ADVERTISEMENT

Mitt Romney won three contests on Tuesday padding his delegate numbers and dealing a blow to Rick Santorum. While Santorum was not on the ballot in DC, the race in Wisconsin was the one to watch and it went easily for Romney early in the evening. Maryland went for Romney as expected.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from WTOP:

Mitt Romney tightened his grip on the Republican presidential nomination Tuesday night, sweeping primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland and Washington D.C., with time left over to swap charges with President Barack Obama.

“Four more years?” Romney asked sarcastically of the president as supporters cheered in Milwaukee.

He said Obama was “a little out of touch” after spending four years surrounded by the trappings of power and had presided over near-record job losses as well as increases in poverty, home foreclosures, government debt and gasoline prices. In Washington, Obama said things could be worse _ and he predicted they would be if Romney and the Republicans got their way.

The victories enabled Romney to pad his already-wide delegate lead over Republican rival Rick Santorum, who flashed defiance in the face of pressure to abandon his own candidacy in the name of party unity.

Wisconsin was the marquee contest of the night, the only place of the three on the ballot where Santorum mounted a significant effort. Romney’s victory there marked his fourth in little more than a month in a belt of industrial states that also included Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois.

Complete state-by-state results available on Wednesday.

389 COMMENTS

  1. No mention of Ron Paul in this article… MEDIA BLACKOUT?!?!? Oh wait maybe it’s because he is still doing terrible.

    • Currently of interest:

      by Ron Paul (the rest are silent):

      “Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It’s doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

      The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.”

      LOL

      • (LOL) I didn’t read anything funny about it. Do I have to put the “LOL” in my response? I think I’m safe on this one.

      • The problem with the mandate is that the government is commanding all individuals to buy something from corporations.

        This is really analogous of the car insurance mandate that we have in Michigan. Car insurance is intended to protect individuals from people who can’t pay for damages–and to protect the state from paying for some of those damages. The difference from Obamacare is that (a) this is a state mandate, and (b) driving is not a “right.” Since it’s a privilege, the state has the flexibility to mandate.

        The irony of it is that if Congress had passed “single payer,” they probably wouldn’t have this challenge. That really is ironic.

        • Sorry Goethe but I’m not with you on this one at all concerning car insurance.

          The flaw here is as you stated “and to protect the state from paying for some of those damages”. Why should they? Hey you get hurt, you have no insurance, you pay. You don’t have the money, hope you belong to a good church.

          You being from Mich ……….well last time I checked Mich was #1 when it came to high auto insurance rates.

          Consumer-focused research shows Michigan, Louisiana and Oklahoma top the list of highest average car insurance rates.

          This reflects the intelligence of the voters in said states as auto insurance is state regulated. (not saying those that pay the most are the smartest either)

          • I didn’t say I liked it. I just said it was analagous, and the state law has not been challenged.

            • Little opinion here on both sides it’s mostly fact. Mandates drive up prices not down and insurance is no exception be it health, home or auto. I don’t want that 300+ pounder who smokes 3 packs a day on my company’s back nor do I want the CEO making in the 7 figures by “selling” mandated insurance.

      • why do his supporters think he’s so popular?/

        Because his supporters know they are going to be on the sharp end of the stick. just a matter of time, not if but when and when is sooner rather than later.

    • @ok, it is difficult for you to quantify that there is no media black out of Ron Paul. The evidence supports that there is. It is difficult for you to also quantify that Ron Paul isn’t doing well, especially when the GOP leadership is doing everything in their power to stop his momentum and the media is blacking him out.

      When the GOP leadership manipulates what the registered voter demands, it means the party is dead and irrelevant. The GOP is scared to death that Ron Paul will get the nomination. Why is that?

      Honestly, if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, it doesn’t matter if Romney or Obama is the next President.

      • We don’t see too much of Gingrich in the media either. I hardly think the negative press Romney has received right along counts as good PR nor does it encourage party support. It only magnifies the media’s support for Obama. My guess is that if RP received the same kind of incessant negative media his supporters would be up in arms.

        It is not difficult to quantify that RP isn’t doing well—the polls speak for themselves. The only momentum he’s gained so far is in the minds of his supporters. It was brought out by another commenter—Ron Paul has not made any challenges regarding voter fraud and that by itself speaks volumes.

        • The “negative press” Romney has received has just been reporting of what is negative about him. That’s the reason there has been so much of it.

          As for Newt, he’s not getting press because he just hasn’t done or said anything–except when he said that Fox was slanted and actively campaigning for Romney. That was reported, but other than that, he just hasn’t done anything “newsworthy.”

          That’s what people need to know about the media. They’ll do anything for a buck. They want ratings. They want conflict and outrageous behavior. They’re not slanted, they’re just incompetent. A good example was reporting on Alan Greenspan. If you’d read what Greenspan said, it was pretty clear, but the “narrative” was that he was cagey, so the report was always “we don’t know what he’s talking about.” Same with the Pope–he’d give a speech about a hundred things, but all that would be reported was something silly about condoms.

          Media want weird stuff to report. And that’s Ron Paul’s problem. I don’t believe there’s a blackout. Paul just doesn’t say stupid things (like he enjoys firing people). Unfortunately, that means Paul doesn’t get any press at all.

          If Paul had a competent staff, they would be writing him soundbites and bumpersticker sayings that the media would NOT be able to resist–like when he said Santorum was a “fake.” Quick, concise, and it got press. If Paul’s staff knew what it was doing, he’d be on the news every other night, because his ideas ARE newsworthy.

          • I see your point, it’s well taken, but I don’t entirely agree. As you stated, context matters and the media chooses what will draw the most fire as they have repeatedly done with Romney or anyone else they want to nail to the wall. Being on the news every day for media twisted and created negative press doesn’t win elections. It just clouds the issues and detracts. It’s not what is negative about Romney as much as it is what the press and others who don’t like him want people to believe about him.

            “Mitt Romney…said: “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.” Like each of us does when we get bad service at a restaurant, store, or have a lawn care service come which does a bad job and we decide to look elsewhere for what we want the next time we are in need.

            If Paul were doing as well in collecting delegates as Romney is he’d be in the news a lot more often.

            • 4th:

              I agree with that. The media don’t like to talk about ideas. It’s too complicated, takes too much work, and someone will always be upset, no matter what they say. So they concentrate on the “horse race,” and whoever is number one will get more scrutiny. That’s because it’s a better “horse race” if nobody gets too far ahead of the pack.

              If the media PERCEIVED that Ron Paul were going to win, they’d be picking him apart. But since they don’t listen well, all they hear are “anti-war” and “anti-abortion,” which alienates both wings of politics–so they stop listening.

              The only chance Ron Paul ever had was for the other candidates to siphon off enough delegates so that it would be an open convention. Romney would never win if it were a battle of ideas and ideals, because the guy is a fricken weather vane. A plastic one.

              And back to that quote, when we speak, we show who we are. When we speak without premeditation, we’re even more likely to reveal ourselves. In this case, there are MANY ways that Romney could have framed the discussion. He could have talked about “working” for efficiency. He could have talked about “letting” the system work. He could have said, “let the best man win.” Ideally, he could have said that he likes to “REWARD” those who do the best job. The fact that his mind went straight to “I like firing people” is a gut sentiment–an emotional desire–what he really, really likes to do. It’s what Bain Capital was all about: tearing companies apart, employees were just a drag on profits. To Bain, humans are a necessary evil.

              So Romney can claim “out of context” all he wants. The fact was that he was speaking from his heart, and who he just is slipped out. Those four words ARE the context.

            • Points understood.

              However, the Romney comment was reported as the one I quoted in ” “. That does set the parameters for the discussion and I don’t believe it makes the same statement you present.

              I don’t believe all the stuff out there about Bain capital. We live in a society of free market enterprise and successful companies are not closed–unless they get in the way of the government.

            • “I like being able to fire people.”

              Does anyone know what the turnover rate was inside Bain? Did Romney fire Bain managers and speculators who were not doing their job? Or does Romney just “like being able to fire” hourly workers?

            • You are so intent on trying to turn Romney’s words against him.

              BTW, do you really think that many federal employees are not going to loose a job if Ron Paul became president? How do you think he’s going to do all of this shrinking of government? How would he get rid of the Department of Education, etc, etc? Certainly since the states have their own people to do the same thing, they are not going to be looking to double the size of their already existing administration with past Federal employees.

              Albeit, it is necessary to shrink the size of government; however, with the high unemployment rate certainly, people are not going to be thinking–yeah, I am okay with losing my job for the sake of my country’s budget! I am sacrificing myself, and my children’s Christmas all for the common good!

            • It’s not “twisting” his words to ask what they mean.

              To say that his words do NOT mean exactly what they say is twisting them.

              If someone says he “likes being able to fire people,” my question is, simply, does he just enjoy making hourly people unemployed, or does he like picking off managers and paper pushers, too?

            • If you really are intent on knowing the answer, I’m sure you can use the same research tools anyone else would be obliged to do.

              However, again I emphasize a point which you ignored:

              Do you really think that many federal employees are not going to loose a job if Ron Paul became president? How do you think he’s going to do all of this shrinking of government? How would he get rid of the Department of Education, etc, etc? Certainly since the states have their own people to do the same thing, they are not going to be looking to double the size of their already existing administration with past Federal employees.

              Albeit, it is necessary to shrink the size of government; however, with the high unemployment rate, certainly, people are not going to be thinking–yeah, I am okay with losing my job for the sake of my country’s budget! I am sacrificing myself, and my children’s Christmas all for the common good!

              Ron Paul is going to have ‘like’ firing an awful lot of people too!

      • If you think it doesn’t matter whether it is Obama or Romney, then you obviously don’t know enough about what Obama has done in his four years. His most recent comments to the Supreme Courts demonstrates that he thinks it is his prerogative to force upon the American people his pet project Obamacare—despite the rejection of it by the American people. He only was able to pass it because of the Democratic majority he had.

        Instead of you RP supporters spending all of your energy attacking the other candidates why don’t you do some real research on Obama.

  2. A 5 point victory in Wisconsin ………….not what I’d call a commanding lead. Or should I say leader.

  3. I think Rick santorum should wait and see how he fairs on April 24 in his home state and if he does not do as good as expected than he should endorse Romney so that the part can focus on obama instead of wasting time and money on each other… I think that a lot of santorum supporters are turning to Romney because they want focus on obama; this race needs to end.

    • hi friend in canada i am a santorum supporter and i would never think of voting for romney the republicans gave us dole, and mccain as a matter of fact romney couldn’t even beat mccain i think pushing romney is just a pay back for mccain i don’t want another middle of the road republican i would rather not vote than vote romney

    • I think Rick santorum should wait and see how he fairs on April 24 in his home state

      I done posted before the tar pot is still warm in his home state. He set some kind of a record there as the states biggest loser.

    • The only candidate winning national polls against Obama is Ron Paul, so I wouldn’t count on Romney winning vs Obama. Romney, Gingrich & Santorum should drop out and endorse Paul if they really want to beat Obama.

      That’s the thing. The GOP gift-wrapped the first 4 years for Obama with McCain, and they are going to do the same with Romney. Do you understand that there are forces at work in our establishment that railroad democracy so their guy wins and they get to continue to control industry and regulation in this country? Ron Paul wants to put these jokers out of the job, so the media is blacking him out, smearing his campaign, refusing to report the HUGE rallies he has 6000 people yesterday in California, and cheerleading for Romney. The media is scum. If you believe what they say, we’re hopeless.

      President Paul 2012!

        • I tend to agree with you Chris but not will to drink to it as yet. I will be shifting to a 60/40 ratio of gold/S&P 500 if he doesn’t pull it off.

          Gold will always be king in India but I really don’t want to move. I’ll be back though right after the war.

  4. Anyone who endorses either of these clowns Romney or Santorum.. is hoping for another 4 years of pain in the US of A.

    Romney is a wolf in sheep’s clothing but cut from the same cloth as Obamaface. When you read that he’s been endorsed by the ‘Bush Clan’ that should tell you right away.. he’s being molded just as Obama was.

    Why is this alien (Obama) still running things? He has an impeachment order against him by congress. Doesn’t ANYONE have any clout in the US besides Israel and Obama? Rumor has it that even Putin has an international warrant out for Obama, the Bushes and Rothchilds’ etc.. At least someone can see what’s REALLY going on.
    In the article, he’s actually ‘backing’ the good people of America in his case. Google it.

    When it comes to candidates.. someone kicked the smorgasbord table and you have droppings to choose from.

    Needless to say.. voting won’t get you what you want when every state has incurred fraud so far. What a pathetic country the US has become.
    So glad I don’t live there.

    • You sir are an idiot and an ignoramus. If you knew anything about American politics you wouldn’t be saying any of the stuff you’re saying right now. First off Putin is the wolf in sheeps clothing, if there is anyone to complain about it’s him. The Russians have put up with his sorry ass for long enough and he will be out of power within a few years. Secondly, there hasn’t been any sort of fraud in any state, if there was there would be headlines all over it. Thirdly if you don’t live in the US and have the nerve to think it’s become pathetic (which in terms of our Congress it has, I’ll give you that. But nothing else) then piss off. Our country tops any European or Asian nation in terms of standard of living. Stick to your own country but don’t come in here with an arrogant attitude and judge us when Europe is a friggin mess and no one is doing anything better. Get a life.

      • Joe, well spoken, but I think you’ll find that your argument is much more convincing without the name-calling. If the guy is an idiot, it should be clear from HIS words.

        Can we all begin to tone down the ad hominem?

        • The guy is probably some wealthy Russian who speaks 1/2 dozen languages so I don’t think name calling is going to bother him. Gee I been called everything but a man by my GF & I still love her.

      • Don’t be too hard on the other guy. I hope I am appealing to a reasonable person when I ask you to look at views on the internet rather than the mainstream media. Most of the MSM are trying to black out Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not you should find that unfair. From the internet I agree there is vote fraud and blatant manipulations to keep Ron Paul out. Obviously you won’t see headlines to that effect in the MSM as they are anti Ron Paul. Just google it to find out. Why is it that his rallies of 5000+ are not reported in the MSM? Some of the reporting is so brazen they only talk of 3 candidates and act like he doesn’t exist. Looks like the GOP are shooting themselves in the foot, thats my perception.

        • Unlike Rick’s support being compared to an oil slick, Ron Paul’s support is more like SG-3
          (a deep hole)

      • Just be aware that the US is heading towards economic collapse. That higher standard of living is going by the wayside; poverty is increasing, Americans are losing their homes, and it’s only going to get much, much worse if we don’t make DRASTIC changes!

        You can verify that by doing a Google search for David Walker, the former Comptroller of the US, under both Republicans and Democrats (Clinton & GW Bush). (or Youtube, 60 minutes interview a few years back). He resigned his position because the politicians & media were not telling the people the TRUTH about our dire economic situation – he left to start the Wake Up America tour, touring the US to teach Americans what’s really happening.

        Our govt is BANKRUPT and if we keep up this crazy amount of spending with money we don’t have (just increasing credit line…), our govt will not have any money to pay Social Security, Medicaid, Food Stamps or ANYTHING. Even militarily we will be vulnerable bc there will be NO MORE MONEY to defend America.

    • Anyone who endorses either of these clowns Romney or Santorum.. is hoping for another 4 years of pain in the US

      Another drink, no problem

  5. Slick Willie does seem unstoppable.

    Any word on how many multiples of spending versus the other guys that it cost Willard to buy Wisconsin?

    I’m just sayin’. . .

    • Exactly! How sad to think that the only reason you are winning an election is because you BOUGHT IT! Outspending the people’s favorite choice and lying about his credentials in all your ads to discredit him. Thank goodness many voters are smart enough not to fall for the negative ads, but apparently not all. IF, Romney wins the GOP candidacy, he won’t know how to handle being outspent. Santorum’s used to having the snot beat out of him and will be ready for the fight this fall. I PICK RICK!

        • Why I pick Rick:
          – He values life, especially of the unborn!!!!
          – He values the family!!!!
          – He is the real conservative. Just look at the election results, Rick is winning the rural/conservative areas of our country and Romney is winning the metropolitan/liberal areas. Romney is NOT the conservative in this race.
          – I’m tired of the establishment telling me, you, the American people, that Mitt Romney is the only current candidate who is electable, and that it needs to be a moderate Republican to beat Barack Obama; see how far that got us with McCain or Dole. Rick is electable!

          • WOW! Now I know what Bush meant by fighting them here. Seems Rick is doing his own version of the Taliban. What’s next a morality police just like they had in Afghanistan in the late 90?s? I guess he will be going from home to home yanking internet connections and taking computers so you can’t log onto international hardcore sites. Maybe he will have a ministry of virginity with hymen inspections. I guess I can say goodbye to cable and satellite. Rick will have state T.V. headed up by Disney. Do I hear a chastity belt mandate? I thought these clowns were suppose to be ‘small government.’ Small would apply to their minds. A government small enough for a vaginal prob.

          • @Candy Bar: Santorum also also uses negative media (and his speeches) to discredit Romney. Romney has also proven to be a family man–no less than Rick. Romney also supports the overturn of Roe v Wade–he has explained why his stand changed on the issue of abortion, but so has Santorum’s view on abortion changed. I’m not sure what makes Rick the true conservative and more qualified other than he keeps chanting that.

