Republican Primary

[pnewton]

He has passed exactly one piece of Legislation in his entire political career and that involved restoration of a firehouse in his district. It would be hard to find a congressman who has been less effective in the History of the US

In this district, we do not define effective as spending our money, as to Democrats, and apparently most Republicans. Besides, if I read the Constitution right, not one congressman can pass a bill. Maybe you interpret the Constitution differently.

I am actually surprised just how much Republicans look like Democrats. Same political nastiness, same name-calling, same deficit spending. I question the label “fringe” that keeps popping up. It is almost as if we are only slightly better off having a two-party system than a one-part system, where the established and entrenched wealthy and powerful tell us who to vote for. At the end of the day, we are not so different, except we have two names.

 

[gilliam]

The CPAC straw poll is an attendance poll. If you bus in your supporters then you win the straw poll. It makes sense that the candidate with the most money (by far) won the poll. What is surprising is how poorly Ron Paul did which shows he didn’t try to bus in supporters I guess.

 

[ishii]

In this district, we do not define effective as spending our money, as to Democrats, and apparently most Republicans. Besides, if I read the Constitution right, not one congressman can pass a bill. Maybe you interpret the Constitution differently.

I am actually surprised just how much Republicans look like Democrats. Same political nastiness, same name-calling, same deficit spending. I question the label “fringe” that keeps popping up. It is almost as if we are only slightly better off having a two-party system than a one-part system, where the established and entrenched wealthy and powerful tell us who to vote for. At the end of the day, we are not so different, except we have two names.

And the Ron Paul campaign hasn’t shamelessly accused Rick Santorum of not being authentically pro-life? Please.

And Justice Scalia is just a little different from Justice Ruth Ginsburg, no? Oh, that’s right, the two parties are exactly the same.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Romney wins The Washington Times/CPAC Straw Poll

Mitt Romney won The Washington Times/CPAC Presidential Straw Poll on Saturday, and also nipped Rick Santorum as the top choice of conservatives nationwide, according to a new version of the poll conducted for the first time this year that suggests [/-]** the Republican faithful**](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/topics/conservatism/)…

washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/11/romney-wins-washington-timescpac-straw-poll/

Fixed it for WaTimes. Free of charge.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

In this district, we do not define effective as spending our money, as to Democrats, and apparently most Republicans. Besides, if I read the Constitution right, not one congressman can pass a bill. Maybe you interpret the Constitution differently.

I am actually surprised just how much Republicans look like Democrats. Same political nastiness, same name-calling, same deficit spending. I question the label “fringe” that keeps popping up. It is almost as if we are only slightly better off having a two-party system than a one-part system, where the established and entrenched wealthy and powerful tell us who to vote for. At the end of the day, we are not so different, except we have two names.

I’m not. They are cut from the same cloth. Party politics means more than actually getting things done.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Marco Rubio leads CPAC VP poll: 34% for Florida Senator, 9% for Chris Christie and 9% for Mitch McDonnell.

 

[ishii]

That may be but when I go to the polls they only give me candidates to vote for. I refuse to vote for a party and I refuse to be labelled. I’m an individual not someone who is to be taken for granted because someone yells he’s “pro-life” when he doesn’t have a clue as to what it means.

What do Scalia, Alito and Roberts all have in common? They were nominated in times which had a GOP president ***and ***a GOP controlled senate. Anthony Kennedy and Souter were nominated when the Democrats controlled the senate. Clarence Thomas barely made it - the Democrat Thomas almost succeeded in doing to him what they did to Bork. Incidentally it was pro-choice Republican Arlen Spector who was instrumental in helping Clarence Thomas get approved. The best way to a good conservative (and by extension, pro-life) judiciary is a Republican Senate and a Republican president. Party matters. You may not like that, but its true - as anyone with a basic knowlege of the political history of the past 30-40 years should understand. Are there individual Democrats who are pro-life? Yes, but they are ineffective and easily bought. Would it be good to elect a supposedly pro-life Democrat to the Senate? Probably not, as long as the overwhelming majority of Democrats are in the pocket of the abortion lobby. Would you want to give people like Barbara Boxer control of the Senate? Neither would I.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Marco Rubio leads CPAC VP poll: 34% for Florida Senator, 9% for Chris Christie and 9% for Mitch McDonnell.

I hope he gets it. He would help defeat Obama because he’s from Florida and he’s hispanic, but most of all because he’s such an articulate conservative.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

I hope he gets it. He would help defeat Obama because he’s from Florida and he’s hispanic, but most of all because he’s such an articulate conservative.

Ishii

Marco Rubio is my first choice, second choice Susana Martinez.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Main caucuses results: Romney 39%, 2190 votes; Paul 36%, 1996 votes; Santorum 18%, 989 votes; Newt 6%, 349 votes.

How can Paul be second place when he did not attend?

 

[ishii]

Are you changing the topic because you have no examples? The GOP has no plan to reduce poverty.

Changing the topic?! I was responding to what you posted:

Can you show me an example of the success of their plan? Why is it that the Republican states are the poorest in the country? .

