Republican Primary

[bbarrick8383]

During WWI and WWII, the non interventionism banner was carried by the La Follettes and Gerald Nyes, who were the RINOs of their day.

Also from Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_(United_States

I’ve always been confused why “Paleocons” like Buchanan were heartily anti-Communist, and supported our anti-Communist interventions, but change positions when it comes to the ME.

General Powell says he regrets relying on the evidence to go into Iraq, now they are using the same argument for Iran.

I see a big difference from a country with nuclear weapons and a country that barely has gasoline.

I don’t believe foreign policy should be static, one size fits all, shoot em up and apologize later for every country that looks at us funny.

 

[scipio337]

General Powell says he regrets relying on the evidence to go into Iraq, now they are using the same argument for Iran.

I see a big difference from a country with nuclear weapons and a country that barely has gasoline.

I don’t believe foreign policy should be static, one size fits all, shoot em up and apologize later for every country that looks at us funny.

I’m not sure that’s currently anyone’s foreign policy.

 

[gilliam]

In case you were wondering:
According to Campaign Media Analysis Group, an organization that tracks political ads in Florida, this campaign is the most negative on the books:
“I spent much of my academic career telling reporters, ‘Relax, this is not the most negative campaign ever,’” CMAG President Ken Goldstein said. “Well, this IS the most negative campaign ever.”

Numbers from CMAG show a total of 11,586 television spots aired in Florida between January 23 and January 29. Of those spots, 10,633 were negative and 953 were positive.

Of the 1,012 spots Newt Gingrich’s campaign ran, 95% were negative. Mitt Romney’s campaign ran 3,276 ads and 99% were negative.

The two super PACs supporting the top candidates were more divergent in their ad strategies. Restore our Future, supporting Romney, ran 4,969 spots, all of which were negative. The Gingrich-backing Winning our
Future ran 1,893 spots, and only 53% were negative.

Correspondingly, the bulk of ads in Florida – 68% – were negative toward Gingrich. Twenty-three percent were anti-Romney spots.
Gingrich got support from 9% of ads while pro-Romney spots accounted for less than 0.1%.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I’m not sure that’s currently anyone’s foreign policy.

Well, our currency doesn’t say “We are sorry” on it, but when you destroy a $500 dollar shack and spend a million to build a school, that’s pretty much the implication.

 

[gilliam]

General Powell says he regrets relying on the evidence to go into Iraq, now they are using the same argument for Iran.

I see a big difference from a country with nuclear weapons and a country that barely has gasoline…

Iran has LOTS of oil, they could have LOTS of gas. They have chosen for internal political reasons not to give thier citizens gas.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Iran has LOTS of oil, they could have LOTS of gas. They have chosen for internal political reasons not to give thier citizens gas.

Source?

 

[scipio337]

Well, our currency doesn’t say “We are sorry” on it, but when you destroy a $500 dollar shack and spend a million to build a school, that’s pretty much the implication.

Agreed, but I don’t see anyone proposing, or much chance of a “nation building” exercise in Iran.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Agreed, but I don’t see anyone proposing, or much chance of a “nation building” exercise in Iran.

It would be naive to not believe it would happen.

 

[gilliam]

Source?

It is a bit complicated. Iran has oil, they have the 4th largest oil reserves on the planet; but the government of Iran doesn’t want to build an infrasturcture to create gas. Iran’s economy is run by the military which doesn’t want to share it with outside oil firms (so forget Western companies investing in refineries in Iran.) They have contracts with Russia for nuclear reactors, but not to upgrade their refineries. At the same time they keep the internal demand for gas artificially high. Estimated oil reserves by country (Iran is 4th in the world):
Refineries don’t come cheap: In the United States, it can cost billions of dollars to set up a brand-new facility. Iran might be able to put one together for less, given its more relaxed environmental regulations. But the Iranians would still need to make a huge investment to offset their high demand for gasoline and reduce the need for imports. Other countries draw development money from energy companies in exchange for market access. But many companies have shied away from making such deals with Iran. They face direct sanctions from the United States and United Nations, as well as political pressure discouraging involvement. More generally, Iran is known for a restrictive, bureaucratic business environment that can scare off investment.

Demand for gasoline is artificially high in Iran, due in part to domestic subsidies. The government has for years used the profits from oil exports to provide gasoline to its people for as little as 12 cents per gallon—less than one-third of what it costs to make it. The subsidized gas prices led to increased dependency on automobiles, and consumption increased by more than 10 percent per year in the early 2000s.

