First time visitor? Learn more.

The Real Issue With The President’s Contraception Kerfuffle

by Flyovercountry ( 157 Comments › )
Filed under Uncategorized at February 13th, 2012 - 3:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.

The above sentence is the Tenth Amendment to our Constitution. Besides being another piece of the Bill of Rights completely ignored by the ACLU, Liberals in general will like to pretend that its meaning can not be divined. That somehow, this one simple sentence is so mysterious in meaning, that it must simply be ignored. So, as a public service, I’ll give it a try. What I see when I read that is a statement that the Federal Government, be it represented by the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, does not have the authority to grant itself powers not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. What the founding fathers feared most, was a central government growing in size and scope beyond the control of the governed. This Amendment which is one of the 10 which the individual states demanded be put into place before ratifying this new law for our new nation, is for that purpose alone. It was a statement to the behemoth of today, if we did not specifically write that power or authority into the document in the first place, you do not have it. You can only do what we have specifically gave permission for you to do.

What perplexes me is how anyone can speak of Barack Obama as being some kind of Constitutional Scholar. He is all over Youtube grousing about how the Constitution really missed the boat by not granting the Federal Government authority to do more to enforce social and economic justice. In order to make that leap, one has to skip over this particular amendment. so that we are all clear about what the Bill of Rights represents, and the importance of all 10 of these Amendments, the Constitution would never have been ratified without any one of them. For you liberals, that includes the Second and the Tenth.

Recently, President Obama announced that a provision of the Obamacare Law granted him authority to force health care providers, regardless of their religious affiliation or not, to provide for contraceptive and/or pregnancy termination services. A very warranted public outcry ensued. President Obama has for his entire legislative and Political Executive life been waging an undeclared war against any religion other than Islam. Before people start screaming that Barack Obama is not a secret Muslim or what ever other cries of indignation anyone may wish to throw my way, the record of Barack Obama is crystal clear. Islam is exempt from this sour little man’s wrath, while Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism are not. We heard everyone discussing the clear violation of the First Amendment which was taking place, and sure enough, the President magnanimously decided that the hospitals run by the single largest provider of Health Care in America, Catholic Charities, would not have to pay for abortions and contraceptives after all. They must still provide them of course, but Barack Obama has found a way to accommodate the accountants by issuing an edict. As of now, insurance companies will have to pay for everything. So, here we are two days later, and I am happy to say that not many people have been fooled by this clear attempt to deflect from the truth. There is another point however, that even we conservatives have missed.

I must say something here as an aside. My conservatism does not stem from religious convictions. That is to say, I am not a social conservative. I am a free marketeer. My argument here is not about the, “free choice versus right to life,” debate per say. While I believe that the First Amendment is extremely important to the health of out society, I can see that the argument of religious morals often finds its way beyond this boundary. That is to say, I can see the difference between a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy of her own volition, and forcing other taxpayers to pay for it. I can also see a clear distinction between a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy of her own volition, and forcing an unwilling physician to perform the procedure. In those instances, free choice is removed from one group entirely.

What has gone unnoticed in this entire debate is the fact that the Obamacare law spits on the Tenth Amendment. Put another way, has anyone else in America noticed how the President has just declared that it is his decision to make which services physicians would perform whether or not they wished to do so, and who is going to pay for it? I guess this is what happens when we pass a law without reading it first, but then again, I refuse to believe that Barack Obama did not have any idea that this monstrosity would grant him dictatorial powers to edict that doctors would perform according to his wishes and that the costs would be covered by whomever he so chooses. This is about far more than abortions, this is about the Executive Branch being constrained by the consent of the governed. If he can say an act must be performed, than he will also have the authority prohibit actions as well. Where does anybody realistically see this stopping? Even if you believe the current President to be the benevolent Messianic figure the non Fox Media has assured us he is, what about the President who will be in office 20 years from now? Does that President deserve the unbridled dictatorial powers, sight unseen? Remember that George W. Bush, someone half of you hated before Barack Obama won the job was also a President of the United States.

One word to the Social Conservatives. I appreciate hearing your voice, and agree with you far more than I disagree. While this issue will never be at the top of my importance list, and I will never agree with teaching intelligent design as science in a school where my children attend, there is far more to this entire thing than what is being discussed, and it is a real shame that the bigger picture is not a part of the debate. This President has made it his mission to grab as much power for the Executive Branch as is possible. He has trashed our Constitution in the process, while eschewing the very limited actual duties of a President, as proscribed by the Constitution. As an example, defending our citizens against all enemies both foreign and domestic. (Just ask the good people of Arizona who have been warned by our President to stay clear of their own desert lest they find themselves victim to the drug cartels who have invaded there.) While we were all arguing over whether or not people should be getting abortions or wearing condoms, he has very slyly gotten us all to accept his ultimate authority on demanding who pay for those abortions which care providers will now be forced to perform.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

157 Responses to “The Real Issue With The President’s Contraception Kerfuffle”
( jump to bottom )

  1. taxfreekiller
    1 | February 13, 2012 3:12 pm

    Good Post:

    Do not be distracted.

    There is only one real issue.

    Vote out any and all Democrats possible.

    Top of the list B. Obama.

    Eye on the prize.


  2. Bumr50
    2 | February 13, 2012 3:15 pm

    Barack Obama – a Marxist/MSM collaboration.

    Remember when no one understood why ABC asked about contraception at the NH Republican debate?

    His speech at Annandale this morning sounded like a flat out communist screed.

    He’s already dangerously emboldened.


  3. 3 | February 13, 2012 3:23 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    He started his term dangerously emboldened, and has seen nothing that convinces him he is not a god since. He will be doubly dangerous if he wins re-election. There really will be nothing that can be done to stop him.


  4. Bumr50
    4 | February 13, 2012 3:36 pm

    What perplexes me is how anyone can speak of Barack Obama as being some kind of Constitutional Scholar.

    As a “constitutional scholar,” he knows enough that the American electorate in general doesn’t know jack sh*t about the constitution, so he can say whatever he wants.

    Teams of Leftist “experts” will contort themselves into intellectual pretzels to justify anything as being “within the framework.”


  5. 5 | February 13, 2012 3:43 pm

    Обама doesn’t just Spit on the Constitution of The United States. He also Pisses and Shits on it.


  6. Da_Beerfreak
    6 | February 13, 2012 4:02 pm

    This thread is a good place to throw up this link to a free on-line course from Hillsdale College.

    Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the U.S. Constitution

    For the Folks here that wonder what an on-line college class is like here is a chance to find out for free.

    The classes start next Monday Feb. 20 and run for ten weeks. Preregistration at the link is required. Go check it out, you have nothing to lose in giving it a shot. :grin:


  7. 7 | February 13, 2012 4:21 pm

    Obama sees this as a win-win. He picked a fight with the Catholic Church, which is despised by large parts of American society. It takes Economic/Fiscal issues off the table.

    From his calculation its a win. This shows the evil maniacal nature of the Left. They pick fights for a reason.


  8. huckfunn
    8 | February 13, 2012 4:21 pm

    Another unconstitutional ruling from an Obama judicial appointee:
    Obama judicial appointee says we have the right to keep arms, but not to bear them

    That’s not a typo. Rather, it’s an unbelievable decision recently delivered by U.S. Judge Sue Myerscough, in a challenge which the Second Amendment Foundation filed against Illinois’s ongoing prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in that state. Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”

    Direct quote from the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


  9. 9 | February 13, 2012 4:22 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    He started his term dangerously emboldened, and has seen nothing that convinces him he is not a god since. He will be doubly dangerous if he wins re-election. There really will be nothing that can be done to stop him.