            Nonetheless, if Santorum is the nominee, I’ll support him and vote for him, but he’s not my first choice. My reasoning for voting for him rather than not voting? Obama is a great threat to our republican form of government. Just look at his recent comments regarding the Supreme Court in reference to his healthcare plan. Look at his ‘recess appointments.’ Look at the number of CZARs he has. These are just a few of the reasons underscoring the bottom line–Obama couldn’t care less about the document he refers to as ‘flawed’ which is our Constitution. He fully supports Roe v Wade and the liberal agenda. There is no way I could throw away my vote by not casting a ballot against him.

            Republicans should speak with one voice against the current administration by voting when it comes time for the November election.

            • He fully supports Roe v Wade

              Like that is any kind of a problem facing our nation. Only thing government can do concerning this instant matter is control the price. So long as there is a demand there will be a supplier.

          • @Billy–crude–very crude. Interesting how RP supporters are so for us getting out of the Middle East, etc… The reality is the fighters for Islam don’t hate us ONLY BECAUSE we’re physically in their space–they hate us because of our degenerate MORALS which are promoted by the left. Politicians like Santorum who stand for morality are CONSERVATIVES, which is one of the Republican traits. Your comments seem to show where you stand.

            • Your comments seem to show where you stand.

              Liberty as in you don’t tell me who I go to bed with. (I did state who, not what, we might be on the same page there LOL)

            • Crude?

              It has nothing to do with being crude. It’s about whether you want to live in a NANNY STATE, in which Pope Santorum chooses for you–how you can live, who you can and cannot love, what you read, etc., even the use of birth control.

          • @ Billy: a big problem facing some voters is we do not separate conservative morals from conservative government (smaller gov’t, fiscally responsible gov’t). So our choice for president is going to be based on someone who can best fill both roles. Roe v Wade is not the focal point, but what it represents is, judicial activism and morality. Legalizing something which is immoral sends a strong message of legitimacy and ‘moral rightness’ or even moral neutrality (meaning, it’s neither right nor wrong–that judgement is up to the individual). Therefore, legalizing or giving public sanction of immorality further undermines the moral fabric of society.

            • immoral …………..and who sets the standards, you, your church, your president, congress, the court, get the picture, I could fill in some of names as a joke.

          • @Geothe Behr: It has nothing to do with being crude. I quote, “Maybe he will have a ministry of virginity with hymen inspections.”

            YES, CRUDE.

            • To all the girls who cared for me
              Who filled my nights with ecstasy
              They live within my heart
              I’ll always be a part
              Of all the girls I’ve loved before

              I just don’t think Rick would understand……….

            • It’s just a warning.

              Perhaps you haven’t heard the news about hymen inspections?

              Yes, it’s crude that it’s happening–where fundamentalists runs the country. But you just want it to be CRUDE to warn about it?

            • @ Geothe Behr: No, I haven’t. I’m sure you can send me some link to enlighten my understanding.

            • @ Geothe–Read your article on hymen inspections in the Middle East–NO CONNECTION to American sentiment. When this country–or should I say when some politicians–were not ashamed for the US to be called a Christian nation there were no such violations. When this country stood up for morality there were no such searches. I see your post and Billy’s post as nothing more than a crude leftist fanatical smoke screen not worthy of further argument.

            • Yes, there is a connection.

              Here’s what went down:
              (1) Billy warned that Santorum seemed to want morality police, and I suspect, as Billy does, he used a little hyperbole to make it interesting.
              (2) You called him crude.
              (3) I said it wasn’t crude to simply describe crudeness in one’s warning. What’s crude about that?
              (4) You said “hymen inspections.”
              (5) I said it happens, when fundamentalists run a country.
              (6) You doubted that and asked for a link.
              (7) I sent the link, as you asked.
              (8) You claim (as the Mothers of Invention sang), “It Can’t Happen HEEEEERRRRREEE.”
              (9) Ok, then explain this one to me:
              http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/21/virginia-abortion-bill-could-constitute-rape

              I used the British source, The Guardian, so that we don’t get into some kind of media tangent.

            • “It Can’t Happen HEEEEERRRRREEE.”

              I’ll bet every Jew at Auschwitz said or thought that at some time before their arrival.

            • Right, could never happen here as we have a Constitution that “protect” against anything like that happening here. But grand ma still may have to strip and bend over if she makes an illegal turn.

            • @ Geothe–Read your article on hymen inspections in the Middle East–NO CONNECTION to American sentiment. When this country–or should I say when some politicians–were not ashamed for the US to be called a Christian nation there were no such violations. When this country stood up for morality there were no such searches. I see your post and Billy’s post as nothing more than a crude leftist fanatical smoke screen not worthy of further argument.

            • When this country stood up for morality there were no such searches.

              That was back when they were burning witches in Salem.

            • Regardless.

              Here’s what went down:
              (1) Billy warned that Santorum seemed to want morality police, and I suspect, as Billy does, he used a little hyperbole to make it interesting.
              (2) You called him crude.
              (3) I said it wasn’t crude to simply describe crudeness in one’s warning. What’s crude about that?
              (4) You said “hymen inspections.”
              (5) I said it happens, when fundamentalists run a country.
              (6) You doubted that and asked for a link.
              (7) I sent the link, as you asked.
              (8) You claim (as the Mothers of Invention sang), “It Can’t Happen HEEEEERRRRREEE.”
              (9) Ok, then explain this one to me:
              http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/21/virginia-abortion-bill-could-constitute-rape

              I used the British source, The Guardian, so that we don’t get into some kind of media tangent.

            • The thought never entered my mind, LOL (or did it)

              Had this been on another site I would have attached said label and he would have responded with the “BM” label on me. Been there done that more times than I care to remember.

            • @Geothe–As I see it there is no connection between hymen inspections in a Middle Eastern country and the US taking on the same kinds of policy. It was a crude example and the only reason to use it would be to discredit a Christian (by equating the two) and prevent his speaking in the public square and possibly influencing any policy making. It is a tactic frequently used in silencing any dissent.

              What you think is your business. By the same token, what Christians think is their business and they are certainly just as free to express it as anyone else in society. AND THEY ARE JUST AS FREE to have an influence on public policy and lawmaking. Secularists, atheists, and liberals DO NOT OWN THE PUBLIC SQUARE.

              Abortion has been defined as a ‘right’ by the left–but killing is not a right. If a women is so concerned about the product of sexual contact, then she certainly has the right to abstain. I am not talking about cases of rape, so don’t tire me with making the sweeping statement that these poor women would be further victimized.

              Any woman who goes for an annual exam is subjected to instrumental invasion. During the pregnancy process women go through monthly doctor visits and endure vaginal inspection. Just because in this situation the instrumental invasion now has to do with a pre-abortion ultrasound does not equate it to rape. The procedure is only being manipulated by the left who is determined to not have anything undermine a woman’s ‘right’ to abort. That especially includes showing women that what they are killing is anything but just some clump of cells without any human identity.

            • Abortion has been defined as a ‘right’ by the left- I’ll drink to that

              -but killing is not a right. Why sure it is, I think you mean murder is not a right

              If a women is so concerned about the product of sexual contact, then she certainly has the right to abstain. I thought the product was to make me happy because when she abstains I am very unhappy.

              Anyhow I’m glad you didn’t drag us guys into this fight. Just wish my GF could read as I keep telling her if anything goes wrong, “It’s all your fault”.

              Thanks for the info #4.

          • @ Billy, “who sets the standards, you, your church,” etc….

            No, actually, God set the standards on morality we only have to follow them. If people choose to do what they will, it is their business to do in private; however, government sanctioning of the behavior is morally wrong. It sanctions acts which are corrosive to society.

            • God set the standards on morality we only have to follow them.

              Been hearing that for 3 years now from the GF. Let me tell you it does not make for good pillow talk.

          • @Geothe, “Just out of curiosity, I Googled “witch burning” by Christians. I didn’t expect to find a current example.”

            Certainly, if this is true, it is a great tragedy.

            If you are going to equate the behavior of some to represent the whole then you must also do the same for secularists. Stalin and Mao, in the name of creating their utopian secular societies, killed nearly 100 million people during the 20th century, are you ready to classify all secularists as a Stalin or Mao?

            • I Googled “witch burning” by Christians.

              And some of them may have even been innocent too. But they did get a “fair trial” for the most part.

            • No, of course not.

              And that’s the problem with trying to discuss anything with an extreme fundamentalist.

              My point is that if a person feels that he has the right to determine–and ENFORCE–the “will of God,” that gives him the right to make crucial decisions–for other people. And that’s why it is scary.

              You can believe what you want, but you should remember that Jesus was firm about the separation of Church and State. He said, “render unto Caeasar’s what is Caesar’s,” and He said, “My kingdom is NOT of this world,” among other things. He even let the State crucify Him, and I think that’s the ultimate example of His message that religion should NOT be controlling the government of the people.

            • @ Geothe: I do apologize for it’s length, but I felt it was necessary to respond to a number of points you brought up.

              You said, “No, of course not.” I figured you’d see the absurdity; however, what seems to escape you and others is that your actions/words say it is okay to identify all Christians with any negative behaviors shown by “other Christians.” I see this as no more than a ploy to silence Christians from speaking out on any topics of relevancy by discrediting their voices in the public arena.

              Define “extreme fundamentalist” for me in concrete terms.

              I think it would also be helpful for you to be explicit about what specifically is being ENFORCED on you as well.

              ==========

              You said, “remember that Jesus was firm about the separation of Church and State. He said, “render unto Caeasar’s what is Caesar’s,” and He said, “My kingdom is NOT of this world. . . ”

              The Pharisees sought to catch Jesus in a snare between stating who man owed allegiance to, was it God or was it the State? I quote,

              “Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, ‘What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? ‘Shew me the tribute money.’ And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, ‘Whose is this image and superscription?’ They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, ‘Render therefore unto Ceaser the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ (KJV, Matt. 22: 15-21)

              In other words, Jesus was telling them, Don’t be unjust: give to Caesar the things that are his—such as taxes and obedience to law; however, don’t be impious: give to God the things that belong to God. He was not advocating a separation of Church and State to mean that the religious voice should be removed from influence on government.

              When Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world, he was stating that he did not come to usurp Caesar’s place as the earthly “King” over Judea because His kingdom was a heavenly or spiritual kingdom. The Jews had been looking for the Messiah to relieve them from their earthly oppressors and expected that the Messiah would overthrow the government–that was not Christ’s mission. His mission was to give His life so that all who believed on Him could have their sins forgiven and thus pave the way for their return to God. It was necessary for Him to die and that is why He gave His life, not because he respected the government’s authority to kill Him as you seemed to indicate.

              =========

              Regarding the term, “separation of church and state,” from the founding of the Republic until about the middle of the 20th century this term was understood by Americans to mean that there would be NO federally mandated or sponsored church. People would have freedom to associate with whichever church they chose without government interference.

              The term “separation of church and state” came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in response to a letter from a Baptist minister. The minister had congratulated Jefferson on his recent election to the office of President of the United States. The minister was concerned about the First Amendment—he felt that it shouldn’t even be in the Bill of Rights because it might open the door for government to actually restrict religious freedom. Under British rule the Baptists had to pay fees to evangelize because they were not part of the ‘orthodoxy.’ Jefferson sought to reassure the minister that the federal government would never infringe upon his religious liberty by stating that there was a ‘wall of separation between church and state.’ BTW, I also must add, Jefferson was not even part of the drafting process for the First Amendment—he was in Europe.

              The term then resurfaced in the 20th century when the Supreme Court took that one little five word phrase out of the personal letter Jefferson wrote and redefined it to mean something that for about 150 years had never been used or accepted.

              Previously, Americans understood the term as Jefferson intended, government would not infringe upon the religious liberty of ANY church. They never understood the term to mean that religion was banned from the public square in shaping or influencing policy and law. In fact, in 1892, the Supreme Court declared that if one takes “a view of American life as expressed BY ITS LAWS, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth…that this is a Christian nation.” Virtually all of the actions that secular liberals claim are forbidden by the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment were permitted for most of American history. From the earliest days of our Constitutional government religion had a very prominent place in society.

              For example, prayer was offered by the delegates during the creation of the Constitution of the United States. Government buildings in Washington regularly held Sunday religious services in them. Congress approved funds to purchase Bibles and approved ‘missionary’ work among the Indians. Schools did and could teach from the Bible, yes, even public schools. The Ten Commandments are displayed throughout the Supreme Court building. A couple of traditions began in the founding generation which we still see today are: prayer opening up Congress, the President taking the oath of office with his hand on the Bible.

              John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to a government of any other.” Apparently, the Founding Fathers and previous generations had no problem with display of religious faith in a government setting, nor any fear of its influence on society.

              If the view is: it is wrong for Christians to occupy the public square all by themselves, using the law as their instrument, and pushing everyone else into the background then why isn’t it equally wrong for the devout secularists to occupy the public square all by themselves, using the law as their instrument and pushing everyone else into the background? Clearly there is a glaring double standard here. This new application of separation of church and state enforces a militant ideology opposed to any form of religious expression in the public arena. If we are supposedly living in a democracy, then all have a say (Christians and secularists); laws are made by vote and in a democracy majority rules apply.

            • (The Ten Commandments are displayed throughout the Supreme Court building.)

              Yeah but only #6 & #8 should the government concern itself with.. The rest are church matters. Maybe #9 but I ain’t rattin on my neighbor. I like her.

              For the heathens 6 is murder & 8 is stealin

            • I’ll try to be brief, because face it, people don’t read long posts.

              FIRST, it amazes me that Christians, who own and run everything in this country, continue to paint themselves as somehow victims. The ESSENCE of Jesus’ message was humility and acceptance, not control and punishment.

              SECOND, I never said ALL Christians did anything. My ONLY point was that it is bad enough to have a government that claims to speak for the people. It is truly frightening to hear candidates who claim to speak FOR God. THAT is largely what our revolution was about.

              Third, you should be careful about citing Jefferson in an argument about religion. Among many such writings, in a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, “In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

              Fourth, in our very first international agreement, Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared that “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…”

              I AM NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN, just the opposite. But it does scare the Bejesus otta me when someone claims to KNOW God’s will and wants to ENFORCE some delusional Christian “Sharia Law” on the rest of us.

            • But you still have tell the people what they want to hear and that changes from location to location. It’s what line is going to get the most votes.

            • Goethe Behr

              I’m a Christian and “something strange happens” when I discuss the GOP Presidential Race or Politics with other Christians. They all seem to get “scared” – even to the point of “Hating” Obama. I’ve never seen anything like it! They become unhinged and totally “insecure” concerning their Faith – like Obama and the Muslims are somehow going to “take over” the Country.

              I understand where they’re coming from and I attribute this SOLELY to Neo-Conservative Propaganda. The Government wants us to live in FEAR, while the Media sensationalizes TERROR. The Neo-Cons have “hijacked” much of the dogma of Christianity; especially concerning Israel, so that they wind up HATING Islam. To the Neo-Cons, Jesus is only the Prince of Peace inside the 4 walls of the Church. Once outside the Church – it’s KILL em ALL!

            • I understand that.

              Christians should really TRY “Christianity” sometime.

              The Old Testament God was a violent nutcase, but Jesus was all about acceptance and understanding–even sacrificing Himself.

              The ONLY time Jesus got angry was when he drove the Romneys out of the Temple. . .

            • Goethe Behr

              Ummm…. I hate to be the one to tell you, but the Old Testament God and Jesus are One in the Same God.

            • Billy Malone

              That would be true if God was “Governed” by any sense of Time or Space.

              Jesus always “was”.

              The Apostle Paul says in Coloss1ans {1:12} Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: {1:13} Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son: {1:14} In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins: {1:15} Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: {1:16} For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: {1:17} And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (or held together)

            • )Billy Malone That would be true if God was “Governed” by any sense of Time or Space.)

              Me being a true trekker (Star Trek) I well remember the the laws of physics in one universe may or may not be valid in another.

              Thanks for the info though

            • (I’ll drink Romulan Ale to that.)

              Another trekker………..giving away your age or just picked it up via the reruns. Just wish more people were still around that remembered the prime directive. For sure Ron Paul does.

            • Billy:

              We’re getting off-topic, here, but did you know that in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Friar Laurence says, “be strong and prosper,” and Romeo says, “Live and Be Prosperous”? Can’t get much closer to “Live Long and Prosper.”

              Anyway, yeah, I used to watch the original episodes–first run–in 1965 to 68. The beauty of the original episode was not so much the brilliance as the ethic.

              Most of the discussions we’ve been having over the past several days are ALL about the Prime Directive of NON-INTERFERENCE in other people’s affairs.

            • Jesus, preincarnate walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden.

              A new wrinkle on me for sure but I don’t think he is running for the GOP top spot so I got to move along.

            • Then why did Jesus say that he had come to change everything?

              All of the writings are by humans. The God they portrayed in the OT was vengeful and grouchy. I happen to think the early writers just got it wrong. Bad PR.

            • (I happen to think the early writers just got it wrong. Bad PR.)

              My take is the early writers could neither read nor write,

            • @ Goethe:

              1) You didn’t answer my questions
              a) define extreme fundamentalist in concrete terms
              b) be explicit about what specifically is being ENFORCED on you as well–
              “delusional Christian Sharia” law is vague and doesn’t cut it.

