Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

To me, First Ladies are off limits unless they keep themselves in the public eye. Obama has earned every criticism thrown his way.

Serious question- do those of you on the left really like the way America is heading overall under this President? Simple yes or no.

Left or right... what issue....religious or financial... or what? Some want to put everyone in a certain box.

---Mrs. Roosevelt, Lady Bird, Jackie Kennedy, Mrs Ford, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton and even Laura Bush were far from keeping quiet and out of the public eye... No Child Left Behind exists partially because of Laura Bush who had worked in public schools prior to being married.... Some were nearly invisible..Pat Nixon, Bess Truman, and Mammie Eisenhower and Barbara Bush usually but not all the time....but not most.... The very personal attacks on Obama's wife are inappropiate including weight and so much more. Those days of nearly invisible First Ladies are pretty over with womens rights and mass media existing now.... You might argue Hillary might have been fair game somewhat [ lawyer and very, very vocal ] but not the rest.

Note GM reported RECORD profits today... this is heading the right direction. Doubt any of the candidates mention that one... they delight in pointing to any problems America is having..

[Coffee and TV]

I'm just amazed by the amount of people on this thread that now apparently believe birth control is a right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

It's not a right. It's a benefit that your employer SHOULD have the right to decide whether or not to offer. Don't like it? Get another job.

I'm sure if it were Muslims protesting instead of Catholics you'd be just as on board with this whole crusade as you are now. Surely...

[FirefightnRick]

Ohio GOP Primary: Santorum 42%, Romney 24

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/2012_ohio_republican_primary

Rick

[DeepGreen]

Left or right... what issue....religious or financial... or what? Some want to put everyone in a certain box.

---Mrs. Roosevelt, Lady Bird, Jackie Kennedy, Mrs Ford, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton and even Laura Bush were far from keeping quiet and out of the public eye... No Child Left Behind exists partially because of Laura Bush who had worked in public schools prior to being married.... Some were nearly invisible..Pat Nixon, Bess Truman, and Mammie Eisenhower and Barbara Bush usually but not all the time....but not most.... The very personal attacks on Obama's wife are inappropiate including weight and so much more. Those days of nearly invisible First Ladies are pretty over with womens rights and mass media existing now.... You might argue Hillary might have been fair game somewhat [ lawyer and very, very vocal ] but not the rest.

Note GM reported RECORD profits today... this is heading the right direction. Doubt any of the candidates mention that one... they delight in pointing to any problems America is having..

Nice when you have the American Taxpayer forking over the bailout money for a company to stay in business and now the Unions own 1/3 of the company. And the bondholders got stiffed! Oh, and no, I didn't agree with any of the Bush bailout money either.

ScreamingEagle66, what say you? Serious question- do those of you on the left really like the way America is heading overall under this President? Simple yes or no.

Edited February 16, 2012 by DeepGreen

[Mean Green 93-98]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

I'm sure if it were Muslims protesting instead of Catholics you'd be just as on board with this whole crusade as you are now. Surely...

I'm pretty sure his point pertained to INSURANCE- or GOVERNMENT-PROVIDED birth control.

[Coffee and TV]

Nice when you have the American Taxpayer forking over the bailout money for a company to stay in business and now the Unions own 1/3 of the company. And the bondholders got stiffed! Oh, and no, I didn't agree with any of the Bush bailout money either.

I guess you were cool with the probability of 30% unemployment then. I wasn't, and I'm glad Bernanke/Bush/Paulson/Obama all stepped in and straightened that crap out. Now if only they'd put through tougher regulation to keep it from happening again.

[KRAM1]

I guess you were cool with the probability of 30% unemployment then. I wasn't, and I'm glad Bernanke/Bush/Paulson/Obama all stepped in and straightened that crap out. Now if only they'd put through tougher regulation to keep it from happening again.

Oh, great, more government regulations...just what the left loves so much. No way government regulations guarantee this sort of thing can never happen again, but while you are at it, how about a government regulation that taxpayer dollars can never again be used to bail out private and semi-private entities? Now, there's a new government regulation I could probably get behind...you can't run it well, it goes broke...sorry...you either had a bad product, a non-competitive product r terrible customer service...see ya...you don't get saved on the back of the taxpayer dollar to then turn around and compete with those who didn't get a bailout and made it through hard work, superior management, great products, etc., etc.