So I thought I’d mention a state that has been run by Republicans for years, and contrast its economy with California which has been run by Democrats for years. Here is a fact for you:

Between June of 2009 and June of 2011 **Texas created 40% of all the jobs created in the United States. ** In that time 524,000 jobs were created in the U.S. and 261,700 of them were created in Texas. That is the reason why Rick Perry was an immediate front runner when he entered the race. When the unemployement rate in the U.S. last summer was at 9.2%, Texas’ was at 8.2% and California’s was…12.5%. If you were unemployed which state would you want to move to to find a job - Texas or California?

Here is a link:

economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/job-creation?fsrc=rss

I find your assertion that Huntsman lost because he wasn’t a “hater” like the other Republicans to be laughable - and not worthy of responding to. But anyway, what probably what hurt Huntsman was his association with Obama in a time when it became increasingly clear what Obama was trying to do to our churches and our country. I liked Huntsman and I think he might have been more successful in a different time when there wasn’t so much at stake. People are fired up about what Obama is doing to us, and they want a candidate who is also “fired up” or passionate about the issues. Huntsman was just too boring. He had his chances though.

Now, as for changing the topic, I notice that you continue to make posts that list the justices appointed by GOP presidents from before Roe V Wade and use them in a disengenuous way to somehow show that the modern GOP is not pro-life. I have posted substantive responses but you haven’t offered any kind of answer to them. Do you still think that the justice nominated by Richard Nixon or Eisenhower shows that the GOP in 2012 is not pro-life? Or have you abandoned that idea?

Ishii

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The GOP has no plan to reduce poverty.

The GOP has plans to create jobs, and the Democratic party has no plans to create jobs. The Democratic party has plans to help people without jobs (in ways besides creating jobs) and even with jobs, and the GOP has no plans to helps people without jobs or even with jobs (outside of creating jobs). Now why don’t we put the two together and get a better party?

Just generalizing. Move along. :hammering::choocho:

 

[ishii]

The GOP has plans to create jobs, and the Democratic party has no plans to create jobs. The Democratic party has plans to help people without jobs (in ways besides creating jobs) and even with jobs, and the GOP has no plans to helps people without jobs or even with jobs (outside of creating jobs). Now why don’t we put the two together and get a better party?

Just generalizing. Move along. :hammering::choocho:

Wow : you said the word “jobs” eight times in that short post.

Neither party creates jobs. The private sector creates jobs. A party could help the economy by eliminating unecessary regulations and overtaxation of businesses and capital gains. I have noticed that its the Republican party that does the latter more than the Democrat party.

Ishii

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Wow : you said the word “jobs” eight times in that short post.

**
Neither party creates jobs. The private sector creates jobs**. A party could help the economy by eliminating unecessary regulations and overtaxation of businesses and capital gains. I have noticed that its the Republican party that does the latter more than the Democrat party.

Ishii

I meant creates conditions for jobs to be created, so it’s kind of the same thing.

 

[ProVobis]

I meant creates conditions for jobs to be created, so it’s kind of the same thing.

As long as we keep dealing with fiat currency created by the governments, the ultimate source of most jobs will be those governments.

 

[ishii]

I meant creates conditions for jobs to be created, so it’s kind of the same thing.

And as I said, the policies and ideas of the Republican party are far closer to helping create conditions for jobs to be created. When they stray from those ideals - which they have done recently way too much, then they rightly lose credibility with people. We need to hold their feet to the fire - and I think the Tea Party has helped do that. The Democrat party on the other hand, - ever heard of the Keystone pipeline?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Marco Rubio is my first choice, second choice Susana Martinez.

Rubio makes sense because he’s from Florida and he’s hispanic. Of course, Susana Martinez would be good too for the same reasons. I did some quick research and there is no comparison to Rubio in a debate with Martinez in her gubernatorial debate. Martinez stumbled a couple of times whereas Rubio seemed in full command. For that reason I think going with Rubio would ensure we don’t have a another repeat of 2008.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Ss_PgWVU7M&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=2urqkcnbau8

Ishii

 

[LovePatience]

Changing the topic?! I was responding to what you posted:

So I thought I’d mention a state that has been run by Republicans for years, and contrast its economy with California which has been run by Democrats for years. Here is a fact for you:

Between June of 2009 and June of 2011 **Texas created 40% of all the jobs created in the United States. ** In that time 524,000 jobs were created in the U.S. and 261,700 of them were created in Texas. That is the reason why Rick Perry was an immediate front runner when he entered the race. When the unemployement rate in the U.S. last summer was at 9.2%, Texas’ was at 8.2% and California’s was…12.5%. If you were unemployed which state would you want to move to to find a job - Texas or California?

Here is a link:

economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/job-creation?fsrc=rss

I find your assertion that Huntsman lost because he wasn’t a “hater” like the other Republicans to be laughable - and not worthy of responding to. But anyway, what probably what hurt Huntsman was his association with Obama in a time when it became increasingly clear what Obama was trying to do to our churches and our country. I liked Huntsman and I think he might have been more successful in a different time when there wasn’t so much at stake. People are fired up about what Obama is doing to us, and they want a candidate who is also “fired up” or passionate about the issues. Huntsman was just too boring. He had his chances though.

