Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;920176]I am doing well, been quite busy lately too...glad to know all it's all good.

As for not wanting to buy back your bet, well, we all miss on opportunities now and then and learn from our mistakes. Rest assured the money will be put to good use.

The Catholic church is an institution that has self-destructed. It is bleeding parishioner on a daily bases and the 65 million figure doesn't really give you an indication who is catholic by name and whether they agree with the Obama care and the birth control provision. I believe the entire church's stance is to support Obamacare except for birth control.

One more thing, what is the statistics on the birth control provision when it comes to catholic men vs women? How does your wife feel about it?[/quote]I'm glad to hear you're doing well too!

I can promise you the Catholic Church has not self-destructed and bleeds no one....Unlike the HHS mandate which forces religious institutions to directly violate their core moral beliefs or be "bled" to death by obscene fines. Whether individual Catholics support birth control isn't the issue, the issue is the HHS mandate directly attacks a religious institution and forces it to pay for procedures (including sterilization and abortion drugs) that are contrary to its beliefs. All U.S. bishops have come out publicly against this mandate, so the Church is solidly unified against it. My wife is 100% in support of the Church against this.

I'll make sure your wager funds go to support Catholic Relief Services. :)

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Slingin, if you think a contraception mandate, which by the way DOES NOT mandate religious institutions pay for, which favors a huge swath of female voters is going to sink Obama's reelection chances, you're sadly mistaken.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920356]Slingin, if you think a contraception mandate, which by the way DOES NOT mandate religious institutions pay for, which favors a huge swath of female voters is going to sink Obama's reelection chances, you're sadly mistaken.[/quote]The mandate includes sterilization and abortion drugs also...but again not the point. This is not how the Catholic Church sees it. It's a 1st Ammendment issue.

You and I won't agree on this and we don't really matter in the grand scheme of things (we off-set each other in Nov.). Most folks aren't aware or are only vaguely aware of this issue, but it will be hammered by the Church and as I mentioned before if it swings even 10%, hell even 5% that could be up to 1M Obama votes switched, a 2M vote swing against Obama.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;920395]The mandate includes sterilization and abortion drugs also...but again not the point. This is not how the Catholic Church sees it. It's a 1st Ammendment issue.

You and I won't agree on this and we don't really matter in the grand scheme of things (we off-set each other in Nov.). Most folks aren't aware or are only vaguely aware of this issue, but it will be hammered by the Church and as I mentioned before if it swings even 10%, hell even 5% that could be up to 1M Obama votes switched, a 2M vote swing against Obama.[/quote]

I simply believe, as it relates to this issue, there's a huge gap between the Church and it's constituents.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920401]I simply believe, as it relates to this issue, there's a huge gap between the Church and it's constituents.[/quote]

It's very difficult for me to mitigate SS33's option vs [URL="http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/"]facts[/URL] and more [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html"]facts[/URL]. Unless catholic voters fall well outside the norm of a typical voter I don't see an issue, only wishful thinking.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;920448]It's very difficult for me to mitigate SS33's option vs [URL="http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/"]facts[/URL] and more [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/americans-divided-on-birth-control-coverage-poll-finds.html"]facts[/URL]. Unless catholic voters fall well outside the norm of a typical voter I don't see an issue, only wishful thinking.[/quote]12th and saden you're right in lockstep with the Administration. Great news, please keep letting Obama know he's doing the right thing and to stay-the-course on this....but here's what's going on outside the Beltway:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obama-grand-miscalculation-with-catholics/"]Obama's grand miscalculation with Catholics | Fox News[/URL]

Important points: "Obama was ahead among Catholics by 9 points in early March, and is now trailing by 5 points. The Pew survey finds that, among Catholic voters with an opinion, 47% would today vote for President Obama, and 52% for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. That same margin, were it to hold on Election Day, would mark a swing of 18 million voters [I][B]away[/B][/I] from Obama."