How does that idea work for the left? Government regulation, right? And while you are at it...pass the balanced budget amendment and sign off on the fact that Congress should live under each and every law and regulation that the rest of us have to do....now, there's some more government regulations we should all support...write your congressman and senator.....How about one more...all congressman, senators, presidents and federal judges have to actually have at least read the US Constitution BEFORE they can run for office at any level....or in the case of federal judges be appointed to the bench. Seems to me that we should all be able to agree on these government regulations.....

[UNT90]

http://en.wikipedia...._v._Connecticut

I'm sure if it were Muslims protesting instead of Catholics you'd be just as on board with this whole crusade as you are now. Surely...

Yep, even if it was Satanist.

Funny how hypocritical you are, wanting Church out of state, but state squarely in the middle of church.

Edited February 16, 2012 by UNT90

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

To me, First Ladies are off limits unless they keep themselves in the public eye. Obama has earned every criticism thrown his way.

Serious question- do those of you on the left really like the way America is heading overall under this President? Simple yes or no.

Yes...I like having a President in one party and at least one chamber of Congress controlled by another.

Edited February 16, 2012 by BeanCounterGrad'03

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Nice when you have the American Taxpayer forking over the bailout money for a company to stay in business and now the Unions own 1/3 of the company. And the bondholders got stiffed! Oh, and no, I didn't agree with any of the Bush bailout money either.

ScreamingEagle66, what say you? Serious question- do those of you on the left really like the way America is heading overall under this President? Simple yes or no.

HELL NO.... But when did the debt start getting out of control...2001.. and doubled in 8 years.

This President did not mess up the national debt or screw up the economy in 2008. It is just still screwed up because Congress will do nothing..

--Real FINANCIAL-LIBERALS such as you seem to support what happened after 2001 that doubled our debt and think that was just fine. CONSERVATIVES such as I am hate debt and dislike what happened since Clinton left..office...Some here claim he was liberal....NUTS.... the debt increased less than 2% a year in his administration. When did the debt get out of control...starting 2001 and never curbed....who controled the White House and Congress during that period...the people you say was conservative but weren't.

If I claim to be the King of France.... does that make it true???? Well some of your guys say FINANCIAL conservatives then screw up the debt.. Know what you really believe..!! and what conservative is.... not spending far more than you take in which has not happened since 2000.

I am so conservative I think women ought to be able their own decision at least early-on as did Goldwater and both First Ladies named Bush. You Left-wingers think government should make that decison..

Gingrich seems to consider King Soloman as his hero and is a fine religious man... 700 wives... 1st Kings 11:3 A true modern age conservative and man of the Bible ...

Edited February 16, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Coffee and TV]

Yep, even if it was Satinist.

Funny how hypocritical you are, wanting Church out of state, but state squarely in the middle of church.

Screaming Eagle already explained what they're doing 'in the middle of church'. You dance with the devil, you better be willing to pay the price. You conservatives understand that, you just need something else to get your panties in a wad about since the economy is improving.

Go ahead and nominated Santorum, let's go ahead and have a culture war that you guys so badly desire. You'll discover quickly enough that the country isn't as right-wing as you wish it was.

And while we're on the subject, why not concern about Santorum's view on contraception? Are you not worried that he could/would appoint judges to overturn Griswold vs Connecticut? I mean, just look at some of his comments on contraception.

http://abcnews.go.co...-women-in-2006/

http://www.huffingto...ml?ref=politics

http://www.theatlant...special/253104/

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative.

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it--and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong--but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher.I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

What about the $$ guy behind Santorum's SuperPAC?

http://www.reuters.c...175227720120216

Edited February 16, 2012 by Coffee and TV

[UNT90]

Screaming Eagle already explained what they're doing 'in the middle of church'. You dance with the devil, you better be willing to pay the price. You conservatives understand that, you just need something else to get your panties in a wad about since the economy is improving.

Go ahead and nominated Santorum, let's go ahead and have a culture war that you guys so badly desire. You'll discover quickly enough that the country isn't as right-wing as you wish it was.

And while we're on the subject, why not concern about Santorum's view on contraception? Are you not worried that he could/would appoint judges to overturn Griswold vs Connecticut? I mean, just look at some of his comments on contraception.

http://abcnews.go.co...-women-in-2006/

http://www.huffingto...ml?ref=politics

http://www.theatlant...special/253104/

What about the $$ guy behind Santorum's SuperPAC?

http://www.reuters.c...175227720120216

Lots of words, little sense. Not surprising.