    When you have no opposition, you get emboldened. Obama really has no opposition. He is our Sun King. He believes he is the State.


  10. mfhorn
    10 | February 13, 2012 4:25 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    That ruling would almost be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. And scary.


  11. Lily
    11 | February 13, 2012 4:39 pm

    While we were all arguing over whether or not people should be getting abortions or wearing condoms, he has very slyly gotten us all to accept his ultimate authority on demanding who pay for those abortions which care providers will now be forced to perform.

    He is not going to back down from this in one bit. The Catholic Church is not going to back down. bho is waging war against our Constitution…….and the media is sticking their fingers in their ears going “la,la,la la ” I refuse to hear you.

    Has there ever been a time in American history that a sitting president attacks religion???


  12. 12 | February 13, 2012 4:48 pm

    @ Lily:

    Has there ever been a time in American history that a sitting president attacks religion???

    Nope. When you don’t have a strong opposition, tyranny rules. Plus the Catholic Church has been demonized by the Left and some on the Right for decades. So many Americans are condition to support any action against the Catholic Church.


  13. huckfunn
    13 | February 13, 2012 4:52 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ huckfunn:

    That ruling would almost be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. And scary.

    The left can take any issue or any word and simply twist or change the definition to suit their statist goals. Here’s an example. George Will is discussing the abortion/contraception mandate with George Snuffeluffagus and Donna Brazziel. Brazzeil says that Republicans are at war with “womens health”. The libs have now equated “womens health” with abortion. How bass-ackwards could that possibly be? What could be more extreme, more unnatural and more unhealthy than ripping a living unborn fetus from its mothers womb? Great video: George Will On Contraception Flap: “This Is What Liberalism Looks Like”


  14. Bumr50
    14 | February 13, 2012 4:54 pm

    Justice Breyer robbed by machete-wielding intruder at West Indies vacation home

    Wealth redistribution! Ain’t it great!

    Too bad he wasn’t carrying…


  15. buzzsawmonkey
    15 | February 13, 2012 4:54 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Has there ever been a time in American history that a sitting president attacks religion???

    Probably back in the early days of Mormonism.

    And for that matter, Catholicism was roundly hated and feared by the overwhelmingly Protestant population of America in the middle of the 19th century. Indeed, popular distrust of his Catholicism was largely responsible for Al Smith losing his Presidential bid, and there was still some anti-Catholic agitation against John F. Kennedy when he ran for President.


  16. citizen_q
    16 | February 13, 2012 5:00 pm

    Lily wrote:

    and the media is sticking their fingers in their ears going “la,la,la la ” I refuse to hear you.

    I believe the media in large part is complicit. They aren’t trying to ignore unpleasant facts, the are pointedly acting as propagandists to further the cause.


  17. buzzsawmonkey
    17 | February 13, 2012 5:02 pm

    My conservatism does not stem from religious convictions. That is to say, I am not a social conservative. I am a free marketeer. My argument here is not about the, “free choice versus right to life,” debate per say.

    “Social conservatism” need not be religiously based. For example, one can oppose same-sex marriage on the simple non-religious grounds that “same-sex marriage” is the invention of a new social convention, not “extension of a right”—and that it is a bad idea to create new social conventions out of whole cloth. Futhermore, it is a bad idea to create a new social convention without an open and honest discussion—about, for example, how the “gay-rights” movement was founded on the desire to destroy marriage entirely, yet now nothing will do but that gays be let into it. There’s a disturbing disconnect there, which has never been discussed. Likewise, one can oppose abortion on the basis of the recognition that debasing the value of childbearing takes a sledgehammer to the very foundations of society.

    I point this out only to stress that it is just as wrong to equate “social conservatism” with “religion” (though they do often go hand in hand) as it is to equate “women’s health” with “abortion” or to equate same-sex marriage with the abolition of racial miscegenation laws.


  18. 18 | February 13, 2012 5:09 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    Has there ever been a time in American history that a sitting president attacks religion???
    Probably back in the early days of Mormonism.
    And for that matter, Catholicism was roundly hated and feared by the overwhelmingly Protestant population of America in the middle of the 19th century. Indeed, popular distrust of his Catholicism was largely responsible for Al Smith losing his Presidential bid, and there was still some anti-Catholic agitation against John F. Kennedy when he ran for President.

    But it is still OK to attack Mormonism, ya know. Just ask folks right here.


  19. buzzsawmonkey
    19 | February 13, 2012 5:11 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    But it is still OK to attack Mormonism, ya know. Just ask folks right here.

    Whatever may be said here will—trust me—be drowned out by the media if the Extruded Plastic Android in the Checked Shirt succeeds in his quest for the nomination.


  20. 20 | February 13, 2012 5:14 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    But it is still OK to attack Mormonism, ya know. Just ask folks right here.
    Whatever may be said here will—trust me—be drowned out by the media if the Extruded Plastic Android in the Checked Shirt succeeds in his quest for the nomination.

    As opposed to the philandering serial polygamist without a conscious? Or the open borders senator with bald tires?


  21. Lily
    21 | February 13, 2012 5:15 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Lily:

    Has there ever been a time in American history that a sitting president attacks religion???

    Nope. When you don’t have a strong opposition, tyranny rules. Plus the Catholic Church has been demonized by the Left and some on the Right for decades. So many Americans are condition to support any action against the Catholic Church.

    There doesn’t seem to be much opposition to what bho is doing is there? I remember the full on hate for Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term…in fact most of the sitting presidents caught flak at one time or another…..there seems to be a dictate somewhere ‘no trash talking bho’. You see it here or there on the web…but not in the newspapers or TV. It just seems so unreal.


  22. coldwarrior
    22 | February 13, 2012 5:15 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    But it is still OK to attack Mormonism, ya know. Just ask folks right here.

    and so have protestants, both main line and not, catholics, jews, muslims, atheists, orthodox, etc.


  23. coldwarrior
    23 | February 13, 2012 5:18 pm

    @ Lily:

    our leadership is practicing the ‘soft racism of low expectations’ with bho. he’s black, so they are afraid to criticize him.

    if he were pres o’leary and white, he would have been hung out to dry by now


  24. buzzsawmonkey
    24 | February 13, 2012 5:19 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    As opposed to the philandering serial polygamist without a conscious? Or the open borders senator with bald tires?

    I prefer Gingrichard the Loin-Heated to Plastic Man because I think that he is more electable than Plastic Man. I don’t have to approve of Gingrich’s personal life to think he’d be a better President; I’m not electing him for his amatory prowess, any more than I’m not voting for Romney because of his cruelty to his dog.


  25. Bumr50
    25 | February 13, 2012 5:22 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    Mitt could be a voodoo high priest for all I care.

    If I thought he were going to govern as a conservative, I’d readily vote for him.

    I don’t, and so I’m not.