              2) I will agree with you on one thing, Jesus’ message was one of humility. However, he loved the sinner, BUT he abhorred the sin. When the woman was taken in adultery, he told the accusers that whoever was without sin should be the first to cast a stone. They, being convicted in their own hearts, turned away and left. Jesus then told the woman to go thy way and sin no more. What has become prevalent in our day is the attitude is there is no such thing as sin, and if it is called sin, you’d better be prepared for the attack. It has gotten to the point that you will surely be accused of a hate crime if you state any politically incorrect doctrine of this age—or at the very least be subject to a barrage of expletives.

              3) Christians own and run everything? REALLY?? I suppose that’s why when an atheist high school student says she is offended by a simple school prayer banner displayed (which has hung on the wall for several decades), the courts rule that it has to come down. Despite the wishes of other students and the community. Or when a teacher insults religion in a class and one of his students says he’s offended by the remarks, the courts side with the teacher? Or how about statues of the Ten Commandments being removed by court order? What about the denial to have a moment of silence if any reference is made about using the time to pray IF the student WOULD LIKE to? We OWN AND RUN EVERYTHING??? How can you say that with a straight face?

              4) Christians are being denied their right to express their views in the public square, discredit it any way you like—it doesn’t change the fact that Christians are denied rights that the founders never intended as evidenced by the first 150 years of our nation’s history.

              5) Just what are all of these statements in the name of God by a candidate—be specific, if you are going to accuse. And you obviously missed my previous point, we live in a democracy. Laws are not made by one person, nor by any president, who BTW has no constitutional authority whatsoever to make law.

              6) You will have to be specific also if you are claiming that the American Revolution was about someone speaking for God. No where have I ever heard or read that one. The revolution was about being taxed without colonial representation in Parliament. Prior to the imposition of taxes by the Crown on the colonists, colonial taxes had been imposed by their own duly appointed colonial legislature. The King or Parliament did not have the right to tax colonists without representation—that was an act of tyranny. Colonists believed in colonial self government.

              7) The quote you cited from Jefferson has no relevancy to what he wrote in 1802 to a minister assuring him that the government would not deny religious liberty to any group. So your caution IMO is unnecessary.

              8) The statement in the Treaty of Tripoli was to assure the Muslims that America would not impose their Christian beliefs on them. Just as was there was no Federal Christian Church which would deny religious liberty in the US. I DID NOT say the government was founded on religion, but rather the founders had no trouble with religion being EXPRESSED in the public square in any way, the government did not prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion in the public square, NOR DID IT IMPEDE it’s INFLUENCE being expressed in lawmaking. What has been going on for at least several decades now is IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to that previous stance.

              9) Despite what you say, “I am not anti-religious,” you show your hostility by resorting to demeaning statements such as “some delusional Christian Shari Law.” That leftist tactic doesn’t work on all of us.

            • 4th: I don’t know why you are hung up on this irrelevant point, but beyond the very clear and concise description I gave earlier, maybe I can be even more clear and concise:

              Fundamentalism = Militancy and intolerance.

              From the free dictionary online:

              fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
              n.
              1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by RIGID adherence to those principles, and often by INTOLERANCE OF OTHER VIEWS and OPPOSITION to secularism.
              2. An organized, MILITANT Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in OPPOSITION to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, INSISTING on the inerrancy of Scripture.

            • @ Goethe:

              1) You didn’t answer my questions
              a) define extreme fundamentalist in concrete terms
              b) be explicit about what specifically is being ENFORCED on you as well–
              “delusional Christian Sharia” law is vague and doesn’t cut it.

              2) I will agree with you on one thing, Jesus’ message was one of humility. However, he loved the sinner, BUT he abhorred the sin. When the woman was taken in adultery, he told the accusers that whoever was without sin should be the first to cast a stone. They, being convicted in their own hearts, turned away and left. Jesus then told the woman to go thy way and sin no more. What has become prevalent in our day is the attitude is there is no such thing as sin, and if it is called sin, you’d better be prepared for the attack. It has gotten to the point that you will surely be accused of a hate crime if you state any politically incorrect doctrine of this age—or at the very least be subject to a barrage of expletives.

              3) Christians own and run everything? REALLY?? I suppose that’s why when an atheist high school student says she is offended by a simple school prayer banner displayed (which has hung on the wall for several decades), the courts rule that it has to come down. Despite the wishes of other students and the community. Or when a teacher insults religion in a class and one of his students says he’s offended by the remarks, the courts side with the teacher? Or how about statues of the Ten Commandments being removed by court order? What about the denial to have a moment of silence if any reference is made about using the time to pray IF the student WOULD LIKE to? We OWN AND RUN EVERYTHING??? How can you say that with a straight face?

              4) Christians are being denied their right to express their views in the public square, discredit it any way you like—it doesn’t change the fact that Christians are denied rights that the founders never intended as evidenced by the first 150 years of our nation’s history.

              5) Just what are all of these statements in the name of God by a candidate—be specific, if you are going to accuse. And you obviously missed my previous point, we live in a democracy. Laws are not made by one person, nor by any president, who BTW has no constitutional authority whatsoever to make law.

              6) You will have to be specific also if you are claiming that the American Revolution was about someone speaking for God. No where have I ever heard or read that one. The revolution was about being taxed without colonial representation in Parliament. Prior to the imposition of taxes by the Crown on the colonists, colonial taxes had been imposed by their own duly appointed colonial legislature. The King or Parliament did not have the right to tax colonists without representation—that was an act of tyranny. Colonists believed in colonial self government.

              7) The quote you cited from Jefferson has no relevancy to what he wrote in 1802 to a minister assuring him that the government would not deny religious liberty to any group. So your caution IMO is unnecessary.

              8) The statement in the Treaty of Tripoli was to assure the Muslims that America would not impose their Christian beliefs on them. Just as was there was no Federal Christian Church which would deny religious liberty in the US. I DID NOT say the government was founded on religion, but rather the founders had no trouble with religion being EXPRESSED in the public square in any way, the government did not prohibit the FREE EXERCISE of religion in the public square, NOR DID IT IMPEDE it’s INFLUENCE being expressed in lawmaking. What has been going on for at least several decades now is IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION to that previous stance.

              9) Despite what you say, “I am not anti-religious,” you show your hostility by resorting to demeaning statements such as “some delusional Christian Shari Law.” That leftist tactic doesn’t work on all of us.

            • OK. I didn’t think you were serious. I’ll split my answer because you’re forcing me to go long:

              (1)(a) Extreme is anyone who is abusive about their beliefs
              (1)(a-2) Fundamentalist is someone whose beliefs are what the general public considers out-of-touch with reality.
              (1-b) Delusional Christian Sharia Law would be limiting the rights of others because of rules that have nothing at all to do with ACTUAL quotes attributed to Jesus.

              (2) Where in the bible does it say that Jesus “abhorred” sin? It is a small step from hating sin to hating sinners. In my reading of the bible, Jesus mourned the results of sin, but I do not believe he ever said he “abhored” sin. Sin just a natural human tendency, which we should try to overcome. To say “Jesus hates sin” is a dangerous assertion.

              (3) What an obscure reference. Has nothing to do with my point, but since you bring it up, how can that be more of a violation of the “establishment clause”?

            • @ Goeth:

              RE: Extreme:
              “Being abusive about…beliefs” I’m not seeing that going on here; although, I will apply what you mean to an example. If religion says that murder is a sin, and you want to have an abortion—yet the law says you can’t, you take issue because people of faith say the law should stand as it is and not be changed because a woman wants freedom from the responsibility of raising a child.

              RE: Fundamentalist:
              By your definition the atheists would be most happy to agree as they state that anyone who believes in God is out of touch with reality. Also, it sure sounded like you were labeling me as an extreme fundamentalist. If so, I disagree, but you are free to believe as you will.

              RE: Delusional Christian Shari Law, sorry still very vague definition. Are you stating that because Christ did not quote the Ten Commandments in the New Testament they are not valid? (And Darryl is correct, Christ is both the God of the OT and Jesus in the NT.)

              “Where did it say, “Jesus abhorred sin?” I would ask, where did he say that he accepted sin? He told His disciples, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” “Go thy way and sin no more.”

              Sorry, you lost me on #3, what is more of a violation of the establishment clause?

            • Is that something like: “I’m the decider and I decide what is best” or “What we say goes”.

            • (Or, as Nixon said, “it’s not illegal if the president does it.”)

              Does that go for JFK too?

            • I didn’t mean it as a party affiliation thing. “I’m the decider” just reminded me about the Nixon quote. Did JFK say something similar?

            • “I’m the decider” & “What we say goes” were both by Bush. One Jr the other Sr in that order. I do make mistakes though so you might google the quote in. I seldom recheck what I remember as it usually isn’t worth much in the first place. These blogs are just kind of fun, that’s all.

            • Billy:

              Yeah, I’ve appreciated your comments. Most of these people seem to want to choke you if you dare to propose an unorthodox idea.

              By the way, though, you did have a very thoughtful and insightful comment a couple of days ago. I wanted to comment, since it showed that you do put a lot of thought into things. Knock it off. Yer gonna make us look bad.

            • (Yer gonna make us look bad)

              I read a lot of stuff from the ACLU and most people feel they should be exempted from the first amendment protection because of the extreme fringe cases they take. I admit it does take effort not to just shut them out but I took a trip around the world right after I got out of the army. Made me a lot more tolerant to the ACLU as the cases they take on wouldn’t get a second thought in other countries. Amsterdam for one. Wish I could afford to live there. Paris is a beautiful city too. Oh, I’ve been back but now I’m too old to change.

            • Billy: You’re pretty brave to say something nice about the ACLU on this site.

              The fact that they piss off everybody is probably a sign that they’re necessary. Every time you think they’re leftwing, they support Nazis and KKK. Then you think they’re rightwing and they support Commies.

              In the Star Trek episode “The Omega Glory,” Captain Kirk says:
              “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. . .
              “These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, – but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to EVERYONE or they mean NOTHING!”

              It’s obvious that Gene Roddenbury WROTE that episode, himself, to say that the Bill of Rights must apply to the “Yangs” [Yanks, Americans] as well as to their enemies–in this case, the Kohms [Communists]. Roddenbury understood freedom.

            • Gene Roddenberry

              You are so right. It is my understanding that often his messages were against the Vietnam War so he had to walk on eggs or be labeled like Hanoi Jane. Or worse yet be taken off the air. But the trekkers got the message loud and clear. As I traveled to more and more foreign countries said messages all resonated.

            • Billy: I’m not sure Roddenbury was “against the Vietnam War,” but there’s no question that he was against war, in many episodes, such as the one where two planets were fighting a “war” with computers for centuries. People were required to submit to a death chamber [apt metaphor] if they were chosen as a “victim.” Kirk and the boys destroyed the computers, and once faced with REAL blood and horror, the planets finally sued for peace.

              I am very uncomfortable with our current use of technology to turn war into an abstract video game–in which “pilots” control drones from thousands of miles away, sitting in their air conditioned office, with their feet up, sipping a soda. It’s wonderful to be able to kill without any personal risk, but what happens when every country has drones? I’m more worried about drone proliferation than nuclear proliferation.

            • I’ll say the man (Gene) had almost as good a vision as Ron Paul. Here we are reliving episodes of Star Trek in real life.

              But Kirk did violate the prime directive for sure as he did many times. I believe they were allowed to for self defense issues like we did in Iraq. Even though we got it wrong many feel it was the right thing to do, especially the defense contractors and a few others that became filthy rich over the many lives lost.

            • OK. Now, this is becoming close to a civilized discussion.

              (1) ABORTION: Please answer this question: Is there EVER ANY circumstance under which abortion should be allowed? Can you give me ANY condition or situation when abortion should be allowed?

              (2) FUNDAMENTALISM: You’re twisting my words. I consider Atheists to be Fundamentalists, too. Anyone who believes ONLY they have ALL truth, AND push it on others qualify as “fundamentalists.”

              (3) YOU: I was only talking about extreme fundamentalists, not YOU, unless YOU are identifying as an extreme fundamentalist. QED.

              (4) HATING SIN: You were the one who claimed that Jesus “abhorred” sin. I have never found anything in the bible that says that. He did not “endorse” sin, of course, but in His words and deeds, I think it is clear that Jesus saw sin as regrettable ONLY in the fruit of such actions, AND He clearly saw sin as unavoidable, so I do not believe that Jesus “abhorred” sin. That was my only contention.

            • I’ll try the first one: (Is there EVER ANY circumstance under which abortion should be allowed? Can you give me ANY condition or situation when abortion should be allowed?)

              Sure, when a woman wants it and if she has the money she will get it. If she doesn’t have the money she will still get it but not in a doctor’s office and then thing can get complicated. As I am not a woman I feel I just don’t have a dog in this fight. So long as there is a demand there will be someone to supply the goods and/or service.

            • 1. Abortion: possibly in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s physical health; but even in these situations it would be best if the woman got counseling and spoke to her clergy to determine what would be the best solution for her. Regardless of the situation, abortion has long term emotional costs to the mother. I’ve known women who have had abortions and it has haunted them, even in the case of rape. I’ve also known women who have been told not to have a baby due to possibly negative impact on their health, but after prayerful consideration carried a baby to term successfully.

              2. Fundamentalists: No, I was not intentionally twisting you words, but it just shows that you were not being very clear. Remember, I don’t know you, and I have a hard time discerning what your intent is if you don’t explain what you mean. This recent definition you have given is clearer.

              3. No, I am not an extreme fundamentalist, but again, it was not clear how you were judging me, considering how it was presented in your posts. (And no, I’m not paranoid ? )

              4. I will agree, in the New Testament it does not state “Jesus abhorred sin” although, personally, it seems you are missing the bigger picture by looking for mote in my statement. Over and over again, Jesus emphasized that what people did was important. I think we both agree on this. However, the NT also does not say that Jesus clearly saw sin as unavoidable, which is an inference you are making, just as I am making an inference. He loved the sinner (the person), but abhorred the sin. I could also state that as He did not condone sin.

            • I’ll take on 1 & 4.

              Abortion: I’ve has a girl come out of the doctor’s office and ask me for another $150 because she didn’t know how far she was alone, 9The closer to the time the more it costs)
              Afterwards she state the she didn’t want that SOB’s baby that if she had one she was going to keep it would be with me. I guess it was a compliment but I would rather have just gotten some of my money back. Point being, no problem for some.

              4. JC, there were three Marys at the execution. No doubt all three “loved” Jesus but maybe in different ways.

            • 4 said:
              “1. Abortion: possibly in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s physical health.”

              If that is your stand, then you are really PRO-CHOICE, but YOU want to be the one who makes the choice.

            • (but YOU want to be the one who makes the choice)

              not me for sure on this one but what if she says I don’t want it and he says I do? Way above my pay grade for sure.

            • 4: No, not “whatever.”

              If abortion is murder, how can you POSSIBLY justify it because you don’t happen to like the father? Why is abortion just fine if the woman claims rape and/or incest?

              Clearly, the answer is for all women to claim incest. Then it’s ok, right?

              I respect anti-abortion people who are consistent. If it is murder, it is ALWAYS murder. You don’t get to pick and choose for other people what is murder and what is not murder.

            • You would have to ask her that, I didn’t get the abortion, she did and seemed not to be bothered by it. That was the point. Not all women have hang ups after said procedure. The money was to be a loan not a gift. I didn’t knock her up in the first place.

            • @ Goethe:

              Yes, whatever.

              Not all pro-lifers agree with my view, I don’t have a problem with that. However, for me it is a merciful act in defense of the woman, rape or incest is a violent crime against the will of a woman/girl. She had no choice in the action which led to the outcome. There is a huge difference–and IMO yes, it does make all of the difference. In the case of rape, RP explained the victim is given a morning after pill which is a high dose of estrogen. You may be right about women claiming rape or incest–although I doubt the percentage is as high you state. Guess, men better take care of what they do as well.

            • 4: You’re still avoiding the point.

              If abortion is murder, it is ALWAYS murder. And if it’s murder, then it doesn’t matter at all HOW the pregnancy occurred. In case of rape or incest, it’s just a clump of cells??

              You are now saying there’s no problem at all committing this murder, because of the discomfort of the woman who was raped or was involved in incest, with or without her consent. Can’t you see how hypocritical that is?

              And more importantly, can’t you see how hypocritical it is for you to pick and choose which abortions you will “allow,” and that you don’t really care that there might be a hundred other circumstances that would be more traumatic for a woman than rape or incest?

              Why do you get the right to choose? In this scenario, you’re pro-choice, but you just want to be the one to make the choice.

            • @ Goethe:

              I’m not avoiding the point. I told you I agree that the result is still the same, as far terminating pregnancy. I gave my reasons why I thought it might possibly be a valid reason–and contrary to what you may think–I don’t need your respect or acceptance of my opinion. You’ve not given any respect thus far in the conversation, and frankly, I didn’t think it would change. Your constant dogmatic assertions are sounding, shall we say, a little fundamentalist? 🙂

            • 4th: Here’s why it matters–

              Anti-abortion people say “abortion is murder.” That’s a reasonable assertion–if you’re consistent.

              But you KNOW it would be UNPOPULAR to outlaw all abortions, always. So, for POLITICAL purposes, you choose a few loopholes, hoping to attract some extra support. But you’re compromising on what you say is “murder.”

              You just said there are “valid reasons” to have an abortion.