"And among every other category of women, the issue turns out to be a loser, while also carrying a very tangible cost among Catholics: Twenty-nine percent say they are now less likely to vote for the president because of this issue, more than double the 13% who say it makes them more likely to support him. "

Also this from NYT, check questions 73 & 74.
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/13/us/politics/20120313_poll_docs.html"]New York Times/CBS Poll - Document - NYTimes.com[/URL]

Again, this isn't about whether contraception is OK, it's about whether a religious institution should be forced to violate its beliefs.

And no one's buying the "employee going to the insurer direct" compromise/nonsense, the insurer will simply be burying the cost into the Church's premiums.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920356]Slingin, if you think a contraception mandate, which by the way DOES NOT mandate religious institutions pay for, which favors a huge swath of female voters is going to sink Obama's reelection chances, you're sadly mistaken.[/quote]

Obama is doing that on his own.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;920457]12th and saden you're right in lockstep with the Administration. Great news, please keep letting Obama know he's doing the right thing and to stay-the-course on this....but here's what's going on outside the Beltway:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obama-grand-miscalculation-with-catholics/"]Obama's grand miscalculation with Catholics | Fox News[/URL]

Important points: "Obama was ahead among Catholics by 9 points in early March, and is now trailing by 5 points. The Pew survey finds that, among Catholic voters with an opinion, 47% would today vote for President Obama, and 52% for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. That same margin, were it to hold on Election Day, would mark a swing of 18 million voters [I][B]away[/B][/I] from Obama."

"And among every other category of women, the issue turns out to be a loser, while also carrying a very tangible cost among Catholics: Twenty-nine percent say they are now less likely to vote for the president because of this issue, more than double the 13% who say it makes them more likely to support him. "

Also this from NYT, check questions 73 & 74.
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/13/us/politics/20120313_poll_docs.html"]New York Times/CBS Poll - Document - NYTimes.com[/URL]

Again, this isn't about whether contraception is OK, it's about whether a religious institution should be forced to violate its beliefs.

And no one's buying the "employee going to the insurer direct" compromise/nonsense, the insurer will simply be burying the cost into the Church's premiums.[/quote]

Yet you continue to say "forced" against religious beliefs, when in fact the White House has already granted a waiver to Catholic institutions. Why do you keep repeating that is my question? Why? If an institution doesn't want to cover it, fine, they don't have to. Period.

Furthermore, Catholics aren't a monolithic voting bloc and the vast majority of catholic women have used or are using birth control. Female voters are informed and will base their voting decision on a range of issues, not just one.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;920457][B]12th and saden you're right in lockstep with the Administration[/B]. Great news, please keep letting Obama know he's doing the right thing and to stay-the-course on this....but here's what's going on outside the Beltway:

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/22/obama-grand-miscalculation-with-catholics/"]Obama's grand miscalculation with Catholics | Fox News[/URL]

Important points: "Obama was ahead among Catholics by 9 points in early March, and is now trailing by 5 points. The Pew survey finds that, among Catholic voters with an opinion, 47% would today vote for President Obama, and 52% for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. That same margin, were it to hold on Election Day, would mark a swing of 18 million voters [I][B]away[/B][/I] from Obama."

"And among every other category of women, the issue turns out to be a loser, while also carrying a very tangible cost among Catholics: Twenty-nine percent say they are now less likely to vote for the president because of this issue, more than double the 13% who say it makes them more likely to support him. "

Also this from NYT, check questions 73 & 74.
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/03/13/us/politics/20120313_poll_docs.html"]New York Times/CBS Poll - Document - NYTimes.com[/URL]

Again, this isn't about whether contraception is OK, it's about whether a religious institution should be forced to violate its beliefs.

And no one's buying the "employee going to the insurer direct" compromise/nonsense, the insurer will simply be burying the cost into the Church's premiums.[/quote]

That's a cop out. I am my own person and I have the ability to distinguish a bad policy from a good one. It's simply a bad policy for an employer to cover every medical necessity under the kitchen sink except for contraception. My decision to support the administration is based solely on the fact that birth control pills have uses besides preventing pregnancies. Further more it's bad governance to allow religious insinuation to discriminate against their employees under the auspice of "freedom" of religion.

