The 2012 GOP Presidential Field Is Set

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
This isn’t the first time that Romney has articulated this position, and I agree with him 100%. There is nothing inconsistent about supporting a state solution but opposing the same solution at the federal level. It is an example of the principle of subsidiarity.
Click to expand...
The issue if forcing people at gunpoint to buy healthcare insurance. Forcing people in a home, village, town, county, or state to buy something or be fined/jailed is a violation of the principle of liberty. The jurisdictional boundaries and setup are irrelevant when you do something wrong and/or immoral as this clearly is to those of us that are principled traditionalists.

And for those of you who don’t think it’s at gunpoint, watch what happens if you don’t pay a fine for something. You eventually get to meet an agent of the government, usually a cop, with a gun.
 
Nec5 said:
The issue if forcing people at gunpoint to buy healthcare insurance. Forcing people in a home, village, town, county, or state to buy something or be fined/jailed is a violation of the principle of liberty. The jurisdictional boundaries and setup are irrelevant when you do something wrong and/or immoral as this clearly is to those of us that are principled traditionalists.

And for those of you who don’t think it’s at gunpoint, watch what happens if you don’t pay a fine for something. You eventually get to meet an agent of the government, usually a cop, with a gun.
Click to expand...
I’m not in favor of a healthcare mandate, but you are overstating. It isn’t immoral.
 
“A Republican presidential nominating contest that has focused largely on the economy turned to social issues and personal narratives Saturday night, as six GOP hopefuls took part at a Thanksgiving Family Forum in Des Moines, Iowa. Notably absent was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who declined the invitation and is instead campaigning in New Hampshire … The candidates in attendance — Cain, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry — are actively competing for the social conservative vote in Iowa and in other key states, especially as the GOP electorate remains unsettled on a Christian conservative standard bearer.” – NPR

“Skipping the “Thanksgiving Family Forum” in Des Moines, Iowa was not a well-played political move on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s part, according to the head of the Family Research Council. The forum took place at the First Federated Church and focused on faith and how it affects the candidates. The event was aimed at social conservative caucus goers in the early voting state. “He [Romney] has had trouble with that target audience and the fact that he is missing it, speaks to the fact that he is hoping to move on and capture more of the independent vote and set aside those who are social conservatives,” FRC president Tony Perkins said on “America’s News HQ” Saturday afternoon.” – Fox News

Although the Family Leader Thanksgiving forum held on Saturday night had far less inter-candidate Bachmann fireworks than a typical Turkey Day family reunion, Rep. Michele Bachmann launched an attack even before the candidates walked off stage. The Bachmann campaign sent an email skewering the newly surging Newt Gingrich’s record on abortion. “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to uphold a consistently pro-life stance throughout his career in public life,” the email reads. Team Bachmann accuses Gingrich of being “open to watering down the Republican Party’s commitment to the inalienable right to life.” – MSNBC

“A gathering of GOP presidential candidates on Saturday was unlike any other this year, when instead of finger-pointing and slashing at one another’s records, they told deeply personal tales about faith, family and failures that left half of the six participants weeping.” – Chicago Tribune
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
You are still guilty of material cooperation in the continuation of abortion. I hope that sits well with you. So, like I said, which of the other reasons makes the Democrats more appealing, in light of their glowing support of the right to kill the unborn? Same Sex Marriage? Disregard of personal property rights? Embryonic Stem Cell research?
Click to expand...
You left out euthanasia.

Not one Catholic should have voted for Barak Hussein Obama in 2008. Not one. Yet 53% did. It still boggles my mind how they could have twisted the Church’s first tenet to somehow allow them to vote for a man who actually voted to deny even basic medical care to a baby born ALIVE during an abortion. But he did vote that way, and Catholics did vote for him in the same proportion as the rest of America.

:nope: smh
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Not one Catholic should have voted for Barak Hussein Obama in 2008. Not one. Yet 53% did. It still boggles my mind how they could have twisted the Church’s first tenet to somehow allow them to vote for a man who actually voted to deny even basic medical care to a baby born ALIVE during an abortion. But he did vote that way, and Catholics did vote for him in the same proportion as the rest of America.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest should be done about the priests and nuns who voted for Obama?
 
louis91766 said:
What do you suggest should be done about the priests and nuns who voted for Obama?
Click to expand...
Pray for their conversion, I suppose. And be a witness to the truth when the opportunity arises, but always do so respectfully and charitably.

And vote.

Ishii
 
Michael Gerson: Obama’s Catholic strategy is in shambles:

newsok.com/michael-gerson-obamas-catholic-strategy-is-in-shambles/article/3623491

Carol Olsen disagrees:

Candidate Obama knew—and this is essential—that he could not and would not win over serious, practicing, orthodox Catholics, but he also didn’t care, because he knew the majority of Catholics in the U.S. are not serious, practicing, orthodox Catholics.

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2011/11/michael-gerson-thinks-obamas-catholic-strategy-is-in-shambles-i-think-hes-wrong.html
 
The Democrats and their complicit media allies have pick a new target, Grover Norquist. Apparently he has every Republican in government sign a “No New Taxes” pledge and holds them accountable if they violate it. So, from what I gather, the problems in this country are the Tea Party’s fault, Grover Norquist’s fault, the Republican’s fault, but not the Democrats and their gross overspending and refusal to reform entitlement programs.
 