              If there are “valid reasons,” why then can’t a woman-in-crisis choose what is “valid” for herself?

            • @ Geothe:

              No, I can see your reasoning–but again, you are making a judgement about why you seem to think I am making that distinction. And, you are way out on that. The reasons I have stated are the reasons I believe justify the possibility. Period.

            • @ Goethe:

              YES, THIS IS A JUDGEMENT I am making about you:

              It’s taken me bit of time–guess I’ve given you too much credit. But I get it now–you just like to argue. Period. Because if I said, NO ABORTION, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. You would have attacked that position as well. Game over.

            • I thought it was Alzheimer that was the long good-bye, This guy gives new meaning to the term.

            • 4theRepublic and Goethe Behr

              The Pro-Life position which is adhered to by most Pro-Life folks is that Abortion is NOT permissible unless it’s to save the LIFE of the mother.

              For instance – Ectopic pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is when the embryo implants itself in the fallopian tube. In this RARE type of Pregnancy – the baby is “doomed”; it CANNOT survive. We have NO technology that can transplant the embryo to the womb from the fallopian tube. Pro-Lifers believe that Abortion in this case is “permissible”. If we don’t “remove” the embryo from the fallopian tube, the tube will rupture as the embryo grows and the mother will also die, along with the fetus.

              HENCE, It is always “right” to SAVE ONE LIFE, than to LOSE TWO LIVES. This Pro-Life Position is “sound and consistent” with the Pro-Life View, because this type of Abortion is NOT for the PURPOSE of “destroying” a DEFENSELESS human being, but to SAVE the LIFE of the mother.

              However, this type of Pregnancy is VERY RARE and there are doctors that specialize in “high-risk” pregnancies. Out of 18,000 pregnancies, only 2 were found necessary to terminate the pregnancy.

              When debating Abortion and the Pro-Life View – Remember – The Pro-Life Position is TRUE! (If you want clarification on that, you’ll have to watch all 4 parts)

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL7YZmQQ4QI (4 parts)

            • This issue is like prohibition in that it it not going the have much effect one way or the other. Oh a lot of money shifts one way or the other but the numbers concering this instant subject will RTS or close.

            • Thanks Darryl, the videos were very good, (I watched all four). I can understand from that POV why any abortion would be morally wrong.

              So how does this fit in the RP camp outlook? I mean, the drumbeat I always hear is “the government should not restrict my freedom!” So how can a RP pro-life position really stand up to that? When I watched the RP interview in March, Ron talked about the abortion of an 8-month old fetus which I thought avoided what types of abortion more frequently happen during the earlier stages of pregnancy. Furthermore, he said he would administer a morning after pill in the case of rape. However, from a purely pro-life standpoint that would be in contradiction to the pro-life stance.

              It seems to me that RP is more against Roe v Wade because of activist judges making the decisions, and that is why it should be overturned, and let the states decide in their own legislatures. It seems he may be pro-life, but he is still for a pro-choice reality, in that the individual decides whether or not to have an abortion, rather than the government abolishing it.

            • Note a state issue not a national issue:

              They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don’t even know if a person is pregnant; if it’s 24 hours after rape, I don’t know how you’re going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I’ve spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn’t solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

            • @ Billy: “Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.”

              I certainly agree with that up to a point because unfortunately when people are given free license to do evil without restraint it doesn’t provide any incentive for some to choose what is right. Since Roe v Wade, women have had a way out that allows them to be promiscuous without restraint because they can use the back up plan. Did abortions happen before that, of course, but most women did not want to take the consequence of an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, so they made their potential lover be a husband first.

              Thirty million abortions after Roe v Wade we are now saturated in a society hooked on violence as evidenced by the entertainment that is tolerated from video games, movies, songs, to pornography. Roe v Wade was a Pandora’s box. It pushed the cultural limits to the edge–if you can protect the ‘right’ of a woman to kill her offspring in the womb, what else will society tolerate? Well, we’ve found out during the last three decades. This is the culture each succeeding generation since R v W is being raised in and influenced by. Why, because it’s all ‘protected’ by the ACLU and liberal courts under the ‘guise’ of ‘freedom.’ This is poison in the well. You cannot make the water safe to drink without removing the poison.

              Freedom comes with a price–responsibility. The freedoms which are being protected or currently promoted are frequently the ones that undermine family, marriage, and the sanctity of life. And it is irresponsible to allow forms of ‘freedom’ which damage society by undermining these time tested values.

              This is where some conservatives part ways with Ron Paul because liberty should not be at the expense of responsibility and it seems most of his supporters want freedoms which would further undermine morality.

            • Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions. (a.)

            • @ Billy: “Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence.”

              I don’t understand the number, a total of 29 abortions?

              Interesting, but I think facts in the USA are more relevant:
              1973: 744,600;
              1974: 898,600;
              1975: 1,034,200;
              all time high in 1990: 1,608,600;
              2009-11: 1,212,400.

              I think legalizing abortion does make a difference. It certainly sends the message, some life is less valuable than others and that makes a huge difference. Abortion is the ultimate statement of the ME generation.

              So are you pro-choice?

            • About the same as Marijuana The 55 MPH national speed limit prohibition , red light cameras, suspending drivers licenses, driving while texting etc, etc

            • Here is a chart that shows the incidence of abortion over the years. As you can see, not only has the number remained remarkably consistent, but it has gone down.

              http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

              (Also includes some valuable statistics on the subject.)

              Nobody thinks abortion is a good idea–until the individual woman finds herself in an untenable position.

              There have always been abortions. For those with means, they were called “vacations” to another country. Or they would go in for a scheduled “miscarriage.” Women without means felt so strongly about the need that they risked their lives with amateurs.

              Prohibition of alcohol is a good example. Prohibition DID reduce drinking, but at what cost? For one thing, a lot of deaths from wood alcohol and other poisons. Apt analogy.

            • @ Goethe: Also, your chart basically shows what I have with numbers–it started lower at the beginning, went up, stayed up and as come down some. Still much higher then when it started though.

            • (Prohibition DID reduce drinking,)

              But not the number of alkies

              And when these law & regs totally miss their intended mark and often kill and/or injure, it takes years if ever to repeal them. That’s because right or wrong they bring in money. What politician would ever put human life or limb ahead of money? Maybe Ron Paul but that still remains to be seen if indeed it ever happens.

            • 4theRepublic

              I’m kind of pressed for time right now and the only thing I can do (for now) is point you to Dr. Paul’s Website on Abortion.

              As you probably know, Conservative Libertarians have differing views on Abortion and Choice. All I remember Dr. Paul saying is that he was “disappointed” in the Pro-Life Leadership during the time when Republicans controlled both the Congress and the Presidency. They “Dropped the Ball” on Roe vs. Wade. He proposed “removing” Roe vs. Wade from Federal Jurisdiction and to make the States decide the Issue. This would have essentially repealed Roe vs. Wade or at least minimized it’s impact. It would have saved many babies from the Abortionists Scalpel, which is a good first step to outlawing the practice all together (unless to save the LIFE of the mother). This would also “force” Republican and Democrat Politicians to make a “decisive” stand either FOR Abortion or AGAINST Abortion – something that most Politicians don’t want to debate.

              http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

            • Darryl thanks, I’ll take look at that information you suggested. You brought up politicians being forced to take a stand, I agree. However, when politicians do take a stand, like Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, it seems it is not valued. In the case of Mitt Romney, he has been systematically discredited as being a flip-flopper on abortion and accused of it being because of political expediency. Now, that makes no sense given the MA liberal culture he was in. It certainly would have been more politically expedient not to rock the boat there.

              I would think there is an awful lot of ‘conversion’ that needs to go on to change a cultural climate that doesn’t hold that all life is sacred. This would mean many people (especially politicians) would indeed need to reevaluate their ideas and possibly change their position about abortion, (as Romney did).

            • Darryl, looked at the RP site. I thought I had read this before, but couldn’t remember.

              Yes, I like his stand on defining “life as the beginning of conception.” However, when I saw the interview he recently gave, it made me wonder, for the reasons I have outlined before. You are certainly right, this issue of abortion will force politicians to have to take a stand on one side or the other. In that case, RP could also lose a lot of support, if he is consistent with following through with what he has said. The term pro-choice has been skillfully used over three decades so that it has become no more than deciding what to wear on a particular day.

            • I believe RP is pro life, his own personal belief, but has stated it isn’t a national issue. It is up to each individual state. I can live with that but you can’t. Look there is always Mexico for those that have a little money and the back alley for those that don’t if we have it your way. The numbers RTS either way.

            • @ Billy: “I believe RP is pro life, his own personal belief, but has stated it isn’t a national issue. It is up to each individual state. I can live with that but you can’t.”

              Actually, I knew it was a state issue, without RP’s information. States already had abortion banned, until the Supreme Court got hold of it and created a statute all based on the 14th Amendment–which I might add, is the basis for a lot of pressure for other ‘rights’ which people supposedly have.

              And your statement, “I can live with that but you can’t.” Not sure why you came to that conclusion. Just what is the pronoun “that” referencing? If you mean the states deciding, I can live with that too.

              However, does this mean states will choose by the vote of the people, or the vote of tyrannical judges who have no right to make law by creating statutes? Or does it mean by the vote of a tyrannical liberal legislature who also couldn’t care less about the vote of the people (if it doesn’t suite their preference)? Now THAT I can’t agree with.

            • pronoun “that” referencing?

              Each state decides right. Now just who is the decider in each state ???? I would think it would go just like who decides the wet and dry counties.

            • pronoun “that” referencing?

              Each state decides right. Now just who is the decider in each state ???? I would think it would go just like who decides the wet and dry counties. Special interest and lobbyist.

            • @ Billy: “by special interest and lobbyists”

              Not necessarily, it can be put on the ballot for vote, which is the true way to determine the voice of people.

            • (“by special interest and lobbyists” Not necessarily,)

              What country did you say you were from? Sorry, But that is the way it works here as has worked that way for quite some time.

            • (Guess, men better take care of what they do as well.)

              Oh, we got the dead beat dad program, just like any other government program, a dismal failure. They can’t even collect from the NFL players let alone the unemployed. But admin cost, no problem the taxpayers fully support it.

            • “I respect anti-abortion people who are consistent.” You have shown so far only respect for ideas that are consistent with your own. Do you really think that statement is going to mean much to me?

            • 4th: Clearly not.

              I DO respect anti-abortion people who say abortion is murder and there should be no exceptions. They are consistent and they have integrity.

              But to say you want to pick and choose when abortion is allowable is neither pro-choice nor pro-life. You have no respect for the woman or her situation–or her intelligence to make a decision. At the same time, you have no respect for the new life, and just because the woman was having some carnal fun with her brother, you want to abort.

              Tell me how that makes any sense.

            • Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t- I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step, cut a little swathe and …

            • @ Goethe:

              Again, do you think I am concerned about whether you think I have integrity? For someone who ‘cried’ that I was labeling and judging them—once again, you are making some pretty strong judgments yourself.

              I quote: “You have no respect for the woman or her situation–or her intelligence to make a decision. At the same time, you have no respect for the new life, and just because the woman was having some carnal fun with her brother, you want to abort.”

              IMO, I am looking at the situation, and I say, abortion as birth control is wrong—just because the woman wanted to have a little fun, as you call it. However, it is not women who are having a little fun with their brother in the case of incest. Incest is usually perpetrated by an older sibling, or other relative, against the girl’s (read MINOR’s) wishes. Incest is no more than rape—the only difference is choice of victim. Also, women are not having a little fun with a rapist.

              You are twisting words for your convenience. I already said, IMO it does make a difference–whether you agree or not–and I explained why.

              And furthermore, I don’t “want to abort,” the girl/woman in that unfortunate situation, needs to evaluate her choices about whether to abort. She doesn’t need to be further victimized by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term resulting from rape. But again, abortion has long term emotional consequences and it should be discussed with a counselor and/or clergy. For minors, also with parents.

              A woman who chooses to have sex and doesn’t want the consequences because they are inconvenient, is not a victim of circumstances other than what she created for herself with her partner.

              I have spent enough time with all of this.

              ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

            • @ Goethe: You wrote:
              (3) What an obscure reference. Has nothing to do with my point, but since you bring it up, how can that be more of a violation of the “establishment clause”?
              ____________

              I had to go back are rethink your question, and I am still not sure if I understand it; however, I will try.

              a) You stated that Christians run and own everything—well, if they do, then that bit of knowledge must have escaped the courts because of the following examples which I listed.

              b) You asked, “How is it a violation of the establishment clause?” Because religious expression is being pushed out of public expression in government settings. The establishment clause is being interpreted to restrict religious expression. This was not what the founding fathers believed or practiced, as evidenced by what I have previously posted.

            • Pffft. To restrict taxpayer money and public buildings and venues from being used to “establish” a specific form of religion.

              NOBODY is restricting the “exercise” of religion. It just shouldn’t be dictated by government communication.

              I have friends who are Jewish, Muslim, even Atheist, who have a right to go to public buildings without having their taxes used to tell them they are. well, wrong.

            • (I have friends who are Jewish, Muslim, even Atheist, )

              Guess that might depend on what you call a friend.

            • Actually, I have more friends who disagree with me than those who agree.

              After all, what’s the sense of talking to someone with the same ideas? Doesn’t give you anything new.

              The way I see it, the body politic is like a TREE. Our ROOTS come from all over, and our BRANCHES are reaching to the sky in all sorts of (irreconcilable) directions. But the vast majority of our beliefs and ideals are in the TRUNK of the tree.

              We all agree on more than we disagree. It’s a pity we can’t speak from the trunk and try to lead others out onto our limb, instead of shouting at each other from the extreme twigs.

            • “I have more friends who disagree with me than those who agree.”

              Nope, only friend I have that is in complete disagreement with me is the GF. As for the few others it’s the prime directive but we ask opinion often and usually follow it. Kind of like if I knew I wouldn’t be asking. Friends don’t lie and friends don’t count favors.

            • @ Goethe: RE: your establishment clause query:

              “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

              Actually, I am talking about both parts. There is to be no federally mandated church (the establishment clause), nor is there to be prohibition in the free exercise of religion. This was not meant by the founders to exclude religion from government, but rather government from interfering with religion. The actions of the founding generation and those that followed it for 150 years clearly shows a contradiction to what is being practiced today. See previous examples.

            • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

              Kind of like the 2nd amendment in that it doesn’t mean what it says. I take it the framers were all drunk when they put it together.

            • “Exercise” all you want.

              To my knowledge, there has never been any restriction of “exercising” your religion.

              The problem comes in when one person claims to speak FOR God, and then force his will on others.

            • @ Goethe: You said, “To my knowledge, there has never been any restriction of “exercising” your religion.” “The problem comes in when one person claims to speak FOR God, and then force his will on others.”

              A) There is a restriction of exercising religion when religion cannot be allowed in a government setting. Students cannot give a prayer at a graduation. Students cannot be told they could pray if they like during a moment of silence. Not only that, an atheist can say, I am offended by someone else’s expression of religion, through a non-denominational prayer banner and then the said banner has to come down. I’m really not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

              B) Who is claiming to speak for God?? The only things Christians bring up are things found in the Bible, for example, “Thou shalt not kill.” So I’m not sure why you keep bringing people “claiming to speak for God.” Christians are only bringing up what He did actually say. If there is something specific, you’ll really have to spell it out for me to understand your POV.

            • “Thou shalt not kill.” or was it thou shall not murder. Point being that something written thousands of years ago in a foreign language may not be as easy to understand the true meaning of the framers as something written just a few hundred years ago in one’s native language.

            • “A) There is a restriction of exercising religion when religion cannot be allowed in a government setting.”

              That is not “exercise.” For an adult authority figure paid by the government to coerce kids to “exercise” the authority figure’s chosen religion is the very ESSENCE of establishment of religion.

              Again, Jesus said to be “meek” and not to be, like the hypocrites, standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.

              “Exercise” of religion should be a private, personal thing. Jesus said to influence others by example of the goodness of how you LIVE–not by “lording over” others

            • I for one don’t believe that “under God” should have ever gotten into the flag pledge. I can tolerate most anything but the question must always be asked “WHAT NEXT” if we allow or don’t allow a change.

            • @ Goethe:

              Talk about twisting words.

              Stating that someone can pray voluntarily does not in anyway equate coercion. Muslims pray, Jews pray, Christians pray, or a student can just have moment of silence to reflect. It is no more coercion than if a teacher says, anyone who would like to use the restroom now can do so.

              Furthermore, so an adult authority, taxpayer salaried, government figure can be protected for making anti-Christian comments in the classroom (as happened in CA), but say, down the hall an employee with the same credentials cannot say that students could say a prayer during a moment of silence? A voluntary invitation IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE is not the essence of the establishment of religion, but I can see there is no point in telling you otherwise with further comments about it.

              You are quite vocal about your rights—but apparently, your rights are the only ones that matter.

            • (4) What nonsense. NOBODY ever “denied their right to express their views in the public square.” You admitted in the previous point that there are Christian symbols and images all over the place. Can you now please specify ANY way that Christians are denied this right??

              (5) Santorum. And I have the right to say that he scares the Bejesus otta me, which was my point. I didn’t say we should burn him like a witch. I just said I don’t want him to deny our constitutional rights because he thinks Jesus told him so in a dream.