You want to argue what the state may do (a candidate that hasn't even won his party's nomination), but ignore what the federal government IS doing in forcing it's views on a church.

Why do you believe that it is the most egregious crime when you perceive even a hint of church involvement with government, yet you go out of your way to justify Government dictating what a church can and cannot do?

That, my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy.

Something you haven't, and can't, answer.

Edited February 16, 2012 by UNT90

[Coffee and TV]

Lots of words, little sense. Not surprising.

Way to prove you're above all that "liberal headstrong namecalling" BS you just posted in the last page.

You want to argue what the state may do (a candidate that hasn't even won his party's nomination), but ignore what the federal government IS doing in forcing it's views on a church.

You're confusing forcing views upon with not giving special privileged to.

Why do you believe that it is the most egregious crime when you perceive even a hint of church involvement with government,

Who said I did? I believe god is not mentioned in the Constitution (it isn't), and that religion doesn't have a place in public policy decisions.

That, my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy.

Something you haven't, and can't, answer.

No, I'm quite consistent. I don't want yours, nor anyone else's religious beliefs interfering with the law of the land. You are conflating the two as some sort of government interference when it is not.

[mattmartin817]

Oh, great, more government regulations...just what the left loves so much. No way government regulations guarantee this sort of thing can never happen again, but while you are at it, how about a government regulation that taxpayer dollars can never again be used to bail out private and semi-private entities? Now, there's a new government regulation I could probably get behind...you can't run it well, it goes broke...sorry...you either had a bad product, a non-competitive product r terrible customer service...see ya...you don't get saved on the back of the taxpayer dollar to then turn around and compete with those who didn't get a bailout and made it through hard work, superior management, great products, etc., etc.

How does that idea work for the left? Government regulation, right? And while you are at it...pass the balanced budget amendment and sign off on the fact that Congress should live under each and every law and regulation that the rest of us have to do....now, there's some more government regulations we should all support...write your congressman and senator.....How about one more...all congressman, senators, presidents and federal judges have to actually have at least read the US Constitution BEFORE they can run for office at any level....or in the case of federal judges be appointed to the bench. Seems to me that we should all be able to agree on these government regulations.....

So we should just let the giant banks that got us into this mess do whatever they want and drag the economy down again? Don't regulate them? Explain how that is a good idea, when very recent history CLEARLY says otherwise.

[DeepGreen]

The Iraq and Afganistan wars were pretty instrumental in creating the debt problem. Should we have just sat back after 3,000+ Americans were slaughtered? You can debate the wars all you want, but like it are not, Dems and Rep. agreed on fighting back.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The Iraq and Afganistan wars were pretty instrumental in creating the debt problem. Should we have just sat back after 3,000+ Americans were slaughtered? You can debate the wars all you want, but like it are not, Dems and Rep. agreed on fighting back.

How many involved in 9-11 were from Iraq or had ever lived there? ..........none..

Congress was told by the administration that Iraq had a nuke program ........ Which it didn't...

The info was supplied by "curveball", who was from Iraq and lived in Germany. The Germans even said he was lying.

Don't claim Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Even Bush said it didn't....later.

Afghanistan.. no problem ... maybe just how long. In all other war-time situations, the government raised taxes some to pay for it... not this time.. they were cut.

Edited February 17, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

Way to prove you're above all that "liberal headstrong namecalling" BS you just posted in the last page.

You're confusing forcing views upon with not giving special privileged to.

Who said I did? I believe god is not mentioned in the Constitution (it isn't), and that religion doesn't have a place in public policy decisions.

No, I'm quite consistent. I don't want yours, nor anyone else's religious beliefs interfering with the law of the land. You are conflating the two as some sort of government interference when it is not.

1) facts aren't "namecalling."

2) So if a new government policy on insurance interferes with a long held Church belief, the Church should just go along with the government? Like I said, if no one fought this, pretty soon the Catholic Church would be paying for abortions, but you would be OK with that, right? I am very glad this happened, as it is a great example to the Supreme Court how this monstrosity of socialist medicine plan allows the government to severly overstep it's constitutional powers. It greatly increases the chance of the Supremes tossing the whole thing.