“One of the most persistent story lines for the president has been that the liberal left has grown increasingly dissatisfied with his actions… including single-payer health insurance, the extension of the George W. Bush tax cuts and whether to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay… But an examination of the polling data among key subgroups that constitute Obama’s base makes clear that he has as much support from them as any modern president seeking a second term.” - Washington Post

“What goes around comes around. After losing virtually every toss-up Senate race in 2006, Republicans find themselves in prime position to pick up the four seats they need to control the Senate. And Democrats’ success five years ago means Republicans have plenty of targets from which to choose.” - National Journal

“Six weeks before the opening Iowa caucuses, Gingrich has come from nowhere — he was at 3% in summertime surveys — to the top of the GOP presidential field. In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, he is ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by a single, statistically insignificant percentage point.” - USA Today

Gingrich 22%… Romney 21%… Cain 16%… Paul 9%… Perry 8% - Gallup

Gingrich pitches ‘growth and opportunity’ in NH - Atlanta Journal-Constitution
 
** A warning. Norquist gives aid and comfort to those Democrats who emphasize that the GOP favors the rich**. That impression would likely reelect Obama. Yes, expenses must be cut. Which ones should be cut? Medicare? Medicaid? Social security to our seniors and disabled? The military? Not easy to figure out, is it? We can agree on one thing: corruption. There is plenty of that in Medicare, for example, and in the military budget as well.
Code: 
But with such cuts we would still be way short. So, I don't feel any hesitation or pangs of guilt to agree that the wealthiest in America, those who make $1 million or more a year, or even $250,000 and more per year, pay more. They will still remain wealthy. Meanwhile, millions are jobless. I wonder how many of those millionaires have had sons and daughters on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's time they made a minor sacrifice and had perhaps only two cadillacs and not four, only two homes and not four. I think of the words and warnings of Christ - and his command that "freely ye have received, freely give".(Matt. 10:8) 

 The 'Norquist pledge' was foolish as a never-ending commitment. At least one Republican has announced that when he signed it years ago the situation appeared very different than it does today. So, he feels no longer is bound by it. I presume Norquist and his cronies will be out to defeat him. I admire the courage of this GOPer (whose name I can't recall at the moment). We need more brave and independent men and women of both parties on Capitol Hill. Norquist's campaign is based on threats and intimidation instead of common sense and fairness. It's interesting that he refuses to divulge the sources of his funds. I'm sure several of the multi-multi-rich are at the top of the list. Sheer selfishness and lack of true patriotism. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man also comes to mind. (Luke 16:19ff) 

 PS As for Newt, his nomination would be a travesty. I have watched him closely over the years and doubt if he has an ounce of integrity. Yes, he is clever, but his insatiable greed for power and money, and his readiness to compromise and flip-flop to gain them, is overbearing. God save us and America if he ever gets to be president.
 
Roy5 said:
** A warning. Norquist gives aid and comfort to those Democrats who emphasize that the GOP favors the rich**. That impression would likely reelect Obama. Yes, expenses must be cut. Which ones should be cut? Medicare? Medicaid? Social security to our seniors and disabled? The military? Not easy to figure out, is it? We can agree on one thing: corruption. There is plenty of that in Medicare, for example, and in the military budget as well.
Code: 
But with such cuts we would still be way short. So, I don't feel any hesitation or pangs of guilt to agree that the wealthiest in America, those who make $1 million or more a year, or even $250,000 and more per year, pay more. They will still remain wealthy. Meanwhile, millions are jobless. I wonder how many of those millionaires have had sons and daughters on the battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's time they made a minor sacrifice and had perhaps only two cadillacs and not four, only two homes and not four. I think of the words and warnings of Christ - and his command that "freely ye have received, freely give".(Matt. 10:8) 

 The 'Norquist pledge' was foolish as a never-ending commitment. At least one Republican has announced that when he signed it years ago the situation appeared very different than it does today. So, he feels no longer is bound by it. **I presume Norquist and his cronies will be out to defeat him.** I admire the courage of this GOPer (whose name I can't recall at the moment). We need more brave and independent men and women of both parties on Capitol Hill. Norquist's campaign is based on threats and intimidation instead of common sense and fairness. It's interesting that he refuses to divulge the sources of his funds. I'm sure several of the multi-multi-rich are at the top of the list. Sheer selfishness and lack of true patriotism. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man also comes to mind. (Luke 16:19ff) 

 PS As for Newt, his nomination would be a travesty. I have watched him closely over the years and doubt if he has an ounce of integrity. Yes, he is clever, but his insatiable greed for power and money, and his readiness to compromise and flip-flop to gain them, is overbearing. God save us and America if he ever gets to be president.
Click to expand...
Good. I hope he does find a primary challenger and put him away.

To say that a pledge to voters that you WILL NOT RAISE TAXES is not as binding now as it is when you made it is ludicrous. It is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH that whenever Congress has raised taxes, government has grown proportionately. To say that one doesn’t feel bound to a pledge because circumstances has changed is tantamount to saying that you no longer feel bound to the pledge of fidelity that you made to your wife 18 years ago because circumstances have changed. If you do, you deserve to been thrown out on your fanny by your wife. A pledge is a pledge is a pledge. Its not to Norquist, its to the voters that that Congressperson represents. If he plans to violate a pledge that he made as a condition of being voted in to Congress, that person’s constituents deserve to know about it and make their own decision about whether they want him to continue representing him.

We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a government that believes that it can spend what it wants on whatever program it wants without fear of repercussions. Apparently you and the Democrats believe that the government can do whatever it wants without consequences. I am glad that someone out there is looking out for the voters, specifically the taxpaying voters.
 
I should e-mail a link to this thread to the Committee To Elect Michele Bachmann 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top