              (6) OK, more precisely, freedom of religion was what our FOUNDING was about. Many people came here because they were persecuted for their beliefs. I misspoke. You are right. The Revolution had nothing at all to do with religion–except to say that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I happen to believe that that means that you don’t have a right to make laws that limit my rights.

            • 4) Did you read my previous comment where I questioned your assertion, “Christians own and run everything?” I re-quote:

              “I suppose that’s why when an atheist high school student says she is offended by a simple school prayer banner displayed (which has hung on the wall for several decades), the courts rule that it has to come down–despite the wishes of other students and the community. Or when a teacher insults religion in a class and one of his students says he’s offended by the remarks, the courts side with the teacher? Or how about statues of the Ten Commandments being removed by court order? What about the denial to have a moment of silence if any reference is made about using the time to pray IF the student WOULD LIKE to? “

              No, I did not admit there were religious symbols all over the place today—what I said was there were symbols of the Ten Commandments throughout the Supreme Court building, which is an irony since it is commonly debated that we are a) not a Christian nation, nor have we ever been; b) our laws have no Biblical basis c) a state government building has to remove it’s statue of the Ten Commandments. I also stated that during the first 150 years of our history religion played a very important part in our society, and there was no fear on the governments’ part of having religion in the public square, or in making laws—maybe you don’t understand how the term public square is being used. By that, prayers could be said in school, Bibles could be read in school, and statues of the Ten Commandments could be displayed without question on government property. Moreover, I do not think a candidate running for the office of president during the first 150 years of this nation would have been feared for statements of faith.

              I never assumed you would want to burn Santorum. And yes, if Santorum scares you, you certainly won’t be denied that right by me. Some people are afraid of Obama because they fear he is Muslim or in ally with Muslims. I’m not concerned about his religious view—however, I am very concerned about things which he does that violate the Constitution.

              No one is wishing to deny you your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But again, as a nation we function as a democracy, laws are made by vote, and everyone–both secularists and Christians have a say in what those laws should be.

            • 4theRepublic

              But again, as a nation we function as a democracy, laws are made by vote

              Oh….if THIS were only true 🙁

            • @ Darryl: Well, I’ll agree 100% with you there; however, as we both know, in theory, it is supposed to. :-0

            • (laws are made by vote Oh….if THIS were only true)

              Kind of early but I’ll drink to that. Laws are made by lobbyists & special interest groups in order to greatly favor one side over another.

            • (“Christians own and run everything?” I re-quote: “I suppose that’s why when an atheist high school student says she is offended by a simple school prayer banner displayed (which has hung on the wall for several decades), the courts rule that it has to come down-)

              That’s becaue there is a Jew or two on the bench.

            • (7) My point was that Jefferson was NOT friendly toward established religion, and it’s silly to use him as an example of your point. Even the quote you cite is not in support of religion. It just says you leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. Liberty means freedom from coercion, even if you believe God says so.

              (8) Paranoia, sorry. There is no such persecution. And, by the way, it was JESUS who said you should NOT go out and blab in the public square:
              Matthew 6:5
              –“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
              Matthew 6:6
              –“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

              (9) “Judge not that ye shall not be judged.” My beliefs are my own, and you can condemn me all you want. “Justice is mine, sayeth the Lord.”

            • @ Goethe

              7) Actually you brought out the term, “separation of church and state” yet apparently you do not know where it came from or what it actually meant originally. This is why I gave you a bit of background on where it came from and when the meaning changed.

              “Liberty means freedom from coercion”: Then the banner of liberty could be used to allow criminals to murder, steal or rape. And certainly we are making judgments about these actions. If we literally took, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” we’d have no laws at all and criminals would be at liberty to roam the streets murdering whom they will.

              For the most part, I understand your POV. I’m not condemning you at all. You actually are the one who first started with the witch-burning comment, extreme fundamentalist, etc…

              I am willing to end the debate–no hard feelings on my part.

            • “Liberty means freedom from coercion”:

              Then because you need a license or a permit to do just about anything in this country, liberty is high on the endangered species list. Coercion meaning come up with some cash now or pay a fine later.

            • That is a serious point.

              The argument for a driver’s license–and various other restrictions–is that the Constitution didn’t specify a right. Therefore, judges have decided that driving is a “privilege” that can be governed and rationed.

              I wonder how the Founding Fathers would have seen it if cars had been running around a hundred years earlier.

            • (The argument for a driver’s license–and various other restrictions-)

              Your word “various” is a gross understatement. I’m sure you know you need a license for a horse just like for a dog. As they had dogs and horses at the time the constitution was written, I rest my case.

            • You are ALL over the map with your LONNNNNNG pontifications.

              You were calling me names and claiming you know everything about me, so I simply asked not to be judged–and pointed out that it was not a Christian thing to do. Bim-botta-boom.

            • (claiming you know everything about me,)

              Well we do know you live in Michigan, a state that had it all and let it get away but I guess that is better than a state that never had it in the first place. LOL

              Just kidding as we had a summer home on lake Mac in Holland for years. Sold a house in Kalamazoo just last year and going to try Florid for a summer. I said try.

            • I was not all over the map–I just try to back up what I say with concrete examples. Sorry that is taxing for you.

            • Um, the closest to name calling I could see is my allegation that you were using “leftist tactics.” Nor do I see that I have claimed to know everything about you. Judging you? IMO, no more than it seemed that you were judging me. As far as I could determine from your postings you made several judgments about Christians through cryptic remarks such as, extreme fundamentalists, delusional Christian Sharia Law, witch burning by Christians, etc… Sorry, but given that, I don’t suffer from extreme remorse when someone who is committing the same act calls me to repentance. Now, since you say that was not your intent—I’ll accept that. And I apologize for any offense.

            • (define extreme fundamentalist in concrete terms ) Rick’s baby picture
              b
              ( be explicit about what specifically is being ENFORCED on you as well) I can’t view kiddie porn on the internet like people in other countries can

              ( However, he loved the sinner) He sure did and she was true to him to the end, the GF Mary M

          • Candy bar,

            If you think that Santorum is a conservative, you need to understand the difference between social and political conservatism. His religious beliefs have no place in this campaign, because they have no place in the governance of our country! Wake up!

      • Candy Bar

        I agree that Rick Santorum is used to having the snot beat out of him. The people of Pennsylvania “wisely” threw this guy out of office and he lost by more than 18 points. But that didn’t stop him from becoming a Millionaire Corporate Lobbyist.

        That said, if Rick Santorum, by chance, wins the GOP nomination – he’ll lose by 18 points TIMES 2 and he’ll take a whole “bunch” of Republicans down with him. Talk about “wasting” your vote! The consequences of a Santorum Nomination to the Republicans will be so catastrophic that the Congress will gain a new “infestation” of Socialist Democrats, while Barack Hussein Obama wins his re-election! Romney is the SAME as Obama, so nothing much will change if he gets elected – except on how fast we reach the final destination of inevitable insolvency/bankruptcy.

        But of course, you don’t understand what I mean by that – because Rick hardly talks about it.

        • because Rick hardly talks about it.

          No but Obama sure did ……… well before he was elected anyhow. At least he did recognize some of the problem. Not sure but if you were to give me odds I’d say the Prince of Pork could print up almost as much phoney money as the guy we got now.

    • outspend Santorum and his super PAC by a nearly 4-to-1 ratio to run TV ads in Wisconsin.

      The guy that is going to cut wasteful spending spent 4 million dollars in Wisconsin after claiming the race is all but over.

  6. @OK
    Boy oh Boy…
    The big four Ron Paul army is going to bombard you for that!
    They have lots of words and time to write stuff.
    They have hijacked this site refuse to allow any dissent.
    I’ll get blasted for this too but I won’t have time to rebut because I’m finally getting jobs! I don’t get govaid so I have to work.
    They’ll prove everything with fake videos from youtube and long dissertations picking on one or two words you say. Say anything bad about their message and they’ll call you a sheep or a conspirator or worse.
    And oh yeah, Ron Paul is never wrong. Ever. Not about anything. Ever. And none of the other candidates is ever right. Ever. Even if they agree with something Ron Paul said or vice versa they are just wrong. Always. As soon as we succumb to their thought police we can get our forehead tatoos and lead peaceful enlightened lives.
    Hope you have thick skin. I know I do. now.

    • If you could be a little more specific:

      Example: I like Mitt Romney because as governor he didn’t raise taxes but he was able to balance the budget by hiking up fees charged by the state for just about everything.

      Or: I hate RP because he intends to do away with the Dept of Education. Said dept doles out billions of dollars in student loans to kids who will learn at an early age what it is like to live under heavy debt.

    • It can be that you´ll be sent to Russia to fight if Mitt or Rick win. You will think in this situation, it was rally bad idea not to vote for Ron Paul.

      • (It can be that you´ll be sent to Russia to fight if Mitt or Rick win. )

        True they are both hawks but I tend to think of Russia to be more of a dove. Russia has the bomb so it’s off limits for the USA. We only attack the weak.

    • GoodOlBoy: thanks for fighing a good fight!!! I have so appreciated seeing someone else stand up to the ‘big4’ as you put it. They are have worked hard to drown out ANY other voices every time a new blog comes up.

      Thanks for your comments they have always been refreshing to read in midst of all the Ron Paul propaganda. It seems his supporters think RP will somehow get to the general, despite lack of delegates. I don’t think it’ll happen–social conservatives are NOT going to vote for someone who wants to legalize drugs. I also noted in his recent interview when he talked about abortion he used the example of an 8 month old fetus–HELLO–I don’t think that what the pro-life advocates are focused on. I felt like his answer was a dodge. The way I took it, Ron Paul is personally against abortion, but not against people having a choice about it–just don’t allow it when the pregnancy is 8 months along. Yeah, he’d like to see Roe v Wade overturned, but it appears to be because of judicial activism–not because the government should “legislate morality.”

      • NOT going to vote for someone who wants to legalize drugs

        Great could you suggest an alternative …………

        The war right now is costing us $500.00 per second and the street value for most of the stuff is less than it was 10 years ago meaning we are losing. Maybe we can convince China to loan us even more money to help with the fight. The jails are full and we are broke.

        • Correct–many are not going to support him because of that and other factors. I know it escapes you RP supporters but there are numerous reasons why RP is not really in the race. These factors go well beyond the scope of your continual shouts of media black out & manipulation of the polls as the reason for RP’s lack of winning any states. Certainly there is a proliferation of RP propaganda on the internet which his supporters continually cite and is easily found even without your ‘tips’ for anyone who is interested in voting.

          This argument that legalizing drugs will solve the problem IMO is balderdash. So should we legalize anything which is vice because we don’t want to bother with dealing with the problems? What about robbery, rape, and any number of things people go to jail for? The decaying morality and breakdown of the family in this country is at the heart of the problem. Of course, the liberal mentality would shun that reasoning, but nonetheless, it is a factor that should not be ignored.

          • The decaying morality and breakdown of the family in this country is at the heart of the problem. Of course,

            Common ground but where we differ is what causes said decaying morality? You say it’s liberty I say it’s regulations. Need a balance, I say 500,000+ is a bit much, you say we need more

          • @ Billy, Glad to see some common ground, but I disagree with your assertion that it is because of regulation. Thirty million abortions since Roe v Wade is not the product of regulation, it is the product of ‘liberty’.

            • Thirty million abortions since Roe v Wade is not the product of regulation, it is the product of ‘liberty’.

              Liberty no doubt is pro choice but prohibition did little to cut down on the number of alkies in the country.

              I stand by my statement that so long as there is a demand there will be a supplier. If you can’t afford a ticket to Mexico there is always a coat hanger and the ER. Cost a bit more that way but the results are the same.

  7. First off I’m surprised that supporters of Mitt, Rick and Newt are on a Ron Paul app secondly I think the above should buy a history book and learn from the past. Since my short time on this planet I have seen my rights taken away by every president in office. With Clinton he started the illegal wire tapping of 12 million US citizens, Bush with the patriot act and with Obama my right to a trial. Every president we have had for the last 50 years has been taking away our rights. Meanwhile they distract us with this war of the right vs the left. The only trust worthy candidate that wants to end the wars, cut spending and restore our God given rights is Ron Paul. He has stuck to his word ever since he got in office and now as he poses a major threat to the establishment the media and powers are doing all the can to shut him out. I hear pundits say he has no support and is doing terrible however he has raised more money then Newt or Rick, has had larger crowds then any of the candidates and generally gets about 20% of the primary vote. However he has already won, by helping to grow and nurture the libertarian movement he is setting the stage for a future change in how the people view their government.
    (V)

    • Oh the RP movement is going to win, is just a matter of time. We can do it the easy way and elect him now or we can do it the hard way and not elect him.

      Those five Depts he wants to shut down are going to be shut down. Just a matter of time.

      Keep in mind, when the host dies the parasites die with it.

      • I think Ron is clearing the path for Rand.

        The establishment paints Ron as a nutcase, but not Rand. I think they’ll be only too happy to swarm around Rand in 2016.

        • Goethe Behr — by then it may be too late.

          Another 4 years of BO (and now this seems a certainty) will bring us to the point of no return (the final end of all liberties, prosperity and even the sovereignty of private property — Big Brother is coming to town…to stay).

          • Another drink but I’m running low and they don’t deliver anymore as the last driver got a DUI

        • I think they’ll be only too happy to swarm around Rand in 2016.

          Wishful thinking as I don’t think there will be much worth saving by then as they will have long since run out of ink and paper.

    • @Vollaskey — good post!

      On your “However he (Ron Paul) has already won, by helping to grow and nurture the libertarian movement he is setting the stage for a future change in how the people view their government.” — the CCCP had a term for such: Dissidents (and they were sent to concentration (“labor”) camps in Siberia….

      Wonder where BO will be sending us…? I hear there are some salt mines in need of voluntary labor….

  8. You have to love this stuff. The Republicans are getting their wish through media manipulation and election fraud. It’s down to their two favorite choices, Mitt Romneycare and Rick Adolf Insanetorum. Careful what you wish for! I have a feeling we are in for another four years of Obama spending us into oblivion. Thanks to a corrupt and greedy Republican party that is. Ron Paul is way to scarey for the weak of mind and weak of will. I am ashamed to call myself a Republican!

  9. Ron Paul is still in second for delegates with NUMEROUS victories in the last couple weeks in the delegate proceedings. These beauty contests don’t matter. These “delegates” Romney is “padding his lead” with are projected, in other words, don’t mean crap.

    Ron Paul supporters are signing up to be delegates even where Santorum and Romney have “won”. If we make it to the convention without Romney clinching 1144, he can forget the nomination, unless the GOP decides to ignore the rules and just hand it to him.

    He continues to draw massive crowds, 5200 in Wisconsin and 6200 in California that the media completely ignore, while they treat a crowd of 1000 for Romney or Santorum like definitive proof that they are the only 2 in the race.

    @GoodOlBoy – You add nothing of substance to these comments. If anyone is wasting their time here, it is you.

    PRESIDENT PAUL!

    • Interesting concept.

      It’s the delegates who decide. If someone has a really good “ground game,” with dedicated supporters focusing on BECOMING delegates, if no one wins on the first ballot, the “fanatical supporters” could add up to enough on a second ballot.

      I don’t see Romney getting more votes on a second ballot than he got on the first. All the other candidates are “anybody but romney.” So if it goes to a second ballot, we should expect the anti-romney numbers to hold firm as his drop.

      But my guess is that Willard and his fat-cat-pac will buy the votes he needs, so this is probably a moot point.

      • Yup, and with so many Romney & Santorum delegates actually being Ron Paul supporters, the rug could be swept right out from under Romney with the second vote.

        • For sure I’d like to believe you but I can’t even convince my GF on Ron Paul. She just thinks troops are indeed needed in some of the 126 countries they are now in but is unable to name just one other than here at home.

    • @GoodOlBoy – You add nothing of substance to these comments. If anyone is wasting their time here, it is you.

      I don’t know about that as I never learned anything new from someone I agreed with before they even spoke. I do agree that the GoodOlBoy tends to be a little vague at times, LOL

  10. In Russia, with all their anti-fraud cameras in place, Putin, who only expected around 30% of the vote, got about twice that and was brought to tears Live on camera as he knew the people voted for him in droves.

    Now take a look at these pep-rallies with all their fraud. What a scam!

    There are only two sides to this. Ron Paul versus everyone else.

    Corporate puppets or Man of honour, integrity and aptitude.

    Make your choice.

    • Putin is strong president and he is good Russian president. You shouldn’t compare USA to Russia, because Russia is rich country, ruled by prorussian presidents. The only proamerican candidate, who thinks and who will care about USA is Ron Paul.
      People in USA have problems with voting for right candidate, who will make USA rather strong country. People such candidates, who are not proamerican like Romney or even Rick Santorum or Obama will not restore, will not save USA, they will lead USA to economical disaster or even not to a global world war.
      It is one man in USA, one, normal republican politician, who would care about USA- Ron Paul, just like Russian president cares about Russia. You would have normal, strong and good president. It is not very hard task to be president in USA. President has three tasks: 1. to choose normal government 2. to control this government 3. to watch key from nuclear arsenal and it is everything and Ron Paul would be excellent in this mission.
      Why don´t you want to trust to this one politician in your country, who should be trusted. You could see: http://www.ronpaul.com

      • Russia is rich no doubt but I didn’t think the standard of living there reflected it at all for the average family. I can’t afford a cup of coffee in Moscow. I did like the trolley buses though as we had them here many years ago until they were replaced by dirty diesels so as to justify the EPA.