Smuggling exacerbated the problem. Given the cheap price of gasoline, Iranians found it profitable to buy fuel in their home country and sneak it into neighboring states like Pakistan, Turkey, and Afghanistan, where it commanded higher prices on resale. With the supply dwindling, the country was left with the choice of trying to produce more gasoline—at a loss, given its heavy subsidies—or facing major shortages and the need for imports.
Tehran’s response, earlier this year [2007], was to ration gasoline and reduce subsidies. Needless to say, Iranians accustomed to free-flowing gasoline at 12 cents per gallon weren’t amused by higher prices and long lines at the pump. The policy change prompted violence against gas stations, further limiting supply. Now, even with reduced subsidies, Iran still sells gasoline for about 40 cents per gallon, less than one-third what it sells for in neighboring Iraq. Not surprisingly, a thriving black market has popped up across that border, too. This undermines the government’s rationing efforts, and overall Iranian consumption remains high, spelling a need for continued imports.
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/11/why_is_iran_importing_gasoline.html

 

[bbarrick8383]

Other than government purposes, how do they keep demand high? From what I understand it’s dropped sharply. Largely due to the sanctions, yea, they could build refineries but there’s nothing wrong wrong with trade…until someone come’s along and cut’s it off…

 

[Ghosty]

which US wars would you lable as NOT military adventurism in the last 100 years?

WWII was certainly not military adventurism; the others are debatable, but generally speaking I wouldn’t put something like WWI as truly military adventurism, though I think it was wrong from a non-interventionist standpoint. I would argue that the Vietnam War was an example of military adventurism, though not in its purest form.

Difference noted. Does that narrow down the field to primarily OIF?

The best examples are the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq was nothing but military adventurism, while Afghanistan carried a legitimate element of military retaliation but quickly became an adventurist war (and remains so). Going after Al Qaeda was a legitimate exercise; overthrowing the Taliban, setting up a new corrupt regime, and fighting to defend that regime against the Taliban is military adventurism. I honestly don’t know if the military adventure was part of the underlying intention of the Afghan invasion (I wasn’t privy to the discussions behind closed doors), or if it just developed over time, but it’s definitely there now.

Peace and God bless!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Drudge: Exit polls in Florida show Romney 46, Newt 32, Santorum 12, Paul 7

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Now is not the time for wild accusations and hyperbole for your candidate.

As for the Kosher issue - it was a veto of Medicare coverage for kosher meals for the elderly - guess they have to purchase their own kosher food. I have no idea if its true but even if it is, it pales in comparison to Obama requiring Catholic hospitals to provide contraception and abortificients to people in violation of their conscience. Anyone who would compare what Romney - supposedly - did and what Obama is doing needs to have their head examined.

Ishii

Needs to have their head examined?

This issue isn’t about the election, its about the mortal soul of Mitt Romney.

If he forced Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception (IE: the morning after pill) to people, and if he forced Jews to not get Kosher food, isn’t his mortal soul is at risk unless he goes to the confessional?.. which OH WAIT, he won’t do that unless he is converted.

If Mitt Romney is the nominee I won’t vote for him. And, if he is President, the ONLY prayer I will pray for him is that he gets converted to the Catholic faith. And I will pray that prayer a bare minimum of once per day. Bare minimum.

So, you can say I need my head examined. But, if Jesus Christ in his infinite Justice condemns Mitt Romney because he made Catholic hospitals provide the morning after pill and KILL HUMAN LIFE. Well… I guess your insult won’t matter much then will it? No, then it will be the Omnipotent Christ carrying out His Infallible Holy Justice

 

[_Abyssinia]

Needs to have their head examined?

This issue isn’t about the election, its about the mortal soul of Mitt Romney.

If he forced Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception (IE: the morning after pill) to people, and if he forced Jews to not get Kosher food, I say his mortal soul is at risk unless he goes to the confessional… which OH WAIT, he won’t do that unless he is converted.

If Mitt Romney is the nominee I won’t vote for him. And, if he is President, the ONLY prayer I will pray for him is that he gets converted to the Catholic faith. And I will pray that prayer a bare minimum of once per day. Bare minimum.

So, you can say I need my head examined. But, if Jesus Christ in his infinite Justice condemns Mitt Romney because he made Catholic hospitals provide the morning after pill and KILL HUMAN LIFE. Well… I guess your insult won’t matter much then will it? No, then it will be the Omnipotent Christ carrying out His Infallible Holy Justice

Where do you get the idea that Mitt Romney would force Catholic institutions to have contraception and abortificant mandate? Many pro lifers have come out in Florida, Massachusetts and other states, saying that he is sufficiently pro life,

 

[rlg94086]

Where do you get the idea that Mitt Romney would force Catholic institutions to have contraception and abortificant mandate? Many pro lifers have come out in Florida, Massachusetts and other states, saying that he is sufficiently pro life,

From Newt Gingrich’s latest attacks, of course. He is framing Romney as anti-religious, as his latest desperate attempt to regain traction.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Where do you get the idea that Mitt Romney would force Catholic institutions to have contraception and abortificant mandate? Many pro lifers have come out in Florida, Massachusetts and other states, saying that he is sufficiently pro life,

Politico
politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-says-mitt-hostile-to-religious-liberty-112839.html

And, I’m not talking about what he MIGHT do… I’m talking about what he ALREADY DID.

