schools here that accept at risk kids. They make the parents be involved. When my daughter was in Catholic high school, she volunteered at St. Vincent de Paul’s after school care. Part of the program was to help mothers learn parenting. The Catholic homeless shelters offer solutions and help women gain independence. The hardest mindset to overcome is one where people feel they are victims. Federal programs encourage that.

These are facts. I see it every day.

You are not presenting facts; you are presenting your personal opinion, based on an extremely small sample - one homeless shelter. Do you know these people long-term? Did you know them when they were children and how they grew up? And those are gross generalizations; every situation is not the same. Many poor people do take personal responsibility for their lives, and many rich people do not.

Money has helped the problem. The poverty rate was declining under Clinton and started increasing under Bush. The abortion rate declined under Clinton and began increasing under Bush. Furthermore, Mary and Jesus have frequently commented on the special burden of the poor; why would they do that, if poverty is irrelevant. Poor people have harder lives. However, admitting that poverty increases the likelihood of abortion - a fact - is not the same as saying “make the federal government responsible for their lives.” That’s a huge jump, but people with strong negative stereotypes about them also shouldn’t have responsibility unless you want to create self-fulfilling prophecies.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You are not presenting facts; you are presenting your personal opinion, based on an extremely small sample - one homeless shelter. Do you know these people long-term? Did you know them when they were children and how they grew up? And those are gross generalizations; every situation is not the same. Many poor people do take personal responsibility for their lives, and many rich people do not.

I have have experience with more than one shelter as a volunteer. I work with people living in poverty every day at my job (not a shelter, a for profit business).

Money has helped the problem. The poverty rate was declining under Clinton and started increasing under Bush. The abortion rate declined under Clinton and began increasing under Bush.

And poverty has increased under Obama.

Furthermore, Mary and Jesus have frequently commented on the special burden of the poor; why would they do that, if poverty is irrelevant. Poor people have harder lives. However, admitting that poverty increases the likelihood of abortion - a fact - is not the same as saying “make the federal government responsible for their lives.”

I agree with Mary and Jesus.

That’s a huge jump, but people with strong negative stereotypes about them also shouldn’t have responsibility unless you want to create self-fulfilling prophecies.

Stating facts makes me stereotypical? I am unqualified to seve meals and play with homeless childrem.

I can assure you I treat each person I speak with every day, rich or poor, with the same respect I would Jesus.

The people most difficult to be kind to are arrogant belittlers of people who disagree with them.

 

[CMatt25]

I was referring to the orginal poster, Cmatt - not you. I don’t think it was intentional in any case.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Probably not intentional, it appears to be a somewhat common editing error. When she quoted you, she didn’t want to quote your entire post so she edited out everything except two sentences. However, it appears she also deleted the closing quote tag.

Yep not making sure those tags and brackets are intact and in position can cause a problem. I’ve been guilty myself and try to go back and correct the situation.

 

[ishii]

The black vote was what, 99% for Obama and the Catholic vote 54% for Obama?

Four more years. Sigh.

You are assuming way too many things here.

First, you’re assuming the same percentage of blacks will come out to vote this time. Remember, 2008 was a historical election and yoiu saw higher turnout than usual among blacks. Hard to imagine the turnout being higher among blacks, in fact, likely it will be somewhat lower.

Catholics - they voted strongly for Obama as well, and its likely that, considering what Obama has been doing to the Catholic church during his 1st term, fewer catholics will vote for Obama this time around. Of course Obama will get the clueless liberal Catholic vote, but he was going to get that anyway.

Gas - the price is much higher today than when he took office. While the president doesn’t actually control the price (unless the president is Bush, in which case he would get blamed for it) he can do some things to have an effect. Right now, it looks like he doesn’t care about the gas prices- favoring green energy over drilling for oil and making pipelines. The Keystone pipeline deal is going to be a big problem for him this election. If he is perceived as not caring about gas prices - while Romney campaigns as the guy who will help lower the prices - then Obama could well lose a lot of votes across the board, including the natural Democrat constituency, blue collar, working class voters. If you don’t think voters will take their pocketbook issues out on the incumbent then you haven’t studied the 1980 election.

Obama could still win of course, but he is not a shoe-in as you wrongly suggest. And such a point of view is defeatist and encourages people to give up. We don’t need that. The only folks who want good people to give up that I know of are bitter Ron Paul voters and leftists who want Obama to have an easier time of winning his re-election. I hope you’re not among those two groups.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

You are not presenting facts; you are presenting your personal opinion, based on an extremely small sample - one homeless shelter. Do you know these people long-term? Did you know them when they were children and how they grew up? And those are gross generalizations; every situation is not the same. Many poor people do take personal responsibility for their lives, and many rich people do not.

Money has helped the problem. The poverty rate was declining under Clinton and started increasing under Bush. The abortion rate declined under Clinton and began increasing under Bush. Furthermore, Mary and Jesus have frequently commented on the special burden of the poor; why would they do that, if poverty is irrelevant. Poor people have harder lives. However, admitting that poverty increases the likelihood of abortion - a fact - is not the same as saying “make the federal government responsible for their lives.” That’s a huge jump, but people with strong negative stereotypes about them also shouldn’t have responsibility unless you want to create self-fulfilling prophecies.

