'Yawn'. So predictable it's hilarious. Question: Which candidate does Obama's team of grifters/hangers-on/MSNBC sycophants fear the most in the GE? Got it in one. Romney. So what is the best strategy to make sure Obama runs against someone he knows he has a better chance of defeating? That's right. Say anything to lessen Romney's chances and increase R.S.'s chances. Gee those LIBs in the Lib. elite media sure are smart.
Are you guys kidding me? Santorum won the debate? He got pummeled by everybody up there on his terrible voting record, but he now claims that he is against his own record so it is okay? You people are blind sheep and its no wonder that we continuously get politicians in Washington that just don't care! Not only did his record get vultured, but the audience started to see that he was just spouting rhetoric and booed him multiple times.
lol so you blame the item that wasnt used for the outcome? next unarmed guy that gets mugged I can blame guns? just because he has a right to them, doesnt mean he will use it.....
Unprotected sex leads to pregnancies. Didn't the lib educators tell you WHY you were learning to put condoms on the cucumbers?
so you do agree that only a retard would blame protectoin for someone not using protection otherwise im going to blame your post on logic.....
I have to agree. With what I saw and heard after the debate, it was clear the "experts" thought everyone had a great night except for Santorum. Paul was actually funny and hit some real great lines, Gingrich and Romney were also piling on. This was the worst Santorum has done since the first or second debate. He showed us how his temper gets to him, and how he flip flops also.
Someone explaining the earmark process to you in an "excuse". Its not his fault you are ignorant of how something works. So instead of learning something you you throw out "liberal" and "Paulista" Facts really seem it tick you off dont they.
Typical citing of the constitution Paulist you mean. A valid excuse, just like saying the cops shooting rob about to draw his gun is a valid excuse to kill the robber.
You mean the Romney / Paul co-ordinated attack mode? The one supported by John King? That pummeling? The one he successfully defended himself from? It was especially evident with the closing statement. Santorum is getting votes with his positions and thoughts. Romney and Paul are buying them.
It's why he abandoned the Republican party and ran as a libertarian against Reagan. He's no conservative.
No, he is a conservative, just not a neo conservative that looks to justify more spending UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. He split because Reagan was not acting the way he campaigned. He was spending heavily, and racking up the debt. Reagan justified it by saying we won the cold war, still hurt the individual though because we have to cover that spending binge. Sorry he doesn't follow your idol, the great deceiver.
Not valid. Weasling. How are you going to justify Paul running as second banana to Romney? Don't duck that question. Will you admit he's just power hungry?
the constitutiona isn't valid? Since when? It is the way money gets appropriated to be spent. When did we start discussing that? I also don't see that happening. As far as what I will admit, if he do go VP, I will be shocked really. And I will be silent till I see what policies they will promote till I pass any opinion on why he did such a thing.
Not the constitution. Paul's use of it to weasle around principle. Yeah, I don't believe that. I think you will hit the reset button in your head like any liberal.
Rick Santorum is a typical establishment republican who is anti-women, and anti-logic. No way this guy is right for the direction of our country. The only candidates that would conceivably have my vote are Romney and Paul.
Santorum is a right wing progressive that would do far more damage to the US than even the current President.
I don't resent religious people, I resent theocracy. He called himself a progressive... Making his first run for Congress in the early 1990s, this candidate promised not to be a Reagan Republican, fashioned himself a progressive conservative, said he was impartial on unions and stayed vague on abortion rights. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rvative-pro-life-ronald-reagan_n_1280033.html http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...ive-conservative-wth/question-2458237/?page=4
He wouldn't establish a theocracy. He keeps his religion out of politics, by his actions and his own words (funding abortions, which he did, is anti-catholic, for example). You are prejudice against religious people. So in other words you're more of a progressive if you think he'd be worse than Obama? You'd rather have higher taxes, more spreading the wealth around, more social programs?