  11. Can someone PLEASE tell me why they would vote for Santorum?? Now he’s saying he wants to start a war on pornography?? Wtf is wrong with this guy? He’s a friggin joke. There literally is NO WAY he would beat Obama in the general election. It would be the biggest landslide victory in history. The only people who I see voting for him in primaries are radical christian morons and Democrats who also know that he stands absolutely no chance in the general election and just want to guarantee another 4 years of Obama. Which, to be honest, sounds a lot less scary than 4 years with Santorum… and thats saying A LOT.

    • I’ll drink to that. He comes from a generation of when you had to check some news paper before you could go to the movies or you were going to hell. His def of porn is anything more than 2″ above the knees.

      • Billy: Oh, yeah, the Catholic Weekly.

        As I recall, there were only three ratings: A, B, and C (for “condemned”).

  12. GoodOlBoy

    I can’t help but wonder if you’ll be repeating the same ole’ FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and MSM “Mantras” when Romney and the GOP gets “slaughtered” by Obama in the General Election. I’m sure it’ll be a “Hoot” to read what you’ll have to say then.

    But when the Country finally looks back on Ron Paul’s Candidacy and the Message he tried to convey to the People through all those “fake” Youtube Videos – I’m sure you and all the other Anti-Ron Paul Folks will still be there – “chiding” Ron Paul. You’ll continue to “make fun” of him, his message and his supporters as you “Goose-Step” to what will be “spewed” as the Propaganda of the Day.

    However, the “Liberty Movement” is growing. It’s “Tripled” since 2008. And as the Country sinks deeper and deeper into Debt – The “Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda” concerning Ron Paul’s message will eventually sink in. Maybe then you’ll turn off the FOX News, Rush Limbaugh and the Main Stream Media “Propaganda” and listen to your Heart and to what you know is Right for this Country.

    All we can do is hope that the Unsustainable MASSIVE Debt that the Democrat and Republican “Establishments” are running up AGAINST us, doesn’t spell the ultimate demise of this Country’s Sovereignty. (Unless, of course, you believe that we can “run-up” the Debt to Infinity) Either way, the Establishments will expect us to jump on the “Band Wagon” for the New World Order as the ONLY way out – with it’s One World Currency – it’s One World Military – and it’s One World Oligarchy when it all comes “Crashing Down”. (and it WILL come crashing down)

    Oh. There will be “Dissent” – but it won’t be because the Ron Paul supporters aren’t “allowing” it. It’ll be the Political Elite of the “Establishment” making sure that we-the-people do what we’re told to do – OR ELSE! Is it all just a “Grand Conspiracy” against our Civil Liberties? I don’t think so. It’s all quite REAL. With the usurping of the Constitution by the “bi-partisan” Political “Establishment” Class at the behest of the Power Elite (Bankers), they’ve managed to pass the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and the soon to be passed “Trespass Bill” – to “Make Sure” that any kind of “Dissent” will be “taken care of” – Expeditiously! They KNOW the “Collapse” is coming if we continue down this Path. And so does Ron Paul and his supporters…

    • First, it was SOPA. Then, it was PIPA. NOW, it’s CISPA.

      The Congressional Republicans and Democrats are getting ready to pass another UNCONSTITUTIONAL Law to Regulate the Internet – in order to “stifle” Dissent.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rVV5tFCuqo&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg&index=7&feature=plcp

      The Political Class wants to nullify the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. Book Burning anyone? Congress will use the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as kindling to get it going. They KNOW that it’s all falling apart, so they need to keep us “Slaves” from uprising.

      • The Past 3 presidents have already wiped their backsides on the Constitution. Bush Jnr referred to it as ‘just a piece of goddam paper.’

        Welcome to 1984 – Check RFID chips before take-off.

          • Surfisher

            F451 – Yes, I forgot about that one. Even on the Simpsons they had a book-burning mobile, driven by the preacher Lovejoy.

            Pretty much what the US Soldiers did in Iraq’s Libraries and museums. They took what they thought would be valuable and burned the rest. Iraq has some of the world’s oldest culture and writings that ever existed and the US Soldiers have tried to decimate all trace of it.

            So much for bringing ‘democracy’ to the middle east.

            With all the vote fraud going on state by State, it’s obvious there isn’t any democracy in the USA, and they didn’t even have to burn a book… they just over-writ the Constitution.

            Welcome to the US of Fascism and Tyranny. SHUT UP!

  13. Obama wins AGAIN last night. The clown car keeps chugging along as flip-flop Massachusetts Romney keeps on giving. OBAMA RULES 2012

  14. Candy Bar and 4theRepublic

    Like it or not – you’re gonna get McCain (I mean Romney). It’s already been decided by the Republican Establishment and the Power Elite Donors (Wall Street Bankers) who are supporting him financially. You “pee-ons” are just that – “pee-ons”! You’re nothing but Chattel. You’re Slaves. You’re “Owned”!

    For the life of me, I just can’t figure-out why you “Sheep” support Candidates so UNLIKE you?! Romney is a Mega-Millionaire. Obama, Santorum and Gingrich are also Millionaires. Santorum – the BIGGEST Hypocrite of all of them – with all his “jive talk” about Social Issues, Christian Values and Morality – gave or donated only 1.76 percent of his $923,411.00 – 2010 income – to Charity.

    You People remind me of a bunch of coffee-clotching old biddies who criticize what Mrs. Smith wore to Church, while at the same time – totally Ignoring the Sermon which was given to you by Ron Paul – that could change your life and your Country!

    The only Candidate running for President who is anywhere CLOSE to the Average American and to his or her Value System – is Ron Paul. But you’ll believe ANYTHING the Media tells you because you can’t think for yourselves. You’re Totally “Blinded” by what your Candidate “says” – and you IGNORE what he actually “does”. You’re Sheep! You’re Chattel! You’re Slaves who think you are Free!

    • Thanks Darryl 🙂 I knew I could count on you for the usual RP commentary and labeling reserved for those who do not follow RP.

    • criticize what Mrs. Smith wore to Church, while at the same time – totally Ignoring the Sermon

      Boy I can remember my aunt saying she would like to snatch that mink right off Mrs Smith’s back as she walked behind her up to the communion rail.

  15. Darryl,

    Wow do you even listen to Rush? He’s not pro Rommey, he’s realistic at this point, Paul was the favorite Santorum was next, followed by guess who Gingrich. Why because there really are two parties at this point in the Republican vote, big gov (Romney) and ANYONE else…

    Darryl don’t talk about sheep til you at least listen and understand, that’s the main issue with most of what happens at this point in the government, ignorance.

    • Chris

      I listen to Rush just about everyday. Rush Limbaugh is NOT a Constitutional Conservative. He’s a Neo-Conservative. BIG DIFFERENCE! Rush is Anti-Ron Paul and is very outspoken about it. The facts are that Romney is a Core-less Flip-Flopper. Gingrich is an Unabashed Hypocrite. And Santorum is a Fake Conservative. They all come from the Same “Establishment” – Neo-Conservative – Empire America Mold.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjgU8_RfFQE

  16. If Texas and California were allowed to have their voting at the beginning, the way Texas was supposed to have, then all this conjecture would be moot and the MSM wouldn’t be able to hide the blatant truth that Ron Paul is what the majority of voters want!

    It’s a scam, a con, a fraud and a front to the democratic process itself.

    Beware… with the alleged collapse of the US Dollar and the Euro, many people are taking steps to stock pile food, water, medicines and ammo. You should know that under current ‘anti-terrorism’ rules, if you have more than one week’s worth of food stock-piled in your home then you will be regarded as a ‘potential terrorist’!

    Their words, not mine. So much for living in a free society.

    The gov’t has renamed summer camps with a new snazzy name, FEMA Camp… a holiday resort for the whole family. Coming to a place near you. Please check RFID chips while the TSA molest your ‘potential terror suspect’ children for copies of 1984. Thank you for your assistance. COMPLY!!!

    If only Ron Paul had been made President… oh well.

    Tomorrow, ‘We are at War with Oceana.’

    • California were allowed………..I followed the Calif governor’s race last time around.
      It was tax, spend and regulate vs a real job creator. (Jerry Brown vs Meg Whitman). Jerry is known as the 2nd gen EPA king. His father started the movement way back when he was governor as well as the movement into deep deep debt. Meg is a self made rich bitch, you may have heard of her company called e-bay.

      Well the voters chose Jerry big time and so long as the rest of the country is willing to pump billions into the state via Obama (in order to carry the state come election time) I’d say they made the right choice. Meg said success requires a lot of hard work & that’s what it was going to take to get Calif back into the black. Jerry said, I got friends in high places, elect me and I’ll bring the money into the state the easy way. (Solyndra)

    • Meeman —

      re: “You should know that under current ‘anti-terrorism’ rules, if you have more than one week’s worth of food stock-piled in your home then you will be regarded as a ‘potential terrorist’!”

      Could you cite where this rule appears (I know things are bad, our freedoms nearly gone — but has this truly transpired (if so, it is monstrous))!

      • if you have more than one week’s worth of food stock-piled in your home

        Yeah, and what if you are a big eater? Or worse yet, what if you eat like a bird?

      • Surfisher

        There was a short list of things that are now covered as ‘potential signs of a terrorist’ read out on TV recently. In theory, the list has thousands of things on it, but he’s one or two…

        – More than a weeks food stock-piled
        – more than one registered gun/rifle
        – military veteran (ALL USA ones)
        – Missing fingers
        – Downloaded videos of – anti-American points of view
        – anti-Police videos
        – farming with nitrates
        – how to – make explosives/gun powder
        – remote controlled toys
        – e-mails with anti-American wording
        – e-mails with ‘watch-words’ like nuclear, bomb, Terrorist, Embassy etc.
        – e-mails to middle-eastern countries not suckling at the USA’s teat

        to name but a few.

        Please note, this message will now also be regarded as a ‘terror-alert’ message as I’ve just written some of their ‘watch-words’ in it.

        See you in the FEMA camp. Bring fire-retardant books to read. lol

        • Meeman —

          So if we live in a flood area — and after a major flood cannot expect help within 2-3 weeks — we, the US Citizens, have a choice of either starving after a week, or stockpiling 2-3 weeks supply THUS being regarded as “potential terrorists”….?

          Sounds fair — since the government knows what’s best for me (look at how quickly they acted after Katrina).

          Since I used to bow hunt in my youth — and have an old bow an arrows…do I need to register them, to be on the safe side…?

          Now I just surf-fish — sitting in a lounge chair, reading a book, and if the rods bend I get up to reel them in….
          Since I use a 12′ and a 15′ rod — they look like dangerous weapons…where do I go to register them (also, the books I read — whom do I contact to make sure they are approved reading material)? I don’t want to get in trouble with our ‘Government of the People for the People’….

          Looking forward at seeing you all at a FEMA camp — always enjoyed summer camping with family and friends. Playing badminton, swimming in the lake, roasting marshmallows on an open fire, fishing, playing lawn darts (oops, these ‘weapons’ are now banned), riding horses, etc.

          It is wonderful — why are you so much against this experience, Meeman?

          LOL (and just to make sure, another LOL).

          • (why are you so much against this experience,)

            Could be because of the judicial process has been eliminated. It’s “what we say goes”, we being the Prez and the Prez alone.

  17. We now see Rick’s support was like an oil slick, a mile wide but only a millimeter thick.

    A month ago Rick had Pa in the bag, today he is all but out of it.

    The GOP voters think of elections like a horse race and try to pick winners with little if any understanding of the candidates themselves.

    Now if Rick had supporters like RP has he could have taken Pa to the bank. Said loyalty is not in abundance though especially with voters.

    • Voices from Pennsylvania:

      You can hear the anti-Romney people regarding Santorum:

      “Oh, yeah, it’s THAT guy.”

    • Ha,ha! Surely you’re joking? RP hasn’t even taken a state to date. I don’t see the connection.

    • @Billy you act like you’re surprised. Unless, I mistaken, you’ve said all along they have a tar pot waiting for him.

      • they have a tar pot waiting for him.

        No I said the pot was still warm………(from the last time they ran him out of town.)

          • I think Rick is all but a memory now. Just another Pat Robertson. Always get that last name confused with Mrs Robinson who never had a first name. Sure glad it wasn’t Pat or I’d really be lost.

            • Maybe Rick will change.

              Did you hear that Pat Robertson has now endorsed legalizing pot–and he now says oral sex is just fine with him?

            • Both are fine with me too although I only smoked pot once in my life as there was a lot more money in selling it than smoking it. As for the second part of your post ……..well I’d never ask and I surely would never tell.

  18. Santorum really needs to drop out of this race so the Republican party can unite around one candidate (Mitt). Its time to turn our attention to beating BO and getting him out of office. I just hope people unite and cast their vote in Nov. for Mitt (anyone, but Obama)

  19. GO MITT ROMNEY!!!!

    @ Billy–well if it’s welfare over work then surely Ron Paul can offer nothing to those voters either. RP’s not offering a bigger check to any of them. If they’re only concerned about that then it doesn’t matter who runs against Obama.

    • Ron Paul can offer nothing to those voters either. Oh yes he can it’s called incentive & opportunity. But it doesn’t sell well I’ll give you that.

      • Billy Malone —

        Put the comments you are responding to in quotation marks — sometimes gets confusing in these long threads to follow which is yours and which is theirs….

        example: “…Ron Paul can offer nothing to those voters either….”

        (you can drink to that…, it’s ok 🙂 )

        • (sometimes gets confusing)

          If you think it is confusing reading what I write you ought to try writing what you read with the tools I have to work with. Yep, all worn out and they weren’t all that good to start with.

          But I’m going to try. I’ll use the brackets.

  20. Aside from the original US Constitution….

    Wonder how many have read (the ORIGINAL work, not the Google synthesis…LOL) Gibbon’s ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’?

    Also, how many have read (at least four times, since Plato’s conclusions need to be reread many times to understand the totality of his (Socrates) genius, by mere mortals such as us) ‘The Republic’?

    Also, J.S Mill’s treatise ‘On Liberty” (about three times at least, to comprehend the impact of his inescapable conclusions).

    The works of Cicero (one time reading — since his views are apodictic) — among the many, here is a condensed sample: “The more Laws a Nation has, the less Justice (freedoms) the People will have”, “Freedom is a possession of inestimable value”, “Laws are silent in times of war”….

    Ayn Rand’s sharpness of Logic in ‘Atlas Shrugged’; Aristotle’s ‘Organon’ (not his other writings, since they are flights of fancy); the complete works of the benign Marcus Aurelius; Hume, Berkley and Locke (the three empiricists!); Petronius’ ‘Satyricon’ (incomplete — since only a partial manuscript was saved (missing the ending), ridiculing “alternative life styles”); and a whole lot more….

    If you are one of the 7 Americans that have read all these Original Works (and comprehended their meaning) — then you know why our Nation is about to END as a FREE REPUBLIC.

    If not, no worries — soon these original works will be burned (banned) — so you won’t have to worry about reading all this stuff….LOL!

    • “The more Laws a Nation has, the less Justice (freedoms) the People will have”,

      Already in quote marks, thanks Surfisher, now I forgot what I was going to post………………….

      Oh Yeah, We didn’t have very many laws on the books when them witches got “justice” in Salem a few years back.

  21. @4therepublic

    Strong, socially conservative families are very important. Issues pertaining to moral standards should be linked directly to over regulation coupled with the Governments relentless and costly efforts to scare the people into war for the sake of security. Systematically leading us nice and calmly into no prayer in schools, children running wild with no sense of respect or discipline because our Government has ruled you are unfit to discipline your child correctly, inflation has driven mothers into the workforce and out of the home, Children aren’t allowed to pray to their God because the school is Government funded, but a Government funded baby from the mother to the father all the way up to the doctor visits, the food mother eats, and the beer daddy drinks is Government (public) funded. Social programs are the cause of most abortions in this country. When the Government pays for your house, food, water, health, and doesn’t allow your parents or school staff to discipline you the reality of life fades. Liberty should be upheld through smaller Government, and the right to be let alone. Liberals/Conservatives shouldn’t be an issue. We all love freedom. Vote common sense!

    • @ThePatriotSon:

      I agree with what you have said–your comments are right on. I will vote common sense, by voting for the Republican nominee that runs in November.

      • I agree with what you have said–your comments are right on. I will use common sense, by moving up my vacation and buying a ticket out of the country until the dust settles.

    • (Liberty should be upheld )

      Yeah but the blame game is kind of fun if it were not so expensive.

  22. FYI —

    All ‘anti-establishment’ posters — LOL — Beware!

    Yesterday met up with a college friend, by chance, who 30 years later turned out to be Lawyer (not much of a recommendation, but he also happens to be involved in Constitutional Law). Showing him these posts here he commented:

    Under current laws/ regulations/codes most postings against BO (the Government and it’s Lawfully approved parameters) can be deemed as “Seditious” (“hate speech”) thus punishable if someone in the Government decides to single anyone out, and thus prosecute them (he stated that ALL posts (on ALL sites) are read and filed on RECORD by the CIA (and many of the new Alphabet Orgs) — for ‘possible action’…whatever “nasty” that means…LOL).