  26. 26 | February 13, 2012 5:22 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Lily:
    Has there ever been a time in American history that a sitting president attacks religion???
    Nope. When you don’t have a strong opposition, tyranny rules. Plus the Catholic Church has been demonized by the Left and some on the Right for decades. So many Americans are condition to support any action against the Catholic Church.
    There doesn’t seem to be much opposition to what bho is doing is there? I remember the full on hate for Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term…in fact most of the sitting presidents caught flak at one time or another…..there seems to be a dictate somewhere ‘no trash talking bho’. You see it here or there on the web…but not in the newspapers or TV. It just seems so unreal.

    I know. It almost seems like we have sailed past the point of no return in our political intercourse and now it is inevitable that liberal policies are the politique de rigueur and if you are espousing otherwise then you are subject to authorized attack, hazing and ridicule. since when should a person have to be defensive of being successful? Chaste? Patriotic? Reverent of the constitution?

    How did the immorals on the left get the moral high ground? Why do we even listen to their baseless tripe?


  27. Lily
    27 | February 13, 2012 5:23 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    My conservatism does not stem from religious convictions. That is to say, I am not a social conservative. I am a free marketeer. My argument here is not about the, “free choice versus right to life,” debate per say.

    “Social conservatism” need not be religiously based. For example, one can oppose same-sex marriage on the simple non-religious grounds that “same-sex marriage” is the invention of a new social convention, not “extension of a right”—and that it is a bad idea to create new social conventions out of whole cloth. Futhermore, it is a bad idea to create a new social convention without an open and honest discussion—about, for example, how the “gay-rights” movement was founded on the desire to destroy marriage entirely, yet now nothing will do but that gays be let into it. There’s a disturbing disconnect there, which has never been discussed. Likewise, one can oppose abortion on the basis of the recognition that debasing the value of childbearing takes a sledgehammer to the very foundations of society.

    I point this out only to stress that it is just as wrong to equate “social conservatism” with “religion” (though they do often go hand in hand) as it is to equate “women’s health” with “abortion” or to equate same-sex marriage with the abolition of racial miscegenation laws.

    I agree there are a lot of things that are simply unhealthy to a nation….the tearing down of the family unit, make everything obscene okay and a part of free speech and the norm of society, degrading of the Churches…etc….seems to me that these are some of the things that the Communist Manifesto wanted to attack directly on the United States to destroy us …. so anyone saying they aren’t into social conservatism need only to look at the Communist Manifesto to see that it is important some of those issues.


  28. huckfunn
    28 | February 13, 2012 5:26 pm

    httpv://youtu.be/1q-l5zYmPv0


  29. coldwarrior
    29 | February 13, 2012 5:26 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    if romney is the nominee the press is going to do a real number on mormons. it’s gonna be horrible. far worse than anything that was said here.

    i will stand by my assertion that if glenn beck and mitt romney were not co-religionists, beck would have utterly destroyed romeny for all the left wing crap he did while governor, might of even found a soros blackboard moment for him; but the press, oh the press is going to pull out all the stops and paint the moroms in a terrible light, there will be lies and they will troop out any freak they can find to discredit mormons, thereby discrediting mitt. this is going to ugly.


  30. Lily
    30 | February 13, 2012 5:29 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    I don’t know. But it is our *right* to say something against our president if we don’t like what he is doing….Free Speech anyone?
    Just last week-end a person wrote a letter to the editor in local newspaper to say bho is the most derespected president ever!!!They also said it was because of racism. Do what? Really? I thought to myself…it is nothing compared to how Bush was attacked or Clinton or Reagan or name any other president…


  31. buzzsawmonkey
    31 | February 13, 2012 5:29 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    Absolutely correct. It’s going to be the late 19th century fearmongering redux, with the added vehemence of the implacable hatred that the gay-rights establishment has for the LDS because they opposed same-sex marriage in the Prop 8 vote—and, probably, some re-tailored hatred of the sort that the Catholics are now receiving, if there is Mormon opposition to certain Obamacare provisions.


  32. 32 | February 13, 2012 5:29 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ father_of_10:
    Mitt could be a voodoo high priest for all I care.
    If I thought he were going to govern as a conservative, I’d readily vote for him.
    I don’t, and so I’m not.

    I feel confident that Mitt will govern more conservatively than Newt or Rick. I think he has a better chance of prevailing against Barry Hussein than the others also. I think we as conservatives are making a big mistake in perpetuating this no-holds-barred primary fight that is destroying our own brand. We should be doing all we can to push the candidates to the right and force them to be more conservative. Contrary to the media’s spin, this country wants a principled conservative leader. We don’t have to pay homage to the America-haters on the left and their anti-success policies.

    I hated communists even before they started calling themselves liberals.


  33. coldwarrior
    33 | February 13, 2012 5:30 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Mitt could be a voodoo high priest for all I care.

    If I thought he were going to govern as a conservative, I’d readily vote for him.

    I don’t, and so I’m not.

    bingo


  34. RIX
    34 | February 13, 2012 5:30 pm

    I have to give the Catholic Bishops high marks
    for standing up to Obama.
    But, when he was trying to get their support for
    Health Care Reform , he assured them that he would
    not force anything on them & they bought in.
    Archbishop Dolan of New York now says, “Don’t trust
    the President, he lied to me.”
    What did they expect? Didn’t they do any research on
    what an insipid, dishonest cretin Obama is?
    The snake will always bite you too.


  35. buzzsawmonkey
    35 | February 13, 2012 5:30 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    I think he has a better chance of prevailing against Barry Hussein than the others also.

    Why?


  36. huckfunn
    36 | February 13, 2012 5:31 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    I hated communists even before they started calling themselves liberals.

    Fist bump!


  37. Lily
    37 | February 13, 2012 5:36 pm

    RIX wrote:

    I have to give the Catholic Bishops high marks
    for standing up to Obama.
    But, when he was trying to get their support for
    Health Care Reform , he assured them that he would
    not force anything on them & they bought in.
    Archbishop Dolan of New York now says, “Don’t trust
    the President, he lied to me.”
    What did they expect? Didn’t they do any research on
    what an insipid, dishonest cretin Obama is?
    The snake will always bite you too.

    He did lie to the Bishops….and now you got the Bishops were supporting it so it is the Bishops fault meme out there. Also let’s not forget this isn’t just over contraceptions either…it is also about abortions too…some how this is conviently left out!


  38. 38 | February 13, 2012 5:37 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    I think he has a better chance of prevailing against Barry Hussein than the others also.
    Why?

    Because I see him as more of an anti-Obama than the others. If they attack him on the moderate stances/liberalness of his past, then they are in effect attacking themselves. His strngth of business success cannot be matched by Santorum or Gingrich and certainly not by Obama and that scares the liberals. The economy is so bad that everyone engaged in business and working for a living, save the die-hard unionistas, is begging for an improvement in the economy and they know that Obama will not give it to them.


  39. 39 | February 13, 2012 5:38 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    The same goes for Santorum. He will be a repeat of Baby Bush.


  40. Bumr50
    40 | February 13, 2012 5:38 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    I couldn’t disagree more.

    How do you figure Romney will govern to the right?

    And why would “independents” gravitate to him, rather than simply stay home or vote for Obama?

    I think he’s a surefire miss.


  41. 41 | February 13, 2012 5:42 pm

    @ Lily:

    Nope, the opposition to Obama spitting on the Catholic Church. Even though some Conservatives are making noise about this, its nothing compared to how they reacted over Terry Schiavo or Britney Spears kissing Madonna or Janet Jackson’s breasts showing.

    Here is a case of an attack on the concept of freedom of religion, and the reacted is muted.