To me that's what the questions boil down to is should the employer opt-out entirely or should the employees be allowed to opt-out of the coverage? If you want to prevent tainting of the insurance pool on religious grounds it's perfectly fine to let employees opt-out and save a little more money on their premium. It is not, however, fine to let the employer opt-out entirety and leave their employees that desire such coverage out in the cold. Why? Because it's bad policy.

Further more, if you look at question 76 you will notice that the whole issue isn't about religious freedom but about women's reproductive rights. I'm guessing most of these people aren't going to base their vote on religious freedom or a single issue. Also, what state are these catholic in and do they really matter in light of our electoral system? You can have all the Catholic in the red States for all Obama and et al care.

StiffRom 2012 will still have to bring it!

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920475]Yet you continue to say "forced" against religious beliefs, when in fact the White House has already granted a waiver to Catholic institutions. Why do you keep repeating that is my question? Why? If an institution doesn't want to cover it, fine, they don't have to. Period.

Furthermore, Catholics aren't a monolithic voting bloc and the vast majority of catholic women have used or are using birth control. Female voters are informed and will base their voting decision on a range of issues, not just one.[/quote]


Isn't it ironic that the father of ObamaCare is their candidate? The man who pushed for a law [URL="http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/02/massachusetts-law-insured-birth-control-similar-rule-set-barack-obama/XzJavhOtrB8eS22b8zXMhO/index.html"]that mandated that contraception be covered[/URL] in the Massachusetts Healthcare.


...it's bemusing to say the least. I can't wait for the debates.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Exactly. "Obamacare" was a Republican idea, successfully implemented by Gov. Willard Mitt Romney, the candidate Slingin's voting for in November.

The irony here is too rich.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920475]Yet you continue to say "forced" against religious beliefs, when in fact the White House has already granted a waiver to Catholic institutions. Why do you keep repeating that is my question? Why? If an institution doesn't want to cover it, fine, they don't have to. Period.

Furthermore, Catholics aren't a monolithic voting bloc and the vast majority of catholic women have used or are using birth control. Female voters are informed and will base their voting decision on a range of issues, not just one.[/quote]From saden's link about Romney (which had a Dem controlled state legislature to deal with).

"Raymond Delisle, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Worcester, said there is also a difference in the wording of the state and federal religious exemptions. The diocese has relied on Massachusetts’ religious exemption to avoid offering contraceptives in its health plans, both for church employees and for those involved in other activities like social work, education, and health care. [I]Under Obama’s requirement, which specifies that religiously exempt organizations must promote religion and primarily serve and employ people of the same faith, the diocese will no longer qualify for a religious exemption for employees involved in the outside activities.[/I]
Both Massachusetts senators - Democrat John Kerry, who is Catholic, and Republican Scott Brown -- have said Obama’s policy should be changed to include a clause allowing a broader conscience exemption for religious organizations."

Obama's "exemption" is so narrowly worded that Jesus Christ himself wouldn't qualify since he served those of different faiths. Obama knows exactly what he's doing here, this has nothing to do with "Women's Rights", any woman can go to Walmart and get birth control for $ 30 per month and many can get it for much less or free under state/Fed programs. This is a frontal assault on religious liberty, and an attempt to marginalize the Catholic Church.

But again, I don't expect to change yours or saden's minds. I've put my money where my mouth is.....still time for you to get in. Granted Romney and the GOP can still screw things up, but we'll look at the polling after the election and you'll find the Catholic vote will be against Obama by at least 5%, probably more.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;920694]From saden's link about Romney (which had a Dem controlled state legislature to deal with).

"Raymond Delisle, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Worcester, said there is also a difference in the wording of the state and federal religious exemptions. The diocese has relied on Massachusetts’ religious exemption to avoid offering contraceptives in its health plans, both for church employees and for those involved in other activities like social work, education, and health care. [I]Under Obama’s requirement, which specifies that religiously exempt organizations must promote religion and primarily serve and employ people of the same faith, the diocese will no longer qualify for a religious exemption for employees involved in the outside activities.[/I]
Both Massachusetts senators - Democrat John Kerry, who is Catholic, and Republican Scott Brown -- have said Obama’s policy should be changed to include a clause allowing a broader conscience exemption for religious organizations."