    He also stated that if one tries to turn them into “harmless” jokes — most likely one cannot be prosecuted (the chances of Winning Your Case would be proportional to the “mildness of the joke”… you can only be cited for lack of Political Correctness (poor choice in wording your joke)…a minor fee and a possible no jail sentence more that 30 days)! LOL

    His recommendation to avoid our current Government’s Freedom of Speech persecution, and a possible following prosecution, is:

    Whatever you post that disagrees with current Dogma, make it an OBVIOUS joke (emoticons such as a smiley face 🙂 are least desirable — may mean your are “bearing” your teeth, thus displaying a “threat”). Your best bet is stating: LOL in each paragraph, and ending with a LOL (‘Laughing Out Loud’ denotes you are attempting to joke only….).

    LOL

    p.s. and just to make sure — LOL on all my posts (past, current and future), and another LOL (just in case)….

    • Guess Dr Josef Mengele might be the next surgeon general if things keep going in the direction they are going

    • Surfisher

      I’m familiar with some of the books/authors you mentioned. Wasn’t it Marcus that wrote something like ‘what we do in the present echoes throughout all time/ripples through the ages’?

      Anyway…

      Yes, the anti-establishment propaganda BS Bill/Act/Code (NOT Law) came out a few months ago. Can’t say anything bad about fascist dictator puppets when they’re in Office (they are NEVER in ‘Power’) as fascist dictator puppets, by their nature, get a tad peeved if you ‘call them names’ lol or point out that they are in fact fascist dictator puppets. Sad little children stomping their feet and bawling. Not that ‘I’ would EVER say anything against the smelly guy with BO! LOL Nor would ‘I’ ever say anything about Aliens… especially illegal ones, posing as ‘naturals’ to gain citizenship.

      No… not ‘I’. Never. Uh..urr. Nope. Well… LOL EL OH EL

      Question… Is it racist or anti-American, or anti-governmental, to call a black guy a corporate-bankster lap-dog? Or is it more a case for the Animal Welfare people? Just wondering.

      Anyway… lol

      The CIA, FBI, DEA, DHS, SWAT, IRS, TSA and all the rest of the Alphabet gang are NOT parts of a Federal Government and have NO Legal Jurisdiction outside of the ten square mile District of Columbia. Just remember that when they call your name for the FEMA camp. FEMA! Another one! LOL EL-OH-EL

      Can anyone else remember a time when speech was… free? When people could talk about anything without fear that they’d be set-upon by bankster-gangster-Muppets? When you could read a book in a library about anything without fear of being turned over to fascists by the librarian for ‘reading in a public place’?

      1984 was a Warning NOT a Manual!!! Too late!

      They’ve already banned it from the Kindle electronic book pad!

      Can’t hide the truth when it’s in plain sight!

    • Surfisher

      “All ‘anti-establishment’ posters — LOL — Beware!

      Yesterday met up with a college friend, by chance, who 30 years later turned out to be Lawyer (not much of a recommendation, but he also happens”………….

      Hmmmmmm……Sounds like Tex2’s “strategy” LOL…………though I don’t know why he would need to LOL

      I despise the term LOL however, I suppose I will be adding it to my post’s just for CMA insurance. LOL

  23. Report this… 803 Delegates left… Most will be awarded by a percentage of the vote…. This is not exact but that would mean that Romney needs to win all 19 remaining States with 62% of the vote… He has already proven that he cannot win a majority in the Republican Primary with Gingrich, Santorum and Paul in the race. Even in Virginia where it was Romney vs Paul, Romney only won 60% of the vote. If Gingrich and Santorum where in it would have been much less. I say Romney is a weak front runner and the odds of him winning are against him. There will be a brokered convention and they will all start over!!!

    • (I say Romney is a weak front runner and the odds of him winning are against him.)

      Concerning the general against Obama…………I’ll drink to that but with his money, he should be able to pull off the GOP nomination.

  24. I voted for Santorum in the primary down here in Florida. However, I will definitely vote for Romney in the fall since he is likely to be the nominee. We cannot afford 4 more years of Obama. His presidency has been a disaster. The debt is currently at 16 trillion and will continue to go higher. Socialized medicine, higher taxes, and let’s not forget his recent comment about “flexibility” to the Russian president. It’s scary to even think about Obama getting re-elected.

    • What makes you think Romney would be better than Obama? He brought nothing into Ma as governor and squeezed even more money out of the taxpayers to support his big government in the form of fees.

      • Billy: OF COURSE Willard will be “better than Obama”–one third of the time.

        One-third of the time, Willard will be worse than Obama.

        And one-third of the time, he will BE Obama.

        • Goethe Behr —

          But that would mean adding the 3 parts will equal the same….

          LOL — good one!

        • (One-third of the time, Willard will be worse than Obama.)

          Like when he starts a war with Iran.

    • The Mitt can do for the country what he did for Ma when he was governor there.

      Hike up fees, aka taxes, more regulations, and more then Obama, The Mitt will add another 100,000 to the government payroll. Right folks, he can take this country down at even a faster pace than Obama. If you hate America, you will love Romney

      • Billy Malone

        Don’t forget how Romney will appoint all those Wall Street Bankers to those Government Positions which oversee the Economy. With Banker Bail-outs, Economic Stimulus and Money Printing to Infinity which seems to be America’s Future – all those Wall Street Bankers must be paid back for bankrolling Mitt’s Campaign. Maybe Mitt can appoint Jamie Dimon as FED Chairman and Lloyd Blankfein as the Treasury Secretary. That will work!

    • Darryl

      Romney could walk down a NY street in casual clothing and not get stopped by the Police for an illegal ‘stop and search’ for drugs.

      That’s it; the only difference I can see.

      Oh, Romney wouldn’t have to pull-out a ‘white’ relative to prove he’s not totally of one nationality. What ever Obama’s nationality is! Does anyone know where he’s from or what nationality Obama is?

      • And with that anyone can become the president of the USA. No record to defend, not even from where you came.

  25. It’s Amazing, isn’t it? Republicans will “Rah! Rah!” behind Mitt Romney thinking that he will change how the game is played. If Romney is elected President, the Debt Ceiling “debates” will just switch sides. The National Debt won’t change course – it will continue to Increase TRILLIONS of Dollars more. I wonder what the “magic number” will be when the American People finally “Wake-Up” and realize that the Republicans and the Democrats are the SAME Monster with 2 Heads.

    • (when the American People finally “Wake-Up”)

      About the same time the Greek people did but America gets no do-overs, no 2nd chances, no safety net. You get it right this time around or we go full martial law.

    • Darryl

      But what is a Dollar?

      70 years ago one ounce of Gold could be exchanged for $35
      Now it would take about $1,700 to get that ounce.

      Money itself was once described along the lines of , ‘The means to exchange goods and services but retains no intrinsic value of it’s own.’

      It costs the US Treasury 6.2 dollars to print a $100 note.
      The US Gov’t asks the Private Fed Res for money who then instructs the Treasury to print money who then sends it to the Fed Res who then sends it to the US Gov’t, at interest, and then pays $6.2 per $100 note to the Treasury for the ‘money’, who then pays the Fed Res lump sums of debt+interest for the money on behalf of the US Gov’t for the loan of Us Treasury money to the US Gov’t via the Fed Res and then the tax payers get lumbered with the bill for the loan of their own money being loaned to their government, at interest, by a private bank, without the tax payer seeing any of that money being used to benefit them at all, but most of which doesn’t even leave the Fed Res bank’s account paperwork.

      In short, the US Gov’t makes the US Treasury print paper money to give to the Fed Res just for the luxury of existing and the tax payers pay the Fed Res money for holding their money and charging them interest on top.

      How bizarre is that?

      No wonder the USD is worthless and people are going hungry outside foodstores.

  26. Can anyone tell me if there has been any media confirmation that Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands, Maine and Iowa, yet?

    Or are we all just waiting for the delegates to amass at the eleventh hour and put Obomney in his place?

    Constitution versus Presstitution!

  27. Glenn Beck on FDR’s New Deal Agencies and Obama’s New Healthcare Agencies.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l42aCY1BBeI

    Glenn Beck reviews FDR’s agencies created under the New Deal and then lists the agencies created under Obama. He preludes this by referring to how FDR and Obama both talked about how they were for the small business owner, when in fact, they actually only cared/care about BIG Business and BIG Government. Even “Whackjob” Newt Gingrich just LOVES “Socialist” FDR.

    If the TRUTH be told about the Government Policies during the Great Depression of the 1930’s – History is definitely repeating itself now – BUT THIS TIME IT WILL BE MUCH WORSE!

    Ron Paul says “In order to Understand HOW to Solve the Problems, we have to Understand HOW we got there “FIRST”.

    The ONLY “Common Denominators” are the FED’s Monetary Policy, the Wall Street Banker’s GREED and “Corrupt” Government Politicians working in Concert with each other. Like Ron Paul says It’s Time to END THE FED!

    • But what if you are on the receiving end?? Would you want it to change? The filthy rich that are getting richer than they already are certainly don’t want it to change and the filthy poor that are getting their food shelter, clothing, medical care, even pet care all for nothing certainly don’t want it to change. So that leaves the guys in the middle who are paying for all this as the only guys who wants change but they are just too stupid to see the forest through the trees.

      • There’s only one true way to show everyone who has the power in the US of Tyranny. To stock-pile a few weeks of food and ALL STAY OFF WORK FOR A WEEK.

        The country would grind to a halt if the slave worker drones don’t do their allotted slave duties for a whole week.

        Won’t matter how many soldiers or police puppets their are or how many guns they’ve got, they won’t have enough ‘power’ to force an entire nation to ‘get back to work!’

        Or have you already forgotten the adage…

        ‘When the government fears the people, you have Liberty.’?

        This is why they are worried that people, en masse, will stock-pile food, water and ammo. To which they can now be deemed ‘potential terrorists’.

        Land of the Free? Home of the Brave?

        Whatever happened to that country? Was it just a myth, like Atlantis? Was Paul just a pot-smoking Alien? Was Justice just a miss-spelling of Just Us; the cry of the Power Elite?

        What if you’re lying on your death-bed, thinking back up your life, the things you did, the things you didn’t do, the things you should have done but chickened out, at the world you left behind for your children and grandchildren, and some insensitive swine asks you, “Was it worth it?”

        Makes you wonder what kind of person you were compared to the person you’d wished you had been. I wonder what your answer would be.

        Vote Ron Paul and have fewer regrets.

        • Do you really think we can change things by electing different elites? Especially when the elites depend upon fellow elites for campaign money in the first place, and to put into action virtually anything? Do you think that is reformable? I don’t.

    • Windisea — all Real Americans must see his blog!
      Thanks for posting it.

      Here is food for thought:

      “For Ron Paul a brokered convention will give his message and his movement credibility and new numbers. A brokered convention will attract more international press than any other political event in our lifetime. And the people of many countries see Ron Paul as the only sane American public figure. His anti-war, mind your own business – message resonates with many around the world who see the USA as a lawless bully, out of control. Except for some among the West European media, whose executives look to the Federal Reserve as their own personal piggybank, many international journalists descending on Tampa will be an echo chamber that will shame their American media colleagues into a new appreciation of Ron Paul.

      Consider, all three candidates favor auditing the Federal Reserve and making our monetary system transparent and honest. Not Romney. But a brokered convention might just loosen the Goldman Sachs stranglehold on Romney and America. Thus a vote for any of the three will help.”

      Once I read all — will let you know about Tex2….LOL

    • Windisea —

      Further on:

      “Well, you say, I disagree with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

      Keep in mind. 53% of Americans now want to end the war in Afghanistan. Only 25% want to keep going. Ron Paul’s foreign policy as well as his philosophy on the war on drugs, is all subordinate to his belief in the American Constitution. Which means you would not only have to elect Ron Paul as president, you would have to replace most of the entire Senate and House of Representatives to change our foreign policy. Ron Paul, himself, points this out, saying “I’m not running for dictator, I am just stating my views on some of these issues. Congress would have to agree.”

      You don’t have to worry about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. A vote for a Ron Paul delegate in some state convention won’t end foreign aid to Pakistan, as we Ron Paul folks advocate, but it might help create a brokered convention that will help all three candidates, including Santorum and Gingrich.

      A brokered convention will be a sober warning to Mitt Romney and the establishment GOP insiders. The corruption must end. Their little piggy bank at the Federal Reserve must be transparent and accountable. The destruction of the middle class must stop. Free markets must return.”

    • Windisea — just read Tex2 posts….

      A sciolist that posts sophism in a rude manner. I’ll deal with the little hooligan later, rest assured!

      LOL

      • Windisea — hope you enjoy this (just posted it).

        @tex2 — after reading your posts.

        Conclusions:

        1) Your constant LOLs display hysteria (the incessant laughter of the weak minded when faced with a subject that confounds them).

        2) A Sciolist — you surface-only ‘knowledge’ forces you to resort to sophism (weak ones that even Protagoras would be ashamed).

        3) An internet Hooligan — insulting others by name-calling (when you are unable to make a syllogism…which is nearly all of the time).

        But, keep posting — your antics are a welcomed relief (as a Court Jester’s valueless entertainment is).

    • Windisea

      Yes. I’ve read about 20 or so of Tex2’s post on Doug’s Blog. I’d respond to his posts but it’s Easter and I’m doing some last minute baking and cooking.

      All I can say from what I read is that he sounds like a hardcore Neo-Con. Neo-Cons aren’t that difficult to debate if you stick to challenging their core beliefs. They like to get “personal” concerning Ron Paul, but just avoid that as much as possible. Tex2 claims he’s a “seasoned blogger”, but he’s actually a “parrot” for the Neo-Conservative Establishment. Lots and Lots of “what-if’s” concerning RP’s Policies – but he has no reference point because our Foreign Policy has been ruled by the Neo-Con’s since WW2. It’s all about the Status Quo.

      • Darryl

        Thanks for the tip, The debate class I took was far too many years ago to be of any use to me now and I recognize my limits.

        • Windisea — you don’t debate a troll, you put it in it’s place (as the bottom feeder of the internet). Best reaction is to ignore ALL trolls (removes the food they crave that keeps them alive to post more, and more).

          Se the below I just posted to one that wastes time debating this clown:

          @tex3 —
          Why are you giving further internet ‘life’ by responding to this Court Jester?

          A troll such as the #2 is most likely a 300+lb, 30+ year-old, pimply “teenager” that lives in Mum’s basement. It’s only life consists of non-stop net postings, with short breaks crawling up the stairs to raid mom’s refrigerator.

          Why are you responding to your lesser #2 — you only give it the nourishment it needs to live on the internet. Cut it off — never directly respond to a troll (but once, putting it in its place) — with no-one responding to it’s trolling, it will be reduced to talking to itself (the function of a Court Jester…and that’s all this #2 is).

      • Darryl — you’ll “debate” it?

        One debates his peers — not one’s inferiors (such trolls are one-time instructed, and then forever ignored).

        Post your excellent observations — but do not respond to it when it replies. Just start another post ridiculing its mental defects (and never respond when it replies…always start a post YOU INITIATE…never respond to one it does)!

          • Darryl — ah, wasteful the energy of the young….

            But “debating” them only gives them the nourishment they crave to keep on posting — ridiculing them INDIRECTLY cuts them to pieces!

          • (Surfisher It’s just fun to debate the Trolls. )

            That’s all these blogs are, fun. My GF uses the computer to play games on, what a wast but so long as she has time for me, no problem.

        • Surfisher

          Young? LOL. I “WISH” I was young again.

          I see you’re taking on the Troll (the #2) again. Stick to the RP Message and challenge him on his Neo-Conservatism with EVERY Post. He’s “lost” when it comes to responding to that. Even Obama is a Neo-Conservative. That DRIVES him CRAZY! LOL. There are other Videos that back that up.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJfmTdp10PA

    • I’ve been saying that for months.

      The candidates have been like the Keystone Cops. . .Ummm, like The Monkeys for a younger reader. . .ummm, what’s a more modern example?

      Anyway, from the beginning, everybody knew that Willard was the Crown Prince, knighted by the establishment and the media. ALL the other candidates should have focused on him.

      Instead, they’ve wasted money attacking the other runners-up. Even so, Willard has had to outspend the others by ratios of 4, 8, 10, even 15 to one to keep from losing.

  28. Happy Easter to all!

    By the way, Just in case it wasn’t clear, the letter shared by Doug Wead is not authored by me, I just wanted to let you know what a coordinator from Santorum’s camp is proposing and Tex2’s obnoxious running commentary.

    I wondered if any of you skilled in debate might want to jump in. I hope to see you!

    P.S. Someone posted a link to a Disinformation Blogsite, on the same thread, claiming it is Tex2’s site, I can’t seem to find it today—I might have missed it or Tex2 demanded it be removed.

  29. Food for thought…

    200 Million American adults.. at the end of 2010 at least 45% of Americans owned guns, and this past December they set a record for number of guns sold in one month, 1.5 Million gun background checks, with the majority buying 2 or more.
    When asked why Americans are buying so many? guns, top answers were “I don’t trust the government” and “preparing for economic collapse”

    Feel the love! Yeehaw LOL

      • Surfisher

        Yeah, I’m taking your advice! LOL

        For the record, what I wrote above was a quote from someone else so I can’t confirm if it’s actually true but the guy seemed to know the industry well so I took it that he worked in it and knew what he was talking about.