  42. 42 | February 13, 2012 5:42 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ father_of_10:
    I couldn’t disagree more.
    How do you figure Romney will govern to the right?
    And why would “independents” gravitate to him, rather than simply stay home or vote for Obama?
    I think he’s a surefire miss.

    He will govern to the right because that is where you go for a strong economy and a turn-around market. The independants voted for Obama because he was hip and cool and none of them were going to vote Republican after the very successful campaign against the Republican brand the left waged during the last 2 years of Bush when the liberals had the Senate and the House. Some independants may stay home, but the majority of them are going to be voting for their pocketbook this time. If the so-called Christians would get over some bigotry it will make a dent too.


  43. 43 | February 13, 2012 5:43 pm

    @ huckfunn:

    Said Myerscough, in rendering her decision: “[Although the] plaintiffs argue that the Second Amendment protects a general right to carry guns that include a right to carry operable guns in public … [the] Supreme Court has not recognized a right to bear firearms outside the home.”

    That is factualy correct.


  44. waldensianspirit
    44 | February 13, 2012 5:44 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Had you seen
    Under Siege? Spain Resists Islamic ‘Invasion’

    full circle


  45. 45 | February 13, 2012 5:45 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    Romney is not Conservative. he wants a VAT tax and supports automatic yearly increases to the minimum wage. He’s a Progressive and would be the most Leftwing republican since the 1800’s.

    Santorum is just as a Leftist as Romney on economic issues. Plus he’s in your face with his Social stances and wants raped women to accept the result of their rapes.

    Romney and Santorum represent everything I hate about today’s Republican Party.


  46. waldensianspirit
    46 | February 13, 2012 5:47 pm

    Romney won’t associate with conservatives after getting what he wants. He’ll laugh and jet off with other internationalists


  47. 47 | February 13, 2012 5:47 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Immigration from Latin America wills ave Spain. Most immigrants in Spain are Latin Americans. The New Conservative Government has low tolerance for the Muzz. SO this lash-back doesn’t shock me.


  48. 48 | February 13, 2012 5:47 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ father_of_10:
    Romney is not Conservative. he wants a VAT tax and supports automatic yearly increases to the minimum wage. He’s a Progressive and would be the most Leftwing republican since the 1800′s.
    Santorum is just as a Leftist as Romney on economic issues. Plus he’s in your face with his Social stances and wants raped women to accept the result of their rapes.
    Romney and Santorum represent everything I hate about today’s Republican Party.

    I know. So are you going to vote for ron Paul, or Obama?


  49. buzzsawmonkey
    49 | February 13, 2012 5:49 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    Because I see him as more of an anti-Obama than the others. If they attack him on the moderate stances/liberalness of his past, then they are in effect attacking themselves. His strngth of business success cannot be matched by Santorum or Gingrich and certainly not by Obama and that scares the liberals. The economy is so bad that everyone engaged in business and working for a living, save the die-hard unionistas, is begging for an improvement in the economy and they know that Obama will not give it to them.

    There is no logic whatever to what you say. Romney is not “more of an anti-Obama” than anyone; he is more of an Obama. His health plan was the model for Obama’s. He will not be attacked for it—he will be forestalled from attacking the man he has to defeat. So he’s already going into the race hobbled.

    His business experience means nothing; the US government is not a business.

    What the next President needs to do is repeal Obamacare; repeal Dodd-Frank; repeal Sarbanes-Oxley; eliminate the czars; eliminate several federal departments; downsize the rest of the federal departments by 10% at a minimum and tell them that you expect each of these departments to eliminate 10% of their budgets over and above those laid off each year you’re in office. The next President needs to study where there is overlapping function/jurisdiction in the government, and eliminate it.

    All of these things I have listed above have nothing to do with being a “businessman”; they have to do with laws and regulations, not “business.” But even if I accept what you say, that Romney’s business background would theoretically enable him to do what is necessary, and do it better, what evidence is there from Romney’s history that he would in fact do any of it? Absolutely none; for one thing, his star “accomplishment,” Romneycare, involves the creation and expansion of more bureaucracy. That’s not a track record to run on.

    Add to that that the man is stiff enough to make a cigar-store Indian look limber, that he sounds insincere at all times, that he lost to the guy who lost to Obama last time, and you have a picture of a guaranteed loser—even if he were likely to do what is necessary, which I do not believe.


  50. buzzsawmonkey
    50 | February 13, 2012 5:50 pm

    Mitt Romney is too liberal for the conservative base, too Mormon for the evangelical base—which means that he is continually running to try and persuade half of his own electoral base to vote for him.

    He is too conservative for much of the Democrat/”independent” base, and too religious for the secular base—which means that at least half of the electoral base he must pick up will not want to vote for him either.

    His rhetoric is dreary and uninspiring, and at his most at-ease he radiates stiffness and discomfort. He also managed to lose, last time around, to the guy who lost to the guy he’s going to have to beat.

    Tell me, somebody—anybody—why this man is deemed “electable.”


  51. 51 | February 13, 2012 5:51 pm

    I think Romney at least can be worked with on the conservative agenda. Obviously Obama can’t. If you still think that Gingrish or Santorum have a shot, then support them all you can, but try to NOT damage any conservative’s chance of defeating Obama! That’s my whole point.


  52. 52 | February 13, 2012 5:51 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    I’ve already signed up.


  53. RIX
    53 | February 13, 2012 5:52 pm

    @ Lily:

    He did lie to the Bishops….and now you got the Bishops were supporting it so it is the Bishops fault meme out there. Also let’s not forget this isn’t just over contraceptions either…it is also about abortions too…some how this is conviently left out

    Yes he did lie to them, because that’s what Obama does.
    I just wish that the Bishops would have viewed him the
    way that he is viewed around here.
    ObamaCare is now the law & maybe they could have helped
    to defeat it.
    But that was then & this is now & I am proud of them for
    standing up, especially out parish priest.
    The arguement has to be framed as an attack on the
    Church not about conraception.


  54. 54 | February 13, 2012 5:52 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    I will reluctantly vote for either Romney or Santorum. But I will oppose their Progressive agendas.

    Its clear the Republican Part is not small government Conservatism.


  55. Bumr50
    55 | February 13, 2012 5:53 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    but try to NOT damage any conservative’s chance of defeating Obama

    Forgive my cynicism, but that’s pretty rich coming from a Romney supporter.


  56. 56 | February 13, 2012 5:53 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    I feel confident that Mitt will govern more conservatively than Newt or Rick.

    Well he certainly did no such thing as the governor of Taxachuestts. Oh, and don’t give me that crap about how I don’t like Mitt because he’s a Mormon, my Mom and Dad and brothers and sisters are all Mormons.


  57. 57 | February 13, 2012 5:54 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    The picture you have is hysterical!


  58. 58 | February 13, 2012 5:56 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    Gingrich is the only of those 3 who can be called Conservative. Romney and Santorum are not Conservative.


  59. 59 | February 13, 2012 5:56 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    You don’t like Obama because he’s Black!
    ///


  60. Prebanned
    60 | February 13, 2012 5:58 pm

    @ father_of_10:
    it is settled political science!


  61. 61 | February 13, 2012 5:58 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Ramirez may be the greatest cartoonist our nation has ever produced.


  62. Da_Beerfreak
    62 | February 13, 2012 5:58 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    I’ve already signed up.