Now, as for changing the topic, I notice that you continue to make posts that list the justices appointed by GOP presidents from before Roe V Wade and use them in a disengenuous way to somehow show that the modern GOP is not pro-life. I have posted substantive responses but you haven’t offered any kind of answer to them. Do you still think that the justice nominated by Richard Nixon or Eisenhower shows that the GOP in 2012 is not pro-life? Or have you abandoned that idea?

Ishii

What you call “fired up”, I call hate. People refusing to vote for you because you are respectful to Obama is hate for Obama. Working with a president from the opposing party is good citzenship; it is doing your best to serve the country under all conditions and not trying to sabotage it. It has nothing to do with the “issues” because his work had no relationship with any “issues.” Especially ads targetting his relationship with China or his adopted children. It is resentment and hate coming up.

Will you answer my questions? You reply with strawmen with my posts. I asked a question on poverty; you can’t find a single example of a Republican who has done a single positive thing on poverty. You posted an example of a Republican in whose time the poverty rates went up. I guess that you must agree with me then that Republicans have no plan and care nothing about the poor. The motto is: “If you are poor, then blame yourself” as one Republican candidate said.

No one posted anything on Eisenhower, so why are you bringing him in? Total strawman.

I posted on the justices in place when Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided in 1992. Most were appointed by Reagan and Bush. You blame the three appointed by Reagan and Bush who didn’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade on Bork. I blame this on the fact that Republicans simply don’t care much about overturning Roe v. Wade or the pro-life cause. They say they do to take the moral high ground, but their actions do not show the strategy or commitment needed to do so. A perfect example is Huntsman; if they were truly pro-life, they wouldn’t favor more hateful people who are weak on the pro-life issue over a committed pro-life person who isn’t a hater.

 

[ishii]

What you call "fired up", I call hate.  People refusing to vote for you because you are respectful to Obama is hate for Obama.

Here LovePatience, maybe this will help you:

Fired up: (adjective) " to be excited or enthusiastic about something" Example: “the basketball team was fired up before their playoff game.” Or, " The Santorum supporters were fired up about his chances in the next primary."

Hate: (noun) " a feeling of intense hostility " Example: " I could see the hate in the eyes of the man who confronted his tormenters."

Neither of those words should be confused with:

Calumny: (noun) " a slandorous statement or false accusation."

I hope that is cleared up for you.

Will you answer my questions?

I have. You just don’t like with my answers.

You reply with strawmen with my posts.  I asked a question on poverty; you can't find a single example of a Republican who has done a single positive thing on poverty.

I would say creating jobs is “doing a positive thing on poverty.” And given that more jobs have been created in Texas then anywhere else, that Texas - run by Republicans - is doing something positive about poverty. What would you consider doing a positive thing? Handing out foodstamps and welfare? Making people more dependent?

You posted an example of a Republican in whose time the poverty rates went up.  I guess that you must agree with me then that ***Republicans have no plan and care nothing about the poor***.  The motto is: "If you are poor, then blame yourself" as one Republican candidate said.

Demonize: (verb) " to cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others." Example: " the liberal demonized those with whom he disagreed because he had no serious arguments."

No one posted anything on Eisenhower, so why are you bringing him in?  Total strawman.

No, what you’re doing is disengenuous and I’m calling you on it. You’re taking justices appionted in the early 70’s by presidents who were elected before abortion became a national issue and giving that as proof that the Republican party of today or even of 1992 is not authentically pro-life. Conversely, you imply that the dissent of Byron White is some indication of the Democrat party being pro-life. What a joke.

I posted on the justices in place when Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided in 1992. Most were appointed by Reagan and Bush. You blame the three appointed by Reagan and Bush who didn’t vote to overturn Roe v. Wade on Bork.

No. Get your facts straight. I blamed the nominations of Souter and Kennedy in part on the Bork fiasco. But also, I blamed it on the actions of pro-abortion Democrat catholics like Teddy Kennedy and Joe Biden who demonized Bork. I never blamed Sandra Day O’connor on Bork. I would blame Reagan and his advisors for that.

I blame this on the fact that*** Republicans simply don’t care much about overturning Roe v. Wade or the pro-life cause. ***

Demonize: (verb) " to cause somebody or something to appear evil or threatening in the eyes of others." Example: " the liberal demonized those with whom he disagreed because he had no serious arguments."

Calumny: (noun) " a slandorous statement or false accusation."

Ishii

 

[Caldera]

More 2012 CPAC speeches

Sarah Palin:
therightscoop.com/full-speech-sarah-palin-at-cpac-2012/

Daniel Hannan:
therightscoop.com/full-speech-daniel-hannan-at-cpac-2012/

Andrew Breitbart:
therightscoop.com/full-speech-andrew-breitbart-at-cpac-2012/