2012 Presidential Election

Denovissimus:

Romney Attacks Obama For Releasing Jobs Plan Too Late, Then Announces He’ll Unveil His Plan Same Day | In a rare interview on Fox News, leading GOP presidential contender former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) criticized President Obama for not unveiling his jobs plan until Sept. 6. “Why hasn’t he come out with it already?” Romney questioned. Seconds later, Romney told Fox’s Neil Cavuto, “I’m also in Nevada on Sept. 6 and I will be coming out with my jobs plan.” Romney didn’t explain why Sept. 6 is inexcusably tardy for Obama’s jobs plan, but not for his. Watch it:

This hilariously inept attempt to criticize President Obama for doing the exact same thing he is doing is reminiscent of Romney’s recent attack on Obama for vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard…on the same day he was there too.

Michele77:

lol! I bet they were staying at the same house together at MV! They are old chums!!! And btw, Romney is the FAKE GOP frontrunner, the one the media has you believe is the front runner. The TRUE frontrunner in the polls is RON PAUL. But they are trying to keep RP's name out of the media as much as they can, trying to act like he doesnt exist or that he isnt a contender, when he certainly is proving that he is and is gaining more momentum and more support everyday!

Denovissimus:

let's see how that holds up in the actual primary Michele!

Darkeyes80:

Oh yeah... rave & jesse to both Rodney and Michele for casting a vote for Sarah Palin.

Yeah and pfft to you for not getting me, Danielle
(dont.ever.call.me"Sparky", bitch poke)


Holy Fuckballs! Were Michele and I on the same page?*checks* Thank GOD it was about the interpretation of the word "hypothetical"and not real politics wink

Auntie Maine:

Romney, Bachmann, Santorum Sign on to Pledge to 'Investigate' Gays
by Kilian Melloy
Wednesday Aug 17, 2011

How anti-gay are the hopefuls looking to secure the GOP nomination for next year's White House campaign? A potentially sinister point, buried among many anti-gay provisions, has emerged from a campaign pledge prepared by The National Organization of Marriage (NOM), a powerful group that opposes marriage equality for gay and lesbian families.

NOM invited GOP contenders to sign onearlier this month. Among the document's provisions is a call for Republican candidates to promise to "investigate" gay Americans if elected president.

Three contenders signed on to the pledge immediately upon its release: Frontrunners Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, as well as Rick Santorum. All three have burnished their anti-gay credentials. Though Bachmann has muted her homophobic rhetoric while on the campaign trail, she has previously made an array of bizarre claims about gays, including assertions that most gays have suffered abuse, that gays live "very sad lives" because of their sexual orientation, and that to call homosexuals "gay," with its implication of happiness, is "of Satan."

Romney was governor of Massachusetts when that state became the first in the nation to grant legal same-sex marriages seven years ago. While still governor, Romney sought to dilute and limit the scope of marriage equality, even dredging up a racist law from 1913 in order to prevent gay couples from out of state from traveling to Massachusetts to tie the knot.

Rick Santorum is infamous for having compared devoted life partnerships between couples of the same gender with "man on dog" sex. More recently, Santorum -- who trails far behind Romney and Bachmann -- has said that he will not shift the focus of his campaign off social questions, even though many conservatives serious about retaking the White House (gay conservatives among them) counsel keeping fiscal issues first and foremost in any campaign.

All three contenders also favor an amendment to the United States Constitution that would write anti-gay language into the nation's bedrock law by denying marriage to non-heterosexual American citizens.

Addicting Info reported on Aug. 16 that the three anti-gay politicians had signed on to the NOM campaign pledge, which requires signatories to vow an "investigation" into gays.

The pledge plays up right-wing claims of harassment by thuggish gays in the deeply divisive and bruising campaign to pass California's Proposition 8 in 2008. That ballot initiative yanked existing marriage rights away from gay and lesbian families in California. There were reports of boycotts and minor vandalism on both sides, with much of the vandalism targeting yard signs expressing support or opposition to the initiative, but the anti-gay fringe right preferentially seized on claims that proponents of the measure had been harassed and threatened.

In the wake of Prop 8's passage, hundreds of protests took place around the country. Almost all of those protests were carried out peaceably, but in a scant few instances there were ugly episodes of conflict, usually involving gays whose gatherings or traditional neighborhoods were invaded by anti-gay Christians. In one incident in Palm Springs, an elderly woman carrying a Styrofoam cross pushed her way into a candlelight vigil organized by GLBT equality advocates; though most of the vigil's attendees sought to stay out of her way, two men, angry at the outcome of a vote in which their civil rights had been rescinded at the ballot box, snatched the cross from her and stomped it to pieces.