    Me 2. Looks interesting. :grin:


  63. waldensianspirit
    63 | February 13, 2012 5:59 pm

    I’d also bet under Romney we’d see the first taxes being levied by the UN


  64. 64 | February 13, 2012 5:59 pm

    Wow Bob Beckel told the Muzzies off about their killing of Christians.


  65. 65 | February 13, 2012 6:00 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Ramirez may be the greatest cartoonist our nation has ever produced.

    Its hysterical!


  66. buzzsawmonkey
    66 | February 13, 2012 6:00 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Gingrich is the only of those 3 who can be called Conservative. Romney and Santorum are not Conservative.

    I ignore these litmus/label tests. If Gingrich were to be nominated, if he were to win, and if he were to do what he outlined in his CPAC speech, he would have done a huge service to this country and we could get back to building it up.

    Romney’s speech—what I heard of it before my eyes glazed over in boredom—was mostly about “I understand what conservatism is, and I really, really am one, Scout’s Honor.” Not convincing, not inspiring, not a blueprint for action.

    A Cabbage Patch doll would be an improvement over Obama. Romney would probably be an improvement over the Cabbage Patch doll, but it’s not entirely certain.


  67. 67 | February 13, 2012 6:00 pm

    He will govern to the right because that is where you go for a strong economy and a turn-around market.

    Maybe you ought to brush up on how Mitt The Businessman ran his businesses. He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets. That is how Mitt Romney approaches business.


  68. waldensianspirit
    68 | February 13, 2012 6:00 pm

    Mark Levin supports Santorum because he believes he’d be the closest to Reagan conservatism and economic conservatism.

    Guess Levin just misses it?


  69. coldwarrior
    69 | February 13, 2012 6:01 pm

    it was a-ok for romney to get extremely negative in iowa and florida against his republican brethren, but god forbid we should damage any republican now.

    and, if romney were at least a fiscon, i would have his banner up on my front porch and would have sent him at least a couple hundred dollars and if he were really a fiscon, i would volunteer for his campaign here in PA. but he isnt. and i guess because i dont like him i somehow hate mormons.

    :roll:


  70. huckfunn
    70 | February 13, 2012 6:01 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    I’d also bet under Romney we’d see the first taxes being levied by the UN

    Check it out. WH Economic Adviser: “This Is A Democratic Budget” And “We Need A Global Minimum Tax”
    httpv://youtu.be/gO5B1378P54


  71. 71 | February 13, 2012 6:01 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    Because I see him as more of an anti-Obama than the others. If they attack him on the moderate stances/liberalness of his past, then they are in effect attacking themselves. His strngth of business success cannot be matched by Santorum or Gingrich and certainly not by Obama and that scares the liberals. The economy is so bad that everyone engaged in business and working for a living, save the die-hard unionistas, is begging for an improvement in the economy and they know that Obama will not give it to them.
    There is no logic whatever to what you say. Romney is not “more of an anti-Obama” than anyone; he is more of an Obama. His health plan was the model for Obama’s.
    No it wasn’t. that is just another liberal talking point.
    He will not be attacked for it—he will be forestalled from attacking the man he has to defeat. So he’s already going into the race hobbled.
    His business experience means nothing; the US government is not a business.
    Yeah, that’s been the problem. It has been directly competing with business. It needs to be run along the same lines as a business in regards to spending less than you take in and in being responsible.
    What the next President needs to do is repeal Obamacare; repeal Dodd-Frank; repeal Sarbanes-Oxley; eliminate the czars; eliminate several federal departments; downsize the rest of the federal departments by 10% at a minimum and tell them that you expect each of these departments to eliminate 10% of their budgets over and above those laid off each year you’re in office. The next President needs to study where there is overlapping function/jurisdiction in the government, and eliminate it.
    Have you read what Romney said he will do? Have your looked at his 59 point plan? the one that people criticize, but haven’t read? Did you remember that he promises to eliminate Obamacare immediately?
    All of these things I have listed above have nothing to do with being a “businessman”; they have to do with laws and regulations, not “business.” But even if I accept what you say, that Romney’s business background would theoretically enable him to do what is necessary, and do it better, what evidence is there from Romney’s history that he would in fact do any of it? Absolutely none; for one thing, his star “accomplishment,” Romneycare,
    Romneycare is only billed as his “star accomplishment” by his detractors. give uis a break from your rhetoric.involves the creation and expansion of more bureaucracy. That’s not a track record to run on.
    Add to that that the man is stiff enough to make a cigar-store Indian look limber, that he sounds insincere at all times, that he lost to the guy who lost to Obama last time, and you have a picture of a guaranteed loser—even if he were likely to do what is necessary, which I do not believe.

    Reagan lost to who? Reagan used to be with what party? Reagan’s original stance on abortion was what?


  72. 72 | February 13, 2012 6:03 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    He will govern to the right because that is where you go for a strong economy and a turn-around market.
    Maybe you ought to brush up on how Mitt The Businessman ran his businesses. He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets. That is how Mitt Romney approaches business.

    Took that right out of the Democrat playbook, didn’tcha?


  73. 73 | February 13, 2012 6:03 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Wow Bob Beckel told the Muzzies off about their killing of Christians.

    What? Bob must be back on his meds again then…


  74. 74 | February 13, 2012 6:04 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    it was a-ok for romney to get extremely negative in iowa and florida against his republican brethren, but god forbid we should damage any republican now.
    and, if romney were at least a fiscon, i would have his banner up on my front porch and would have sent him at least a couple hundred dollars and if he were really a fiscon, i would volunteer for his campaign here in PA. but he isnt. and i guess because i dont like him i somehow hate mormons.

    Romney is helping to destroy the brand in this regard too. I agree.


  75. waldensianspirit
    75 | February 13, 2012 6:04 pm

    @ huckfunn:
    Yea Obama would love to beat Romney at bringing global taxes upon us.


  76. buzzsawmonkey
    76 | February 13, 2012 6:04 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    Reagan lost to who? Reagan used to be with what party? Reagan’s original stance on abortion was what?

    a) I haven’t said a word about Reagan.

    b) Romney is not Reagan. On his best day, Romney might be Reagan’s shoeshine boy.


  77. 77 | February 13, 2012 6:05 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    He will govern to the right because that is where you go for a strong economy and a turn-around market.
    Maybe you ought to brush up on how Mitt The Businessman ran his businesses. He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets. That is how Mitt Romney approaches business.
    Took that right out of the Democrat playbook, didn’tcha?

    No, I took it out of Bain Capitals financial disclosures.


  78. buzzsawmonkey
    78 | February 13, 2012 6:07 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    Have your looked at his 59 point plan?

    Of course not. Have you? Quote one of the fifty-nine right now, from memory. Dare you. You can’t, can you?

    Anyone who is running for high office in nano-second attention-span America with a 59-point plan is an idiot—especially when he is so boring he can petrify birds out of the air halfway through Point Number One.


  79. 79 | February 13, 2012 6:07 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Mark Levin supports Santorum because he believes he’d be the closest to Reagan conservatism and economic conservatism.
    Guess Levin just misses it?

    Is Levin the ultimate authority on conservatism?


  80. 80 | February 13, 2012 6:07 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    He was livid. I was stunned.


  81. 81 | February 13, 2012 6:10 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Mark Levin supports Santorum because he believes he’d be the closest to Reagan conservatism and economic conservatism.
    Guess Levin just misses it?