Obama's "exemption" is so narrowly worded that Jesus Christ himself wouldn't qualify since he served those of different faiths. Obama knows exactly what he's doing here, this has nothing to do with "Women's Rights", any woman can go to Walmart and get birth control for $ 30 per month and many can get it for much less or free under state/Fed programs. This is a frontal assault on religious liberty, and an attempt to marginalize the Catholic Church.

But again, I don't expect to change yours or saden's minds. I've put my money where my mouth is.....still time for you to get in. Granted Romney and the GOP can still screw things up, but we'll look at the polling after the election and you'll find the Catholic vote will be against Obama by at least 5%, probably more.[/quote]

Mitt Romney's a horrible candidate. He lies all the time.

Notice how far in the weeds the three of us have gone with the contraception debate? I guarantee you voters won't be splitting hairs over "exemptions and waivers" come election day.

I'm curious, what do you suppose is Mitt Romney's path to 270? As it stands, President Obama has 247 EV, solid blue states, in his column. Romney would have to win at least 7 toss-up states (most of which Obama won in 2008) to reach the magic number of 270.

Florida
North Carolina
Virginia
Ohio
Indiana
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire

That's a very, very tall order.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Actually President Obama carried all those states last cycle. The only state leaning red right now is Indiana.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

These are the states which are solid blue. In other words, Romney doesn't have a chance at winning them. They put the President at 247 electoral votes. 270 is the magic number.

[B]Washington
Oregon
California
Minnesota
Illinois
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Maryland
Washington D.C.
Delaware
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
Mass
Pennsylvania [/B](leaning blue)

Not included in this scenario is New Hampshire (4 electoral votes). Currently Obama has a double digit lead in the state.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

ummm...no way Romney wins here in Penn. just aint happening

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[url=http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/232173-obama-up-6-points-in-pennsylvania-poll-finds]Obama up 6 points in Pennsylvania, poll finds - The Hill's Ballot Box[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920939][URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/232173-obama-up-6-points-in-pennsylvania-poll-finds"]Obama up 6 points in Pennsylvania, poll finds - The Hill's Ballot Box[/URL][/quote]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/17/what-the-polls-cant-tell-us/anything-can-change-in-a-presidential-year]Anything Can Change in a Presidential Year - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com[/url]

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[url=http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/defense-contractors-put-congress-notice]Defense contractors put Congress on notice | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com[/url]

more good news for Obama

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;921325][url=http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/defense-contractors-put-congress-notice]Defense contractors put Congress on notice | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com[/url]

more good news for Obama[/quote]

What I don't understand from this, is why would the OMB be counseling others not to prepare for sequestration.

[quote]Without clear guidance from the Pentagon, which has been counseled by the White House Office of Management and Budget not to start planning for sequestration...[/quote]

Wouldn't it make the most sense to be saying something to the effect of "look for ways to reduce that result in the least harm/lack or readiness, present proposals that get to [insert your percentage here, ie 75%] of the sequestration numbers, and we can go to Congress with a plan to preserve and protect our capabilities". Rather, it seems like "stick your head in the sand, and if we have too, we will just cut a little lump off your neck"

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;921325][url=http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/defense-contractors-put-congress-notice]Defense contractors put Congress on notice | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com[/url]

more good news for Obama[/quote]

boy and people bitch about unions. If you want to cut government, government contractors are to be included. Everyone knows contracting for the effing government is the gravy train. If you want to cut government, their needs to be a massive scale back in governemnt contractor spending which Im in full support of.

funny to hear the right talk outta both sides of their mouth.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;920735]Mitt Romney's a horrible candidate. He lies all the time. [/quote]


I think you just covered everybody at the white house and on capitol hill with that statement. If anything, he'll fit right in with the rest of the liars.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;921346]boy and people bitch about unions. If you want to cut government, government contractors are to be included. Everyone knows contracting for the effing government is the gravy train. If you want to cut government, their needs to be a massive scale back in governemnt contractor spending which Im in full support of.

funny to hear the right talk outta both sides of their mouth.[/quote]Pentagon has already absorbed close to $ 500B in cuts over 10 yrs. Sequestration will be another $ 500B. When you cut that much there will be layoffs, plus the fact that House and Senate keep changing the Pentagon's proposals.