A couple of points. You can work on alleviating poverty AND make killing your unborn child illegal. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Second, Clinton didn’t do anything to decrease poverty/abortion. It was a robust economy that caused both to decrease. It turns out that robust economy was a bubble waiting to burst. Bush didn’t do anything to cause the burst economy or increase in abortions.

As far as the best way to alleviate poverty, conservatives and liberals (i.e. Republicans and Democrats) just differ on the approach. Looking at the Clinton years, it is obvious that a robust economy will decrease poverty. So, the real question is how do we create a real recovery. Our current President has saddled us with a lot more debt and bureucracy. It’s given us feeble growth and will lead to financial catastrophe down the road…iow, more poverty.

 

[Geist]

All right, let me see if I can’t help you using percentages that you like so much.

Democrats get roughly 90 percent of the black vote right?

The population of blacks In this country is what 13%? Or roughly 40 million?

I’m posting from my phone and givin roundabout figures do bear with me.

13 PERCENT of the BLACK population SHOWED up to VOTE FOR OBAMA.

I don’t know how good you are at math, but that’s pretty insignificant even in our system of government because their population is spread out amongst the 50 states.

See, I like numbers, because percentages mean NOTHING without them.

The Catholic vote for Obama was a little over 50 percent if I remember right, with approximately 60 or 70 million Catholics in this country and being a group who tend to show up in higher numbers, they tend to influence the election quite a bit more than blacks. Also, there was quite an uptick, if I remember right, for Obama. So, I don’t think it’s a group he can rely on this go around.

75 percent doesn’t tell me anything unless I have the actual numbers to go along with it.

You’re forgetting not everyone votes.

infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

2008 56.8% turnout

Again, the black vote is concentrated in populous states so it matters more than the 13% would suggest. For example the entire state of Illinois is represented by how Chicago/Cook County votes due to the population spread.

Just so happens alot of black people live in Chicago, so they do get more of say than their numbers would suggest.

Oh, and you keep leaving out Latinos, which will vote for Obama en masse. He’ll get women and Catholics again, mark my words.

There will be a reelection.

 

[CMatt25]

I told you that I was a Republican for years and that is true. If you don’t choose to believe it - that is fine. And from your perspective I can see why - because I am not fund of the “new” but definitely “not improved” GOP. Or maybe, it is just because I am older and wiser now than I was when I was younger. Have a good day.

And u2 Joy and everyone have a good day. Happy St Patty’s Day everyone! Got corned beef? I do! :bounce:

 

[Geist]

You are assuming way too many things here.

First, you’re assuming the same percentage of blacks will come out to vote this time. Remember, 2008 was a historical election and yoiu saw higher turnout than usual among blacks. Hard to imagine the turnout being higher among blacks, in fact, likely it will be somewhat lower.

They will. Because 2012 will be historic too; do we keep or toss our first black president? He is still very popular with blacks and young people.

Catholics - they voted strongly for Obama as well, and its likely that, considering what Obama has been doing to the Catholic church during his 1st term, fewer catholics will vote for Obama this time around. Of course Obama will get the clueless liberal Catholic vote, but he was going to get that anyway.

I disagree, he will get it again. Catholics haven’t been a monolithic bloc since the 60’s. And from what I gather most US Catholics are “clueless liberals”.

Gas - the price is much higher today than when he took office. While the president doesn’t actually control the price (unless the president is Bush, in which case he would get blamed for it) he can do some things to have an effect. Right now, it looks like he doesn’t care about the gas prices- favoring green energy over drilling for oil and making pipelines. The Keystone pipeline deal is going to be a big problem for him this election. If he is perceived as not caring about gas prices - while Romney campaigns as the guy who will help lower the prices - then Obama could well lose a lot of votes across the board, including the natural Democrat constituency, blue collar, working class voters. If you don’t think voters will take their pocketbook issues out on the incumbent then you haven’t studied the 1980 election.

Most people are urbanites nowadays, for whom gas prices less directly effect. It only shows up for them in higher consumer prices which is less tangible.

Obama could still win of course, but he is not a shoe-in as you wrongly suggest. And such a point of view is defeatist and encourages people to give up. We don’t need that. The only folks who want good people to give up that I know of are bitter Ron Paul voters and leftists who want Obama to have an easier time of winning his re-election. I hope you’re not among those two groups.

I’m a realist and little else in most matters. The demographics in this country strongly favor a left leaning non-white candidate over a conservative white one. The country is increasingly younger, less white, liberal, and more gay friendly.

Just the way it is.

 

[ishii]

Oh, and you keep leaving out Latinos, which will vote for Obama en masse. He’ll get women and Catholics again, mark my words.

There will be a reelection.

Latinos? If Rubio is the vice presidential nominee, expect the GOP ticket to win Florida. Florida is an important swing state. On what do you base his getting catholics again?

He is losing to Romney in a number of polls. It is not over by any means. Why are you so quick to say Obama will win? Do you think he deserves re-election?

Ishii