In another bout, anti-gay Christian proselytizers went to traditionally gay neighborhood the Castro in San Francisco only days after the vote and began to preach to gays there. The group was surrounded by an angry, shouting crowd. Police escorted the group out of the neighborhood. One individual who was at the scene later framed the fracas as an exercise in his own right to freedom of expression, telling the press, "Their rights were respected. They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood."

The fringe right also acted instantly to pin a church fire in Wasilla, Alaska, on gays, though not a scrap of evidence ever emerged that a gay person or persons were behind the blaze, or that the fire -- which appeared to be the work of an arsonist -- was politically motivated.

Anti-gay fringe groups also seized on angry postings to message boards just after Proposition 8 narrowly passed at the ballot box. Enraged gays vented their fury at online gay blogs and news resources, but anti-gay groups were monitoring message boards at those venues and eagerly seized on those postings, promoting them as evidence that gays were universally lawless and violent, and calling for federal investigators to look into the postings and make arrests. (No such calls have ever been made by the fringe right with respect to the routinely violent anti-gay postings made at sites like Free Republic.)

NOM has made a show of using claims of gay thuggery to defy election officials in both California and Maine (where NOM played a key role in a referendum that repealed a marriage equality law in 2009, before the law could take effect), refusing to disclose its donors lists even though laws in both states require that they do so. NOM argues that if the donor lists were made public, the individuals that had supported anti-gay referenda in California and Maine would be subject to reprisals and harassment, and perhaps even violence. It's an argument that even Supreme Court archconservative Antonin Scalia has publicly rejected.

When the Supreme Court ruled against Protect Marriage Washington, an anti-gay group that had sought to shield its donors using the same arguments NOM had attempted to use, Scalia commented succinctly: "For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave."

Even so, NOM and other anti-gay groups seem to believe they has found a winning method to sully the GLBT community, and other anti-gay groups have also taken up the chant, claiming that any progress toward equality made by gays results invariably and directly in a loss of religious freedom and free expression for those who oppose and condemn gays because of the dogma of their faith tradition.

The NOM campaign pledge calls for GOP contenders to "establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed."

The language is extremely nebulous, with nothing in the way of a clear definition of what would constitute "harassment" or "threats" to anti-gay religious activists. However, the vague wording could also conceivably backfire, if advocates for marriage between same-sex couples were to be harassed or threatened, as also happened during the bitterly divisive Prop 8 campaign. Though NOM's view of "marriage" extends only to legal unions between persons of different genders, a case might be made, especially where same-sex marriage is legal, to apply the same criteria against religiously motivated family parity opponents who "harass" or "threaten" gay couples and marriage equality advocates.

Addicting Info anticipated a one-way street with regard to who would bear the brunt of such investigations, however.

"[T]he extreme right wing is going to persecute homosexuals on a whole new level if they have power after the 2012 Election," the posting predicted. "Homosexuals and supporters of marriage equality will be intimidated, interrogated, and stripped of their right to speak freely."

Addicting Info called the pledge an example of latter-day "McCarthyism."

The promise to investigate gays was one among several anti-gay points contained in the full document, which NOM invited GOP contenders to sign earlier this month. Among the pledge's other points are vows to press for an anti-gay amendment to the United States Constitution, defend anti-gay federal laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act (which denies gay and lesbian families any legal recognition at the federal level), and put the rights of marriage same-sex couples up to a vote in the District of Columbia.

When the three anti-gay pols hastened to sign on to the pledge, NOM's Brian Brown praised them as "marriage champions."

Fringe right groups have issued various pledges, hoping to influence candidates' public platforms and position themselves as power players in the crowded field of anti-gay politics. But in one instance -- a 14-point agenda prepared by an anti-gay Iowa group -- the ploy backfired. That pledge contained racist language that drew national attention, and criticism, to the group and to the two GOP contenders, Bachmann and Santorum, who signed on. Romney refused, in that instance, to lend his name to the pledge.

The racially offensive language was later removed from the Iowa group's pledge, but all of its anti-gay language was left intact.

'Newt'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt

wow those posts are from a LONG time ago!!!

Anyway, I found this website that debunks RP myths, myths I have already known not to be true but thought I would post it for the rest of you who think those racist and anti gay things from the newsletter that was published under his name actually came from his mouth when it was disproven otherwise a long time ago:

If you read this whole page, it goes over the myth that he wants to ban gay marriage (which is not true) the myth that he is too old to be president (it talks about how he keeps healthy and in shape) and the myth that he is racist, which is the funniest one of all, because if you have ever heard him speak or ever read any of his books you would never think that in a million years. And if you scroll up further, it talks about why he is pro life but that he thinks the federal gov does not have a right to either ban abortion or legalize it all together

http://www.ronpaulmyths.com/social-issues.php

haha, this is from where it talks about how a white supremist gave him a campaign donation in 2007 and why RP did not give the money back

Stormfront Member Donation: In late 2007, a member of Stormfront, Don Black, gave $500 to Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign. When the connection to Stormfront was identified after review of the FEC reports, the campaign was asked whether it intended to return the money. A spokesman for the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign said that the money would not be returned--for reasons to be discussed in the next paragraph.3

Better Use for the Funds: "If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."3 Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign is therefore stating that to give the money back would be the equivalent of funding Stormfront--instead, it would be more reasonable to put the money to better use as opposed to putting it back in the hands of a white-supremacist organization


lol, love it.