I've been involved in Gov't contracting for over 20 yrs. Is there fraud, waste and abuse, just like any other gov't program, yes. But it isn't a "gravy train" it's very competitive and contractors often operate on very skinny margins. I would argue that many of the inflated costs in defense contracting are due to BS regulations and requirements.

That being said there is more FWA through entitlement programs and Fed loan programs than in defense contracting.

The whole point of the post wasn't to start a "cut defense or SS/Medicare" debate, but rather to bring up the point that this isn't good news for Obama....massive layoff notices going out 4 days before an election.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;921356]Pentagon has already absorbed close to $ 500B in cuts over 10 yrs. Sequestration will be another $ 500B. When you cut that much there will be layoffs, plus the fact that House and Senate keep changing the Pentagon's proposals.

I've been involved in Gov't contracting for over 20 yrs. Is there fraud, waste and abuse, just like any other gov't program, yes. But it isn't a "gravy train" it's very competitive and contractors often operate on very skinny margins. I would argue that many of the inflated costs in defense contracting are due to BS regulations and requirements.

That being said there is more FWA through entitlement programs and Fed loan programs than in defense contracting.

The whole point of the post wasn't to start a "cut defense or SS/Medicare" debate, but rather to bring up the point that this isn't good news for Obama....massive layoff notices going out 4 days before an election.[/quote]

I hear you, but you know why its competitive and I do know someone who is a contractor, and a real piece of work at that. And I know the whole point to the post, but still it tough to bite my tongue when i see the hypocracy, especially at such an "organized" strategy.

If you want to cut government, the pain needs to be spread far and wide and that especially goes for the State department and Pentagon who've been sheltered. There is knee deep cut opportunity, time to start being honest about it.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;921357].[/quote]Duplicate post, see below.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;921357]I hear you, but you know why its competitive and I do know someone who is a contractor, and a real piece of work at that. And I know the whole point to the post, but still it tough to bite my tongue when i see the hypocracy, especially at such an "organized" strategy.

If you want to cut government, the pain needs to be spread far and wide and that especially goes for the State department and Pentagon who've been sheltered. There is knee deep cut opportunity, time to start being honest about it.[/quote]Definitely agree on the contractors' strategy, certainly no coincidence.

Also agree on cuts to State and Defense, they're needed but need to be done intelligently (Congress listen to Pentagon recommendations, not play politics to protect stuff in home districts) and add'l $ 500B from sequest is really dangerous. But we've got to get SS & Medicare under control also, costs from those are going to skyrocket and make the defense budget look like pocket change if we don't reform them immediately.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;921441]Definitely agree on the contractors' strategy, certainly no coincidence.

Also agree on cuts to State and Defense, they're needed but need to be done intelligently (Congress listen to Pentagon recommendations, not play politics to protect stuff in home districts) and add'l $ 500B from sequest is really dangerous. [B]But we've got to get SS & Medicare under control also[/B], costs from those are going to skyrocket and make the defense budget look like pocket change if we don't reform them immediately.[/quote]

Yes im for that. Everything needs to be cut and that includes entitlement programs for sure. The way people in this country collect disability is a crock of sh*t. Everything needs to be on the table. The pain needs to be spread. Im with Mitt when he says cut public unions and going after "sacred cows" like Fire and Police, EMS. I know from first hand [B]personel experience [/B] of massive waste in local and state budgets for those services. Taxpayers are tired of paying for unnecessary services. Our local and state offices need to learn some lean and effeciency strategies, its appauling and offensive of the waste in our backyards.

I think there has been a ton of waste in Defense starting in the eightys. Alot of projects start/stop, alot of research without action, alot of obselete, outdated projects...