        Besides, I’d take his statistics over any government’s any day. LOL

        Wouldn’t you?

        “Canned food and shotguns!” Gremlins II

        I liked the “don’t trust the government” reply as how many people around the world can honestly say they DO trust their government? Not many. I don’t trust mine but that’s probably because I am aware of some of the unscrupulous things they have and do get up to. No lol after that one. That was no joke, unless you count it a joke on us ordinary people.

        Anyway… back to regular scheduled programming… el-oh-el Ha

      • Billy Malone — you forgot to secure your ‘innocence’ of this scary post by LOLing….

        LOL

        • (scary post by LOLing…. LOL)

          Good insurance but I’ll be heading out of the country right after the election as the system tends to punish the dissenters after they secure power. Then more votes to be tallied the easier it is for fraud. LOL (just in case I’m wrong)

          • Billy Malone —

            They’ll get you even if in Costa Rica (where most old folks like you go) 🙂

            • You got that right but name changes are easy in countries like Haiti . They will even give you a death certificate and you are on your way until you use an ATM for money.

  30. Sorry I’ve been away for awhile boys and girls. When one finds work in this economy one has to take it.
    And I was so right about the cascading attacks on anyone not supporting whole-heartedly all of Ron Pauls ideas. And the videos: some of them are so fake it is rude!
    But I do like the fact that some of you guys actually read (if not understand) the bible. Sadly, it only plays a part in establishing one as being so much more knowledgeable than everyone else and therefore right.
    I am amused by the assertion that I am sometimes vague. I don’t think I’m vague. I just don’t think it is my responsibility to teach people what they don’t want to learn. Brings to mind the pearls before swine verse. You look it up.
    I have stated that I agree with most of Ron Paul’s positions but not all and boy did I take a beating. The immortal, magnificent, illustrious, divine doctor is never to be taken at less than 100% correct. Then I was pushed for examples. Why? so I could be taken apart one word at a time tag team style.
    At first I thought it was accidental. Then I observed the same thing happening to supporters of anyone but Ron Paul.
    Then I noticed that Ron Paul has not filed challenges where his followers say voter fraud happened. In fact I noticed that Ron Paul is not running a campaign to win at all. I mentioned these things and was shot down like a heritic.
    I for one don’t agree that all regulation is bad. I don’t agree that poor people coming over from a third world nation to feed their families is an invading army and I don’t think a republican president – no matter who he is will be able to leave things the way they are. The democrats themselves see the problems with obamacare. But they won’t fight against a democratic president on the matter.
    @Billy is right when he says socialism is ok when there is enough money to pay for it. Problem is the money is finite and government was never meant to care for all the ills of society. So regulate the banks and greedy usurpers of freedom if you can. Outlaw slavery, child labor and embezzlement. Support our friends abroad. Not attack our enemies. Walk that fine line that would have prevented world war II. Stay out of internal politics of other nations that may or may not be friendly to us.
    Don’t make us pay for things that are against our morals. Don’t make someone else pay for things that we believe to be moral but they don’t.
    (By they way that means I support charities that support my view of abortion vs adoption and the government stays out of it. If you support abortion set up your own charity and let them pay for it. But all of this means nothing if we have four more years of Obama because he WILL push his policies while a republican president will have to listen to the republican majority.
    And while I don’t agree with Mitt on most of his views I will support him if and when he wins the nomination. Hate him all you want. He is playing by the rules and the rules will probably take him to victory in the general. Unless the Ron Paul disruptors and birds of prey manage to disrupt the whole election and divide the republican party worse than it is now.
    OK. have fun now boys and girls. I’ll catch up on the next post.

    • GoodOlBoy

      You see, GoodOlBoy? This is a MAJOR Issue/Concern when it comes to many of the detractors of Ron Paul. YOU displayed it PERFECTLY. You can sit there, behind your computer screen and CRITICIZE Ron Paul and his Supporters by treating them like “Boys and Girls”, when we are all Adults. It just shows (turns off) Ron Paul Supporters that you think that we “don’t get it”. Well – we DO get it.

      We are REALISTIC and PRAGMATIC when it comes to Regulations, and I believe Ron Paul is as well. YOU, sit there and “agree” with Ron Paul on MANY of the Issues he says and that we support – and that’s commendable. However, where is YOUR Criticisms of the other Candidates Positions? Where is the Contrast between the other 3 GOP Candidates and the GOP Establishment vs. Obama and the Democrat Establishment? The reason you don’t is because there really is NONE. It’s ALL the “Status-Quo” and you know it! Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate who “contrasts” well AGAINST these Establishments which have “decimated” our Economy and Way-of-Life. And you know that, too. But yet, you STILL WON’T admit that Ron Paul is the only candidate which deserves your vote. With you, it’s “nit-picky” THIS and “nit-picky” THAT concerning Ron Paul – while the other Candidates, Obama and the “Establishments” get off practically Scott-Free.

      You can Criticize Ron Paul and his supporters till the Cows-Come-Home because of our “Ron Paul and ONLY Ron Paul” Stance, but at the end of the day – when whichever “Establishment” manipulates and wins the Election – we Ron Paul Supporters KNOW that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of any “substance” will CHANGE. And I think, deep-down, YOU know that, too.

      We CAN’T and WON’T support Mitt Romney! He is the SAME as Obama!

      • GoodOlBoy

        Just a couple of “Examples” just from YOUR Post…

        So regulate the banks and greedy usurpers of freedom if you can.

        We elected the Tea Party Candidates for this in 2010. They FAILED Miserably. They didn’t Investigate, Arrest, Prosecute and Jail the Wall Street Bankers for the FRAUD they committed against the American Taxpayer. Instead, they got a Bail-Out from the Taxpayer when the Taxpayer vehemently opposed it. But Romney SUPPORTED it. Hmmm. Romney’s largest Campaign Contributors are the Wall Street Bankers. Hmmm. I wonder why? Now that many of the Tea Party Members in Congress are supporting Mitt Romney, the only conclusion is that the Tea Party has be co-opted by the Republican “Establishment”. Things didn’t change.

        Usurpers of Freedom you say? The NDAA was passed by BOTH the Republicans and Democrats and is supported by Romney. First it was SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and now the “Usurpers of Freedom” are pushing CISPA to censor Free Speech on the Internet. Obamacare will be repealed the same way Roe vs. Wade was repealed. Ha! The Welfare State will continue until we can’t BORROW anymore money. Then Austerity will take-over and the People will RISE UP, only to be quashed by the NDAA Legislation passed by the “Usurpers of Freedom”.

        Outlaw slavery, child labor and embezzlement.

        Does this “Slavery” include the Slavery that the Central Banks are enslaving the People of the World? The FED is monetizing the Nation’s Debt and “pumping” $100 BILLION a MONTH into the Economy so the Government can pay it’s Bills. QE3 is right around the corner. When will it all end? Ron Paul wants to audit the FED to find out what’s going on. Romney says he won’t “waste time” going after the FED. Hmmm. I wonder why?

        Child Labor? Does that include shutting down Lemonade Stands? Must be. Embezzlement? Ha! That’s a good one. Perhaps if the Politicians “investigated” Wall Street and the “Corrupt” Politicians who are bankrolled by them, we’d find Embezzlement our the Ying-Yang. But that won’t happen so long as the “Establishments” are in control.

        • (NDAA Legislation)

          At least our elected officials have vision. Must have a few former boy scouts in the pack.

          (be prepared)

          I think the citizens are getting prepared as well as evidenced by the sharp rise in gun sales. Could the place look like Syria down the road apiece ? Status quo, stay the course?
          I don’t think so.

  31. Billy & Surfisher

    It all sounds a little too much like 1984 to be believable.

    Perpetual war and perpetual fear of… war, other people, neighbours, food shortages, contaminated water/air/food/thoughts etc. etc. etc.

    “Stop the madness! Think of the children!” LOL

    The quickest way to gain enemies is to be one.

    End the fear and put down your gun.
    End the hate and say hello to people.
    End the war by not joining the armed forces.
    End the Fed and realise YOU are what’s of value!

    Moving on… LOL

  32. Well, Santorum’s officially out (or suspended his campaign). Romney is on his way to the GOP nomination!

    • Rep

      Yip! Just heard that too. About time he ditched. I knew he would and I knew he’d blame it on his daughter being ill. It’s a ‘convenient’ story.

      The truth of it is a little less pleasant.

      But anyway, he’s out (of the closet..erm.. I mean, race LOL) and NOW we’ll see if the MSM know that they have THREE candidates left in. Or not. They’ve probably got the same incentive not to show too much of Ron Paul and his exuberant crowds as Santorum has for dropping out. I wonder if you get that?

      Anyway… back to the studio… LOL

  33. NEWS FLASH

    Newt Gingrich says that CNN
    has been more “fair and balanced”
    than Fox–which has made a conscious
    effort to promote the candidacy of Romney.

  34. Your nothern neighbour here… just skimming through and saw a bunch of things I wanted to point out:

    – Fraud.
    Anyone that says there is no fraud in american elections… you need to SERIOUSLY reevaluate where you get your information. Fraud doesn’t get reported in the news. It is done behind closed doors.

    – Beat Obama
    The whole mentallity, ‘we need to elect someone to beat Obama’ is the worst way to get anything accomplished. Maybe if the republicans elected strong leaders, not just popular ones, you could beat obama. You should be electing people that you actually think are in it to fix america, and not jsut fix the election to beat obama.

    I would write more, but that is more then enough to start my afternoon.

    • (and not just fix the election to beat Obama.)

      When it comes to fixing elections, no one beats the Chicago boys. The machine lives.

        • Egg?

          Isn’t that one ingredient of Eggs Benedict? CHeck with the chef.

          Yep. Can’t beat ’em. I can hear him now, “Just had some cheesy eggs. Delicious.”

          • LMAO

            You guys are nuts! LOL

            Romney’s beating the war drums but hasn’t got the right tune. Too used to beating his own chest, monkey boy that he is. LOL

  35. Ha!Ha! I love the comments on this blog. These people sound almost as intelligent as Obama. These are some real thinkers. Kind of a scary prospect to see that so many yahoos are out there.

  36. OMG I’ve created a monster! LOL

    Hope it doesn’t run against Romney… he’d be egg-static! LMAO

    Hope it runs into him instead. He’d be egg-sterminated! LMAO!

    Oh no… my monster’s a Dalek! LOL

    • Darryl:

      Interesting idea. People should direct their representatives to have a lively discussion about whether to renew the Fed’s charter. What an opportunity.

      But I was also interested in the first part of the video. I have always felt that the giants, like facebook and google are a much greater threat to our personal privacy and liberty. Facebook is going to have a billion members soon, and they KNOW EVERYTHING. Am I the only one who is really creeped out by that? Who needs a “world government” if Facebook can control an ever-increasing amount of your life? And they are both the mouthpiece and the controller of corporations. As if the multinationals were not scary enough, this is a whole umbrella that seems to be tying all the corporations and every individual together.

      You can’t even contact many corporations without going through facebook. And you are not allowed to post on many blogs unless you first submit yourself to facebook. I’m not sure where it’s headed, but it sure doesn’t feel right.

  37. Interesting idea. People should direct their representatives to have a lively discussion about whether to renew the Fed’s charter. What an opportunity.

    But I was also interested in the first part of the video. I have always felt that the giants, like facebook and google are a much greater threat to our personal privacy and liberty. Facebook is going to have a billion members soon, and they KNOW EVERYTHING. Am I the only one who is really creeped out by that? Who needs a “world government” if Facebook can control an ever-increasing amount of your life? And they are both the mouthpiece and the controller of corporations. As if the multinationals were not scary enough, this is a whole umbrella that seems to be tying all the corporations and every individual together.

    You can’t even contact many corporations without going through facebook. And you are not allowed to post on many blogs unless you first submit yourself to facebook. I’m not sure where it’s headed, but it sure doesn’t feel right.

    • @ joe: Good points. I’ve never particularly been a fan of public broadcasting one’s personal life. I see Facebook and other social networks (and all electronic mediums) as personal tracking devices which can potentially give the gov’t too much information. I’m also opposed to electronic healthcare tracking for the same reason. You just don’t really have any control over where your info will end up and for what purpose it may be used against you. There’s an interesting DVD called “Shadow Government” which is enough to creep anyone out.

      • 4th:

        Did you notice that Joe had just repeated what I had said immediately before him?

        I mean, you and I agree on something. Don’t want that to go by unnoticed.

  38. I too agree that we agree on some points but must point out that we must disagree on some other points.

    Just saying. LOL

  39. “Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson could pull as much as 6% of the vote in a hypothetical three-way match-up with Mitt Romney and President Obama. Johnson began the 2012 race running for the Republican nomination but has wound up carrying the libertarian banner and could gain ballot access in several states.”

    If the above transpires, it is a certainty that Mitt will not defeat BO (with his flip-flopping, he couldn’t defeat him anyway, now this would assure it).

    So he needs to withdraw now in favor of Ron Paul!

    Ron Paul WILL become President in 2012 — IF, Romney becomes a Patriot, and forgoes his ego, for the Good of the People!

    Mitt Romney could become one of the greatest Statesmen in US History! He’d be the Savior of our Nation — the one that generations to come would tell their children: “Look at this statue, this is Mitt Romney, he saved America”!

    Or, he can reduce himself to just a tiny footnote…what is amazing is that his fate rests in his own hands (a very rare occurrence throughout the history of the world)!

    All Romney has to do, is to take advantage of this rarest of historical moments, and make a SINGLE DECISION!!!

    Withdraw his candidacy IN FAVOR of Ron Paul, with the following grandiose and heart-wrenching patriotic speech (to save his political skin):

    “I, Mitt Romney, will sacrifice my political goals for the Good of the People. Now I understand that only Ron Paul that can save our Nation. I agree with all he stands for, therefore, I have deemed that our Nation’s salvation can only be accomplished when Ron Paul is elected as President of the United States of America. Without regret, but with joy, I do the most honorable and patriotic deed I can — I withdraw myself from this election, and give my full support to Ron Paul!”

    One honest person is needed to bring these logical conclusions to Romney’s PERSONAL ATTENTION (not the myopic sycophants surrounding him and stroking his ego by chanting wishful thinking as ‘fact’: “You gonna win Boss, you gonna win Boss….).

    Regardless how egotistical, arrogant and narcissistic Romney may be, some semblance of reasoning of what’s best for him, should still remain in his skull. The instinct for self preservation dictates that even the smallest of minds will chose the path that leads to safety, not the one leading to disaster.

    An honest realist needs to talk to Romney one-on-one — and explain the following to him, so Mitt can comprehend it:

    1) If you don’t win the nomination, than your political career is over (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as a failure).

    2) If you win the nomination, and don’t defeat Obama — which is the most probable outcome (you’ll become just a tiny footnote in US History as an even LARGER failure).

    Therefore, Dear Mitt, whichever gamble you take from the above, may lead to total disaster for your political career (and probably will)!

    However, here is an action you can take, Dear Mitt, that guarantees you’ll become immortalized in the annals of US History — becoming the 21st Century Savior of America (surely this carrot of success will entice Romney’s egotism to go for it — over the probable political beatings he’d receive otherwise)!

    All one needs to do, to assure Mitt’s Historical Greatness of Sacrifice for the Good of the Nation, is to present the above to Romney’s eyes alone! I urge all able to do so, to place this document in front of him!

    Send this to Mitt Romney — as an Open Letter, e-mails, etc. — the more you send, the greater the chance he’ll get to read it!

    • BO is a shoo-in if Mitt is elected to run against him.

      So, concentrate to have Rmoney withdraw from the election in favor of Ron Paul.

      At this stage only Ron Paul can defeat BO — and no-one else!

  40. Hate to break the news to you people but republicans will not win this election. And i also hate to say this because i am a Ron Paul fan, but he will not be elected either. Mitt Romney is republicans only hope and i hate to say this also because his polices are very similar to Obama’s. His healthcare plan is basically the same thing. Mitt has also done the most flip flopping thru out this election. The problem with our country is that the government has to much power and has their hands in everything. the purpose of the government is to take care of problems that effects THE ENTIRE COUNTRY AS ONE. The States officials should demand more power from our federal government instead of continuing to allow it to control everything.I’m tired of seeing us act like the president has all this power when in reality he shouldn’t.

  41. Neither the Federal Government nor the President have any real power in the USA. They are bought and owned by big business and banksters. No-one is going to be Elected as they have already Selected their puppet to fail against Obomber.

    The joke is on the people. Not just the American people but all of us who now stand facing the wrong end of an American gun barrel for daring to say we are free, have rights and refuse to have a chipped ID card or a RFID chip implant.

    It’s all over. We’re just witnessing Rome fall, all over again.

    See you guys in the FEMA camp. Hope the TV has more than just re-runs of Friends and Star Trek. LOL

    • Meeman

      Nah. We’ll be forced to watch FOX News in the FEMA Camps as Hannity and O’Reilly try to convince us that if we LOVE and OBEY our Captors, that this isn’t really Stockholm Syndrome. In fact, it’s Patriotic and you’ll be hailed as a “Great American”.

  42. ive been at Romney’s speech. they give out home made signs to create an illusion of a real sport. then they take them away ones it’s over with. the system is rigged Romney is most disliked candidate and yet they keep telling us he won all these counties. voter fraud is a serious issue

Comments are closed.