    Levin is supporting Santorum over foreign policy. Read Santorum’s record on fiscal and economic records. There’s nothing Conservative about it. Levin lives a good life,w hat does he care about economic and fiscal matters.


  82. waldensianspirit
    82 | February 13, 2012 6:10 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    Is Levin the ultimate authority on conservatism?

    Mark Levin supports Santorum because he believes he’d be the closest to Reagan conservatism and economic conservatism.
    Guess Levin just misses it?


  83. coldwarrior
    83 | February 13, 2012 6:10 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    our bench is strong…our starting team is weak.


  84. 84 | February 13, 2012 6:10 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    He’s not.


  85. 85 | February 13, 2012 6:11 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    He didn’t read about Santorum’s Progressive economic record. Also Santorum wants a Nanny state.


  86. 86 | February 13, 2012 6:12 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    The losses of 06 and 08 are catching up to us.


  87. 87 | February 13, 2012 6:13 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    Have your looked at his 59 point plan?
    Of course not. Have you? Quote one of the fifty-nine right now, from memory. Dare you. You can’t, can you?
    Anyone who is running for high office in nano-second attention-span America with a 59-point plan is an idiot—especially when he is so boring he can petrify birds out of the air halfway through Point Number One.

    Um, yeah, I can. First is to cut corp. income tax to 25%.

    Would you like a download of the booklet?

    At least Romney have a bonafide plan . . . printed . . . on paper . . . available . . . for everyone.

    Santorum?

    Gingrich?


  88. Prebanned
    88 | February 13, 2012 6:13 pm

    My biggest beef with Romney is his negative attacks against Newt.
    He was stammering in his eagerness to put Newt down.
    My impression was that he is a complete ass of a human being.
    Newt made a bad impression on me as well.
    It did seem like the debate moderator was keeping the bad blood between candidates going while totally ignoring the fact that they are running against a monster destroying the country.
    Romney and Gingrich arguing about who owned bonds in what, idiots!
    The Media and the GOP are trying to shove Romney down our throats like they did with McCain in 2008.


  89. Bumr50
    89 | February 13, 2012 6:14 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    I said earlier, I feel like a Washington Generals fan.


  90. RIX
    90 | February 13, 2012 6:14 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ father_of_10:
    our bench is strong…our starting team is weak.

    But one of these guys will be the nominee.
    What I want more than anthing is Obama gone.
    I was on the Cain Train, but……….


  91. 91 | February 13, 2012 6:14 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    Gingrich has an economic plan.

    Santorum doesn’t care about economic issues.


  92. 92 | February 13, 2012 6:15 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets.

    This was in Bain’s financial disclosures? The financial disclosures I’ve always looked at before were far more boring!


  93. waldensianspirit
    93 | February 13, 2012 6:17 pm

    @ Prebanned:
    I would never ever work for a CEO Romney. NEVER! Can’t stand the type and I’ve seen many. He can have his Bain Capital. But why should he then be ignorantly rewarded with the Presidency?


  94. buzzsawmonkey
    94 | February 13, 2012 6:17 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    I heard Gingrich’s speech at CPAC, which I mentioned before. Sounded good to me. Is it printed? I don’t know.

    I do know that politically Romney is a loser, despite the Republican establishment having stacked the primaries to give him the best of it. I do not believe he will run to win; I do not believe that if he intends to run to win, that he knows how to run to win against Obama (he knows how to knife competition on his own side, but that’s not the same thing). And I do not believe that, if he does win, he will govern as a conservative.

    He will get my vote if he gets the nomination, and then he can prove me wrong. In the meantime, phooey on him.


  95. Bumr50
    95 | February 13, 2012 6:18 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    Link.

    Santorum wants to create just two rates — 10 percent and 28 percent — eliminating many deductions and expanding the personal exemption for children. This is in contrast to President Obama, who regularly proposes new taxes on different classes of Americans.

    Santorum would also abolish the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, adjusted downward every year by Congress, is now paid by millions of Americans, particularly those with large families in high-tax states.

    Santorum would halve the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent (the highest in the world) to 17.5 percent, and allow the cost of all business equipment to be deducted in the year of purchase. Manufacturing operations would have a corporate tax rate of zero.

    One improvement would be to eliminate the corporate tax rate altogether, so that all sectors would be treated equally, ensuring a flow of investment into, rather than out of, the United States. The new business investment would stimulate job creation, generating additional tax revenues.

    One of Santorum’s highest priorities is to repeal the new health care law, and replace it with competition and choice for health insurance, the way people easily purchase auto, home and life insurance.


  96. Prebanned
    96 | February 13, 2012 6:19 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:
    I have this awful feeling we are going to end up being Greece anyway.


  97. 97 | February 13, 2012 6:20 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets.
    This was in Bain’s financial disclosures? The financial disclosures I’ve always looked at before were far more boring!

    Maybe you ought to try reading Bain’s then.


  98. 98 | February 13, 2012 6:23 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    expanding the personal exemption for children.

    How Conservative, NOT!


  99. waldensianspirit
    99 | February 13, 2012 6:24 pm

    Prebanned wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    I have this awful feeling we are going to end up being Greece anyway.

    Well to the exasperation of many here I still predict [how do I switch this to small font] the Union of 50 States will break. Into roughly 4 regions. People aren’t taking the mess we’re in seriously enough to do what it takes to fix it.


  100. 100 | February 13, 2012 6:26 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    doriangrey wrote:
    He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets.
    This was in Bain’s financial disclosures? The financial disclosures I’ve always looked at before were far more boring!
    Maybe you ought to try reading Bain’s then.

    their financial disclosure actually say that Mitt Romney is a ruthless unethical businessman that made his money by being a corporate raider and dismantler, overloaded them with debt and then forced them into banruptcy and liquidated their assets? Could wwe get a reference on that please? No verified citation equals BULLSHIT.


  101. Bumr50
    101 | February 13, 2012 6:28 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I hope Pittsburgh ends up in the Midwest or South…

    I hate moving…


  102. 102 | February 13, 2012 6:28 pm

    Point 6
    An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
    • Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.


  103. Bumr50
    104 | February 13, 2012 6:31 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    They will end up GIVING them away, and “buying” them all themselves…


  104. 105 | February 13, 2012 6:31 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    father_of_10 wrote:
    doriangrey wrote:
    He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets.
    This was in Bain’s financial disclosures? The financial disclosures I’ve always looked at before were far more boring!
    Maybe you ought to try reading Bain’s then.
    their financial disclosure actually say that Mitt Romney is a ruthless unethical businessman that made his money by being a corporate raider and dismantler, overloaded them with debt and then forced them into banruptcy and liquidated their assets? Could wwe get a reference on that please? No verified citation equals BULLSHIT.

    I’m guessing this means you are perfectly ok with Mitt’s actions as CEO of Bain Capital. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about you then doesn’t it.


  105. buzzsawmonkey
    106 | February 13, 2012 6:32 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    Point 6
    An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
    • Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.

    That is not, repeat NOT repeal.


  106. 107 | February 13, 2012 6:33 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE


  107. waldensianspirit
    108 | February 13, 2012 6:34 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    They will end up GIVING them away, and “buying” them all themselves…

    Since we’re buying them, should they be left unlocked with the keys in the ignition so everybody can use them to get from spot A to spot B?