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[URL="http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/obama-bypasses-congress-on-dream-act-stops-deporting-young-illegals/#ixzz1xsQqx11y"]Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals
[/URL]

[I]The extraordinary step comes one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.
[/I]

<VOMIT>

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=RedskinRat;921534][URL="http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/obama-bypasses-congress-on-dream-act-stops-deporting-young-illegals/#ixzz1xsQqx11y"]Obama bypasses Congress on DREAM Act, stops deporting young illegals
[/URL]

[I]The extraordinary step comes one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.
[/I]

<VOMIT>[/quote]

You have to give it to the man, he is Slick Willie 2.0....without the womanizing and cigar fetish of course.


Big trump card played by obama today....I'm calling it, pay me!

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=Chico23231;921525]Im with Mitt when he says cut public unions and going after "sacred cows" like Fire and Police, EMS. I know from first hand [B]personel experience [/B]of massive waste in local and state budgets for those services. Taxpayers are tired of paying for unnecessary services. Our local and state offices need to learn some lean and effeciency strategies, its appauling and offensive of the waste in our backyards.
[/quote]I'm with you there too, I do some work with Local Gov't in my area....if the public really knew some of what goes on. When I come up for Training Camp next year we'll have to swap some stories.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

Per Bloomberg poll, Americans favor the immigration shift by 2-1. Indie voters by a margin of 66% to 24%.

Also knocked Marco Rubio out of the running for Veep. What a power move.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=saden1;921535]You have to give it to the man, he is Slick Willie 2.0....without the womanizing and cigar fetish of course.


Big trump card played by obama today....I'm calling it, pay me![/quote]

Big buy of votes at the expense of tax payers and Americans who's jobs they are taking just to send the money to Mexico. Obama will do anything for votes he is a scum sucker.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;921976]Big buy of votes at the exspense of tax payers and Americans who's jobs they are taking just to send the money to Mexico. Obama will do anything for votes he is a scum sucker.[/quote]

Dude, you crack me up sometimes!

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;921978]Dude, you crack me up sometimes![/quote]

Well you know its true.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;921979]Well you know its true.[/quote]

I know what's true? That DHS have temporarily halted deporting 800k kids that are in high school, attending college..or by the way, defended our country in the war? That have no criminal record and want to stay her legally without fear of deportation?

Sounds like common sense to me.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;921963]Per Bloomberg poll, Americans favor the immigration shift by 2-1. Indie voters by a margin of 66% to 24%.

Also knocked Marco Rubio out of the running for Veep. What a power move.[/quote]

Clinton-like.


I agree with the Pres on this one, but one day we should address illegal immigration head on. Our government has been epic fail on the issue, whether its Dem or Rep, President or Congress..they have failed us again.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

FYI: The Dream Act passed Congress this year and failed in the Senate by 5 votes. People tend to forget that.

Secondly, a large immigration bill won't pass Congress. Has to be done piece meal. The DREAM Act was a very doable and logical first step in that direction. Obama did the right thing, even though this is a temporary solution.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

I'll add, our government hasn't failed us on immigration. A handful in Congress have though. I suspect we'll see something passed in the next term.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=12thMan;921980]I know what's true? That DHS have temporarily halted deporting 800k kids that are in high school, attending college..or by the way, defended our country in the war? That have no criminal record and want to stay her legally without fear of deportation?

Sounds like common sense to me.[/quote]

Well if it was common sense why did it take him 3 yrs to do this? You really think we are deporting people serving the country? Also if they were legal they would not have a fear of deportation.

Re: Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;921976]Big buy of votes at the expense of tax payers and Americans who's jobs they are taking just to send the money to Mexico. Obama will do anything for votes he is a scum sucker.[/quote]

What Obama did is the right thing to do policy wise and politically. What he did was beyond genius because most people support it and it pits the GOP against Latinos voters.

We know where Obama stands...where does Romney stand? We don't know because he wants to play both-sides, Latinos and your run of the mill conservative voter, and it will ultimately doom him.


The dance-off has clear winners and losers, and let me tell you it ain't Obama or the American public...and once Romney is thrashed you can add yourself to the loser count column.