He quit the Republican Party when the party abandoned its principles. It's plain as day to see if you'd bother reading his resignation letter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As a lifelong Republican, it saddens me to have to write this letter. My parents believed in the Republican Party and its free enterprise philosophy, and thats the way I was brought up. At age 21, in 1956, I cast my first vote for Ike and the entire Republican slate. Because of frustration with the direction in which the country was going, I became a political activist and ran for the U.S. Congress in 1974. Even with Watergate, my loyalty, optimism, and hope for the future were tied to the Republican Party and its message of free enterprise, limited government, and balanced budgets. Eventually I was elected to the U.S. Congress four times as a Republican. This permitted me a first-hand look at the interworkings of the U.S. Congress, seeing both the benefits and partisan frustrations that guide its shaky proceedings. I found that although representative government still exists, special interest control of the legislative process clearly presents a danger to our constitutional system of government. In 1976 I was impressed with Ronald Reagans program and was one of the four members of Congress who endorsed his candidacy. In 1980, unlike other Republican office holders in Texas, I again supported our President in his efforts. Since 1981, however, I have gradually and steadily grown weary of the Republican Partys efforts to reduce the size of the federal government. Since then Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party have given us skyrocketing deficits, and astoundingly a doubled national debt. How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together? Tip ONeill, although part of the problem, cannot alone be blamed. Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic growth? No. During Carters four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent; Reagans five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to four giant Republican tax increases since 1981. All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit. But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats. Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that deficits dont matter, the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile effort to hold on to control of the Senate. Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less secure today. Reagans foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhowers, Kennedys, Johnsons, Nixons, Fords, and Carters put together. Foreign intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial problems. Amidst the failure of the Gramm-Rudman gimmick, we hear the President and the Republican Party call for a balanced-budget amendment and a line-item veto. This is only a smokescreen. President Reagan, as governor of California, had a line-item veto and virtually never used it. As President he has failed to exercise his constitutional responsibility to veto spending. Instead, he has encouraged it. Monetary policy has been disastrous as well. The five Reagan appointees to the Federal Reserve Board have advocated even faster monetary inflation than Chairman Volcker, and this is the fourth straight year of double-digit increases. The chickens have yet to come home to roost, but they will, and America will suffer from a Reaganomics that is nothing but warmed-over Keynesianism. Candidate Reagan in 1980 correctly opposed draft registration. Yet when he had the chance to abolish it, he reneged, as he did on his pledge to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, or to work against abortion. Under the guise of attacking drug use and money laundering, the Republican Administration has systematically attacked personal and financial privacy. The effect has been to victimize innocent Americans who wish to conduct their private lives without government snooping. (Should people really be put on a suspected drug dealer list because they transfer $3,000 at one time?) Reagans urine testing of Americans without probable cause is a clear violation of our civil liberties, as are his proposals for extensive lie detector tests. Under Reagan, the IRS has grown bigger, richer, more powerful, and more arrogant. In the words of the founders of our country, our government has sent hither swarms of tax gatherers to harass our people and eat out their substance. His officers jailed the innocent George Hansen, with the President refusing to pardon a great American whose only crime was to defend the Constitution. Reagans new tax reform gives even more power to the IRS. Far from making taxes fairer or simpler, it deceitfully raises more revenue for the government to waste. Knowing this administrations record, I wasnt surprised by its Libyan disinformation campaign, Israeli-Iranian arms-for-hostages swap, or illegal funding of the Contras. All this has contributed to my disenchantment with the Republican Party, and helped me make up my mind. I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy. After years of trying to work through the Republican Party both in and out of government, I have reluctantly concluded that my efforts must be carried on outside the Republican Party. Republicans know that the Democratic agenda is dangerous to our political and economic health. Yet, in the past six years Republicans have expanded its worst aspects and called them our own. The Republican Party has not reduced the size of government. It has become big governments best friend. If Ronald Reagan couldnt or wouldnt balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years. I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing Americas direction. I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
It is better to have the congress appropriate any funds going to be spent by the federal government than to let the POTUS and the unelected bureaucrats give the money to their cronies like solyndra. If you don't want the money spent at all, then you vote NO to spending the bill. I am not a modern day liberal, that is where you are getting confused.