Hardly an unbiased source. It's a RP-page.

Paw Paw Paul spoke at the Southern Maine University today.

darkeyes80 wrote:

Hardly an unbiased source. It's a RP-page.

the newsletter bullshit was disproved many years ago but many reputable sources. The NAACP does not think RP is racist. Everything the man says is very clear and simplistic. It is the mainstream media that tries to do different interpreting of his ideals to discredit him and to get people to not like him. This website simply debunks all that, for all those people who havent really seen or heard him speak and dont know much about him except for what the media tells them.

Every thing from every source can be called me be "bias" in one way or another. It is up to each person to gather as much info about whatever subject from as many sources as possible and then to utilize common sense, logic, and their intutition to determine what is fact and what is false.

Auntie Maine wrote:

Paw Paw Paul spoke at the Southern Maine University today.

yes I saw the pics, he drew an enormous crowd it looked like

I finished my Biennial viewing of the West Wing from Episode 1 Season 1 right through to end of Season 7 (154 episodes) just before the Iowa Caucus, so I am all ready for Election 2012 - shame it's not Bartlet for America !

Josh Lyman was my TV boyfriend the whole time that series was on.

Quote :

Every thing from every source can be called me be "bias" in one way or another. It is up to each person to gather as much info about whatever subject from as many sources as possible and then to utilize common sense, logic, and their intutition to determine what is fact and what is false.

uhuh as many sources, eh?

Chele. That's what I ALWAYS say when I disagree with you or, whenever you post one of your articles or URL's and then scribble "ITA!" underneath it. Or worse when you quote me and say: "ITA with Rodney"-when you don't!Look at your trackrecord of sources! Do you even understand what you just typed?

I try and stay out of this politics stuff....but I can't resist! It's only right I post what I believe in passionately!! Which is backed up by no source other than my own instrinsic sense of right and wrong!

Quoted from Michele who did explain well what her politics is about

"There is plenty of success out there for anyone who wants to get a piece of it. If you want it, go get it. If you dont, then dont bitch you arent getting any and dont expect others to give you theirs."


See you can't assume that everyone is starting from the same place and everyone is equally able to achieve greatness!!!

I think that's all I need to say to state my corner. But I will go on!

It's funny how those who believe in conservatism are generally the haves rather than the have nots. Yep we'll just keep on getting richer while withdrawing any hope or chance for anyone less white than us, less rich than us in terms of ther area we came from and the opportunities we have, less able bodied, less intelligent. This is why parts of our countries are ghettos, no go areas where you wouldn't want to be. This is the same over here, I could real off the parts of Barnsley that I'm glad I wasn't raised in because most of my clients come from these places. It must be the same everywhere because I am very well read in criminal justice policy and debate. I also see with my own eyes.

Take for example this client of mine....

Born in a shit area to a shit family, dad died when he was young, mum got a new bloke, mum chose new bloke over her kid so he left home at 16. Had dyslexia and was never properly looked after by the school system so as an adult he can hardly read or write. Mental health issues from his traumatic childhood, lots of self loathing, self harm, suicide attempts. Got in with bad crowd (due to area he lived?) and started taking Heroin. It took a lot to get him off that, years of offending and in and out of prison first, which messes people up more. So now, with a lot of help from his brother he is living in a slightly better area, off drugs and re-building his life. His offence that I have him for is theft of scrap metal, before that he was out of trouble for a few years. But I am so proud of him because he has nearly finished his Order with me, he has done everything asked of him and he has even signed up for adult literacy classes.

Now this brings me to my next point....this guy, yes he had choices along the way, but unless you have walked in his shoes, been desperate and hurting with no hope of a fufure (how do you even apply for a job is you can't read or write?), would we really have turned out much different?

There is no level playing field!!!!!! As time goes on the gap betwen rich and poor gets wider, and this seems the same whatever government is in power.

Instead of saying you have to work for things......yes of course you do and some people would love to be able to do that, have some pride in themselves for the first time ever, but it's not that easy to find work at the moment. Unemployment is a massive problem. People with degrees are working in takeaways.

What is needed is all the services that can help and advise people who need it, some of which we still have but many are disappearing because our government is also conservative and trying to pay off our debt.