He has never apologized for being pro-aboriton. He used to give big money to planned parenthood, he used to go to TONS of planned parenthood functions. Planned Parenthood people would stand behind him when he signed bills.

And, now, I learn that he made contraception mandatory through Romneycare (in emergency situations: IE: morning after pills). Which, isn’t surprising if you know his REAL history about abortion.

I could accept him IF he said he changed his views. But, he won’t. He gives us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, and says: “well, I never signed a bill that worsened abortion”… DID YOU SUPPORT IT OR NOT??? IF SO THEN APOLOGIZE OR I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.

And, he won’t do that. He’s giving us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, to fashion himself as a conservative.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Politico
politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-says-mitt-hostile-to-religious-liberty-112839.html

And, I’m not talking about what he MIGHT do… I’m talking about what he ALREADY DID.

He has never apologized for being pro-aboriton. He used to give big money to planned parenthood, he used to go to TONS of planned parenthood functions. Planned Parenthood people would stand behind him when he signed bills.

And, now, I learn that he made contraception mandatory through Romneycare (in emergency situations: IE: morning after pills). Which, isn’t surprising if you know his REAL history about abortion.

I could accept him IF he said he changed his views. But, he won’t. He gives us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, and says: “well, I never signed a bill that worsened abortion”… DID YOU SUPPORT IT OR NOT??? IF SO THEN APOLOGIZE OR I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.

And, he won’t do that. He’s giving us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, to fashion himself as a conservative.

What he did, what he used to do, yes, he has a checkered record because he used to be pro choice, just like Ronald Reagen, and then he changed his position. Abby Johnson used to work as a director of Planned Parenthood, now she is a pro life advocate. We should be thankful for every pro life convert. It is not what they did in the past as much as what they do in the present and future.

Regarding the claim about the morning after pill in RomneyCare:

Mitt vetoed a bill that would have mandated access without a prescription, a move wholeheartedly endorsed by the pro-life movement. The bill Mitt actually signed — was merely a request for Massachusetts to get federal reimbursement for services it was already providing at cost (roughly $5 million) to the state. The bill wasn’t expanding access to abortions but instead cost-shifting contraceptive services to the federal government. In fact, even Mitt’s critics said it “could” expand access to the morning-after pill, not that it would.

lifenews.com/2011/12/30/don%E2%80%99t-believe-misleading-attacks-on-romneys-abortion-record/

 

[rlg94086]

Politico
politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-says-mitt-hostile-to-religious-liberty-112839.html

And, I’m not talking about what he MIGHT do… I’m talking about what he ALREADY DID.

He has never apologized for being pro-aboriton. He used to give big money to planned parenthood, he used to go to TONS of planned parenthood functions. Planned Parenthood people would stand behind him when he signed bills.

And, now, I learn that he made contraception mandatory through Romneycare (in emergency situations: IE: morning after pills). Which, isn’t surprising if you know his REAL history about abortion.

I could accept him IF he said he changed his views. But, he won’t. He gives us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, and says: “well, I never signed a bill that worsened abortion”… DID YOU SUPPORT IT OR NOT??? IF SO THEN APOLOGIZE OR I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.

And, he won’t do that. He’s giving us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, to fashion himself as a conservative.

“Newt says…” is all I need to know. It’s just his latest desperate attempt to smear his opponent - regurgitated by bloggers.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Fox Exit: Romney winning Hispanics by 27%.

Fox Exit: Gingrich only leading Romney among evangelicals by 4%

Fox Exit: Romney winning 58% of those who say beating Obama is biggest

CBS FL primary exit poll suggests a big night ahead for Romney: huff.to/AxrGbm

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Politico
politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/newt-says-mitt-hostile-to-religious-liberty-112839.html

And, I’m not talking about what he MIGHT do… I’m talking about what he ALREADY DID.

He has never apologized for being pro-aboriton. He used to give big money to planned parenthood, he used to go to TONS of planned parenthood functions. Planned Parenthood people would stand behind him when he signed bills.

And, now, I learn that he made contraception mandatory through Romneycare (in emergency situations: IE: morning after pills). Which, isn’t surprising if you know his REAL history about abortion.

I could accept him IF he said he changed his views. But, he won’t. He gives us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, and says: “well, I never signed a bill that worsened abortion”… DID YOU SUPPORT IT OR NOT??? IF SO THEN APOLOGIZE OR I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU.

And, he won’t do that. He’s giving us a bunch of SNAKE OIL, to fashion himself as a conservative.

Well, I wouldn’t listen to anything Gingrich says about Romney when he was governor.

Fact is, then Governor Romney tied to veto legislation that forced Catholic hospitals to provide the mornng after pill and that would force Catholic institutions to provide access to ABC. However, Romney’s veto was over-rode by the state legislature, which was 83% democrat.

Jim