  108. 109 | February 13, 2012 6:34 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    The Chevy people’s car!


  109. 110 | February 13, 2012 6:35 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    Point 6
    An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
    • Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.
    That is not, repeat NOT repeal.

    He doesn’t give a damn, He’s a Mormon, Romney is a Mormon, that’s the only thing that he cares about.


  110. coldwarrior
    111 | February 13, 2012 6:35 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    their financial disclosure actually say that Mitt Romney is a ruthless unethical businessman that made his money by being a corporate raider and dismantler, overloaded them with debt and then forced them into banruptcy and liquidated their assets? Could wwe get a reference on that please? No verified citation equals BULLSHIT.

    in PA at least that’s easy, emglo.

    i’ll email the campaign commercial that obama will use against him in PA over the destruction of that company just as you described when it airs in october if romney is the nominee.

    and i dont need any links, i lived it and watched it happen first hand. i knew a lot of people who worked there both workers and management and have written about it extensively on this blog. what bain did there was based in lies, but hey, bain made a profit, once.

    lets just wait for the ad to run.


  111. 112 | February 13, 2012 6:36 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    doriangrey wrote:
    father_of_10 wrote:
    doriangrey wrote:
    He was a predatory ruthless unethical businessman who made his fortune as a corporate raider and dismantler. He took healthy businesses, overloaded them with debt, then forced them into bankruptcy and liquidated their assets.
    This was in Bain’s financial disclosures? The financial disclosures I’ve always looked at before were far more boring!
    Maybe you ought to try reading Bain’s then.
    their financial disclosure actually say that Mitt Romney is a ruthless unethical businessman that made his money by being a corporate raider and dismantler, overloaded them with debt and then forced them into banruptcy and liquidated their assets? Could wwe get a reference on that please? No verified citation equals BULLSHIT.
    I’m guessing this means you are perfectly ok with Mitt’s actions as CEO of Bain Capital. That pretty much tells me all I need to know about you then doesn’t it.

    Yes, as long as I can also surmise from your postings here that you are a liar. Sure.


  112. Bumr50
    113 | February 13, 2012 6:36 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    ZAPcars.

    LOL.


  113. buzzsawmonkey
    114 | February 13, 2012 6:38 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    The Chevy people’s car!

    Sorta makes you want to sing!


  114. 115 | February 13, 2012 6:39 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    You go right the fuck ahead and surmise any damned thing you want, I’m done with you.


  115. coldwarrior
    116 | February 13, 2012 6:39 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    Point 6
    An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
    • Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.

    why cant he just say repeal?

    how hard would that be? seriously, i am a pretty big wonk and repeal would work so much easier. this allows for all sorts of expansions and distortions at the hands of bureaucrats.


  116. waldensianspirit
    117 | February 13, 2012 6:39 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAFv7R44VBM


  117. gibsonz
    118 | February 13, 2012 6:39 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I think the added incentive is due to it`s enhanced performance of… 0 to inferno in less than two weeks after a minor crash, a vast improvement from the previous model that could take as long as a month!


  118. 119 | February 13, 2012 6:40 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:
    father_of_10 wrote:
    Point 6
    An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
    • Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.
    That is not, repeat NOT repeal.
    He doesn’t give a damn, He’s a Mormon, Romney is a Mormon, that’s the only thing that he cares about.

    Ohh, the personal attack.

    You do realize, Mr. doriangrey, that since you dropped to the level of the ad hominem attack instead of rebutting with fact and references, that you have lost the debate.

    You can revive it with a reference or citation in regards to the Bain financial statements supporting the language (close to verbatim, of course) you claimed. Are you up to it, or is it bullshit?


  119. 120 | February 13, 2012 6:41 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    father_of_10 wrote:
    Point 6
    An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare
    • Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health care solutions that work best for them.
    why cant he just say repeal?
    how hard would that be? seriously, i am a pretty big wonk and repeal would work so much easier. this allows for all sorts of expansions and distortions at the hands of bureaucrats.

    I wondered about that too. I think he is still supporting his previous platform of that it should be in the hands of the states. 10th ammendment, I believe?


  120. Lily
    121 | February 13, 2012 6:43 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:

    He did lie to the Bishops….and now you got the Bishops were supporting it so it is the Bishops fault meme out there. Also let’s not forget this isn’t just over contraceptions either…it is also about abortions too…some how this is conviently left out

    Yes he did lie to them, because that’s what Obama does.
    I just wish that the Bishops would have viewed him the
    way that he is viewed around here.
    ObamaCare is now the law & maybe they could have helped
    to defeat it.
    But that was then & this is now & I am proud of them for
    standing up, especially out parish priest.
    The arguement has to be framed as an attack on the
    Church not about conraception.

    It really is an attack on the Church. Bascially bho is saying ‘he is their god now!’ That what he says over rides the tenets of the Church!
    Really???


  121. RIX
    122 | February 13, 2012 6:44 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    They will end up GIVING them away, and “buying” them all themselves…

    The only way that those things bare eever going to
    work is with really long government supplied
    extension cords.


  122. buzzsawmonkey
    123 | February 13, 2012 6:45 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    I think he is still supporting his previous platform of that it should be in the hands of the states. 10th ammendment, I believe?

    Then he’s an idiot where law is concerned. If the feds get out of the healthcare business—and they should—it devolves by natural order upon the states. It does not need to be said because it happens automatically.

    So if indeed Romney wanted to pitch the healthcare ball back to the states (whether it even belongs there is another discussion), all he had to do was say, “REPEAL.”

    The fact that he gets too cute by half every time he tries to say something—I have never heard Romney say anything in one word where three would do—means that he is a major bullshit artist.


  123. 124 | February 13, 2012 6:45 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  124. buzzsawmonkey
    125 | February 13, 2012 6:46 pm

    RIX wrote:

    The only way that those things bare eever going to
    work is with really long government supplied
    extension cords.

    No; the new infrastructure will be to make all of America’s roads into bumper-car roads.


  125. coldwarrior
    126 | February 13, 2012 6:46 pm

    everyone settle down and stop the personal attacks please.


  126. 127 | February 13, 2012 6:46 pm

    @ RIX:

    The argument has to be framed as an attack on the
    Church not about contraception.

    Quite Concur!


  127. 128 | February 13, 2012 6:47 pm

    @ doriangrey:
    @ father_of_10:

    Hey guys tone it down a bit please. This is just a disagreement on a candidate. No need to take it to a personal level.


  128. coldwarrior
    129 | February 13, 2012 6:48 pm

    father_of_10 wrote:

    I wondered about that too. I think he is still supporting his previous platform of that it should be in the hands of the states. 10th ammendment, I believe?

    repeal it and health care reverts back to the states running the show.

    repeal, return to the status quo which was 10th amendment.

    why cant he just use the word repeal? romney has ZERO cred on healthcare anyway. repeal should be the language so as to assure us that he is serious.


  129. buzzsawmonkey
    130 | February 13, 2012 6:49 pm

    Between letting the mullahs get nukes, and his attack on the Catholic Church, maybe it will be an Iran-Contraception scandal that does Obama in.


  130. coldwarrior
    131 | February 13, 2012 6:50 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    @ father_of_10:
    Hey guys tone it down a bit please. This is just a disagreement on a candidate. No need to take it to a personal level.

    this is why i quit talking about bain.