3) and 4) - Directly contradict each other. But, really, no surprise there.

[Coffee and TV]

2) So if a new government policy on insurance interferes with a long held Church belief, the Church should just go along with the government?

Mormons practiced polygamy in the late 1800's when they petitioned for annexation. The US wouldn't allow them into union until they outlawed polygamy.

Many native American tribes used peyote in religious ceremonies until the US government stepped in and said they couldn't.

Its happened in history, and this was already law in 28 states. Where was the outrage then?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Yep, even if it was Satanist.

Funny how hypocritical you are, wanting Church out of state, but state squarely in the middle of church.

--A hospital is not a church....even if they administer it.... every hospital takes federal money in the form of medicare and other ways.... That gives them the right to have "some" voice" in what is going on... Plus a hospital serves the general public and not just its members.

---I agree with you that the government has NO voice in what is going on at a church as long as it is not violating laws such as abusing kids or defrauding people.

--- Schools ... not a church ...but.. maybe or maybe not....is it taking government money in any way? If not...no voice .... if so... they get some control.

---People absolutely have a choice to attend or not attend a private denominational school.... hospitals maybe not.. sometimes there are no other options available..... they are pretty much public items even if they have a religion's name in the Hospital name.. The church doesn't even get close to providing the entire financial support of a hospital, it is not religious donations but the public (fees) and taxpayers (medicare for example) that do.

---Accidentally ran across this yesterday while reading a "Eyewitness guide of Greece"(p.19)... It has the 2ed lowest birth rate in Europe....behind Italy.....which is where the Pope is and highly Catholic. ...... Wow.... either that hot blooded Italian lover image is really false ( it isn't, been there**, they constantly hit on women) or they are using a whole lot of birth control and not obeying the Pope.

..

** my wife sponsors student trips there and we constantly run those guys off.

Edited February 17, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Green Mean]

The Iraq and Afganistan wars were pretty instrumental in creating the debt problem. Should we have just sat back after 3,000+ Americans were slaughtered? You can debate the wars all you want, but like it are not, Dems and Rep. agreed on fighting back.

I don't believe anybody had an issue with going into Afghanistan. It was Iraq that was the real controversy.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I don't believe anybody had an issue with going into Afghanistan. It was Iraq that was the real controversy.

But it is true that both sides of the aisle were in favor of going into Iraq.

[Coffee and TV]

I don't believe anybody had an issue with going into Afghanistan. It was Iraq that was the real controversy.

I had a big problem with the fact that we've been there for 11 years. Longer than Vietnam at this point. I understand the geo-political absurdities that came with invading Afghanistan, but why are we still babysitting them after all this time? Al-Qaeda has been dismantled for years now, the Taliban is willing to negotiate a peace process, and we're still paying for this war through borrowing.

[KRAM1]

I had a big problem with the fact that we've been there for 11 years. Longer than Vietnam at this point. I understand the geo-political absurdities that came with invading Afghanistan, but why are we still babysitting them after all this time? Al-Qaeda has been dismantled for years now, the Taliban is willing to negotiate a peace process, and we're still paying for this war through borrowing.

Really, ask Syria, Iran, Malaysia, Somalia, etc., etc. about how "dismantled" Al-Qaeda is....

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Mormons practiced polygamy in the late 1800's when they petitioned for annexation. The US wouldn't allow them into union until they outlawed polygamy.

Many native American tribes used peyote in religious ceremonies until the US government stepped in and said they couldn't.

Its happened in history, and this was already law in 28 states. Where was the outrage then?

Peyote: § 1307.31. The C.F.R. part dealing with "SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS" states:

Section 1307.31 Native American Church. The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law.

---not illegal if used in legit religious ceremony .. other use is.

Polygamy: Legally in US there is only ONE wife... rest I suppose now are just household residents with no legal standing [ might not inherit anything or even collect any retirement or SS benefits of his ]. The real problem with El Dorado was mostly the age of the others... way under 18 (minors) and that involves illegal acts.. It would be official polygomy if more than one marriage license was obtained..... but they didn't.. just more female roommates... hahaha... the government doesn't check on the sleeping arrangements.

..

Edited February 17, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[DeepGreen]

But it is true that both sides of the aisle were in favor of going into Iraq.

That's all I was saying. The decision was made based on the intelligence we had at the time.