  131. RIX
    132 | February 13, 2012 6:52 pm

    @ Lily:

    It really is an attack on the Church. Bascially bho is saying ‘he is their god now!’ That what he says over rides the tenets of the Church!
    Really???

    It is an attack on the Church, pure & simple.
    When we have intramural disputes in the Church
    that is one thing , but this is an external attack
    by a Marxist President.
    Many Liberal Catholics will defend Obama though.
    They don’t buy that Papal infaallability stuff.
    They think that Barack Hessein Obama is infallable
    though.


  132. RIX
    133 | February 13, 2012 6:55 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ RIX:
    The argument has to be framed as an attack on the
    Church not about contraception.
    Quite Concur!

    If it is about contaception Obama can demagogue
    it to death. The issue is religious freedom


  133. Lily
    134 | February 13, 2012 6:56 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    @ father_of_10:

    Hey guys tone it down a bit please. This is just a disagreement on a candidate. No need to take it to a personal level.

    Yep because in the end….if Romney is the candidate we will vote for him. Because obammma is that dangerous in the White House.


  134. 135 | February 13, 2012 6:57 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Between letting the mullahs get nukes, and his attack on the Catholic Church, maybe it will be an Iran-Contraception scandal that does Obama in.

    Ha ha ha, Good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  135. RIX
    136 | February 13, 2012 6:58 pm

    @ Lily:

    Yep because in the end….if Romney is the candidate we will vote for him. Because obammma is that dangerous in the White House

    I would vote for a ham sandwich over Obama.
    Seriously, with or without mustard.


  136. 137 | February 13, 2012 6:59 pm

    @ Lily:

    I’ll vote for Romney or Santorum over Obama. If they defeat the False Messiah, They and the GOP become my targets after November.

    But, I want the False Messiah gone first. Then they are next!


  137. coldwarrior
    138 | February 13, 2012 7:00 pm

    sad part is, a huge swath of catholics are no longer truly ‘catholic’.

    there is no way in hell a catholic can vote for a dem after the obamacare vote, now this.


  138. Lily
    139 | February 13, 2012 7:02 pm

    RIX wrote:

    @ Lily:

    It really is an attack on the Church. Bascially bho is saying ‘he is their god now!’ That what he says over rides the tenets of the Church!
    Really???

    It is an attack on the Church, pure & simple.
    When we have intramural disputes in the Church
    that is one thing , but this is an external attack
    by a Marxist President.
    Many Liberal Catholics will defend Obama though.
    They don’t buy that Papal infaallability stuff.
    They think that Barack Hessein Obama is infallable
    though.

    I don’t think they will defend obama over the Church to be honest. My mother liberal thinking as she is….will side with the Church than some man who is telling the Church what to do. Not to mention the Catholic church members have flip-flopped….one could say ‘yeah the liberal Catholic’s helped obamma into office.’ But they have flip-flopped back to being conservative. I know in my Church it is more conservative. If anything obama is soldifiying the Catholic Church and especially members of it.


  139. 140 | February 13, 2012 7:02 pm

    @ coldwarrior:

    The worship of the False Messiah is what’s important to them.


  140. mfhorn
    141 | February 13, 2012 7:02 pm

    @ Lily:

    The Republicans could nominate Satan himself & I wouldn’t vote for Obama. I certainly wouldn’t vote for Satan, but I’d write in a candidate. Herman Cain or Col. West if I wanted to be serious. A can of green beans if I didn’t.


  141. Lily
    142 | February 13, 2012 7:04 pm

    @ RIX:
    @ Rodan:

    That in the long run is what we all want…him out of D.C. out of the White House….and some want him out of the country. ;)


  142. Bumr50
    143 | February 13, 2012 7:04 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    A can of green beans if I didn’t.

    French-cut, I hope.

    //


  143. huckfunn
    144 | February 13, 2012 7:06 pm

    Heh…
    httpv://youtu.be/avLKiWi71cE


  144. Bumr50
    145 | February 13, 2012 7:06 pm

    Lily wrote:

    .and some want him out of the country.

    Oh, he’ll go eventually.

    He wants to rule humanity, and not be bothered by gun-toting, bitter Bible clingers.


  145. Lily
    146 | February 13, 2012 7:06 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ Lily:

    The Republicans could nominate Satan himself & I wouldn’t vote for Obama. I certainly wouldn’t vote for Satan, but I’d write in a candidate. Herman Cain or Col. West if I wanted to be serious. A can of green beans if I didn’t.

    Well if the Repulican’s nominate satan well must of us would write in someone else and we would still not vote for obama. I think then the ham sandwich might have a chance. ;


  146. Bumr50
    147 | February 13, 2012 7:08 pm

    @ mfhorn:

    On second thought, I’ll write in “French Fried Onions.”

    @ Lily:

    You write in “Cream Of Mushroom Soup”


  147. RIX
    148 | February 13, 2012 7:12 pm

    @ Lily:
    I am hearing priests the blast two Sundays
    blast the government (Obama) from the pulpit
    like I never thoughtb that they would.
    I wanted to applaud last Sunday.
    Alas, there are liberal Ctholics in my family
    that would open a vein for BHO. The rest though.
    loathe him.


  148. 149 | February 13, 2012 7:13 pm

    New Thread.


  149. RIX
    150 | February 13, 2012 7:14 pm

    Later Taters.


  150. Lily
    151 | February 13, 2012 7:16 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    sad part is, a huge swath of catholics are no longer truly ‘catholic’.

    there is no way in hell a catholic can vote for a dem after the obamacare vote, now this.

    I don’t know …. I see packed pews at Mass…. no there is no way a Catholic in good conscience could ever vote for him. Problem was the first time around people didn’t do their homework on him and let the TV do the vetting of him. Well now they can see with their own eyes his wrong doings….
    I firmly believe that many people will not vote for him again. People just seem to be keeping opinions of him to themselves or not talking about it. I have yet to meet anyone who thinks he is doing a good job, I hear more of how horribly divided this country has become…the thing is they just don’t mention obama’s name although it is implied.
    Although there are some who but it squarely on obama…just depends on who you talk to.


  151. Da_Beerfreak
    152 | February 13, 2012 7:22 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    Cthulhu.
    Why settle for the lesser of two evils?? :twisted:


  152. coldwarrior
    153 | February 13, 2012 7:26 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    @ Bumr50:
    Cthulhu.
    Why settle for the lesser of two evils??

    he will still eat you first.


  153. mfhorn
    154 | February 13, 2012 7:28 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Does Cthulu have cookies?


  154. Da_Beerfreak
    155 | February 13, 2012 7:29 pm

    coldwarrior wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    @ Bumr50:
    Cthulhu.
    Why settle for the lesser of two evils??

    he will still eat you first.

    Cthulhu will have to fight Fedzilla for the left-overs. If there are any… :twisted:


  155. coldwarrior
    156 | February 13, 2012 7:30 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    coldwarrior wrote:
    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    @ Bumr50:
    Cthulhu.
    Why settle for the lesser of two evils??
    he will still eat you first.

    Cthulhu will have to fight Fedzilla for the left-overs. If there are any…

    the flying spaghetti monster will save us!


  156. Da_Beerfreak
    157 | February 13, 2012 7:31 pm

    mfhorn wrote:

    @ Da_Beerfreak:
    Does Cthulu have cookies?

    No. But Cthulhu will have some major heartburn after eating me. :twisted:


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David