I do understand that it is important.....making savings and such.....but it is being done too quickly with typical conservative disreguard for the consequences for the underprivelaged. Because these people don't exist in their world. They don't matter.

Back to my example. At the moment in my job it is such a struggle trying to help people because there is so little out there. I feel lucky that I had the resource of the adult literacy class to send my guy to because that is the sort of thing that will be cut. Not deemed necesssary or important.


Off to work now to try and help the forgotten people to improve their lives some more....

Jane

Yay, for Jane. On a bigger scale; does anyone also think that economic crises go hand in hand with conservativism? in the days of plenty and MASSIVE overconsumption; everybody was " happy" people could easily get their hands on anything. But, as soon as things start to go down; people talk about going "back' to the way it was before. it's almost like people will fight tooth and nail to keep what they have gained from their own expenditure-damn the consequences for the poor-who will continue to suffer.

That's the idea I get from Ron Paul. i'm sure he wants america to get back up it's feet. but, I get the idea that, he finds the solution in "going back". Going back to what we did'nt want, when we had everything we wanted.

Now; with all the information at our disposal(internet) ; people all around the world are slowly seeing the face of the real evil that keeps this high-low conjuncture in place. governments all around the world are saying they're doing all they can to solve the crises. Yet, the banks are still in power. The mollycoddle(sp?) us with promises of "a slow but, steady growth" out of this crisis. But, the situation just doesn't change. IMO, the world needs a complete overhaul-a complete new attitude. But, not from our respective governments but, from the people themselves! Why can we sit behind our television screens and look on at how our governments blatantly continue to try and solve the problems by taking away what should belong to all. and all these politicians are doing(sorry to pick on the US but-they're so OBVIOUS) is pointing out who or, what is to blame. it's not just one politician/prime minister/president; It's the whole system of greed and that needs to change.

now from our lofty thrones in Europe; I only see Obama making SOME effort to change this attitude. the price you pay is that; you're all gonna work harder to help eachother out. His detractors hit back with Obama spending too much money and resources on "useless" projects.things that should benefit ALL US citizens, in the long run. So; the Republicans hit back with: " He is taking YOUR hard-earned cash to fund his socialist pet-projects-let's go back to our own individual freedom! where YOUR money is YOUR money." hitting the people where it hurts. and they will hit you with interesting-lookng graphs and numbers with a lot of zeros to indicate HOW much he's already "wasted" they put Bill O' reilly on with that incredibly stupid whiney shit he sprouts just to make people go: " hell yeah! he's so right! I want my money back!"

Well america; YOUR money isn't going to get you anywhere when you put a blindfold on and close your eyes to the bigger picture. How long is it going to take for the people to fucking snap, when they finally figure out that it is GREED that fuels the world-not individual slavery. It's false freedom. The kind of freedom that, turns people into egotists and mindless drones. THAT's the freedom you choose when you vote republican. and the rest of the western world should take note; because, we're moving into that direction as well.

Rick Santorum No Longer Relevant, Impactful in Republican Race
By L. Vincent Poupard

COMMENTARY | Rick Santorum has come in fourth in the Nevada caucus with 11 percent of the vote, according to CNN. As a political scientist, I see this as the time for Santorum to exit the race as the 15 minutes of fame he gained in Iowa have come to an end. Republican voters are making a statement of how they are not interested in what he represents.

Santorum represents the principles of the Christian right. He is a candidate who most likely would base the majority of his decisions on religion. As a nation, we have moved away from the religious principles of the 1950s and gotten closer to basing decisions on the law and on past practice. The rights of the people overwhelm the ideas presented in the Bible. The separation of Church and State has become more prominent and there is no room left for candidates who believe otherwise.

Santorum was one of the last members of the Republican "Flavor of the Month Club." He had his push in Iowa but was never able to turn this success into a rally for new support. His campaign fizzled quickly after his win and his numbers have continued to dwindle. Obviously, this is not a quality of the leader the U.S. needs right now.

One of the important aspects of politics is finding your opportunity for success and milking it for all it is worth. The goal is to ensure success is long-lasted. The former senator was handed his success but did not know what to do with it. He was taken to the top of the mountain, and was quickly knocked down when he froze.

Consider how the Nevada caucus would have been different without Santorum still being in the race. The biggest difference would have been if all of his supporters had gone to Ron Paul. The representative's totals would have been 29 percent instead of the 18 percent he received.

Paul would have ended up in second instead of third. If Newt Gingrich had gotten the other candidate's votes, he would still have ended up in a distant second place with 34 percent next to Mitt Romney's 48 percent. It is time for Santorum to exit as he is no longer relevant or making any type of impact in the election.

That is funny that you posted that, Dan. Right before he won three states yesterday.

BTW. I think some of these elections are rigged. Iowa possibly, Nevada most def. There is NO WAY Ron Paul truly came in third. He came in second in NV in 2008. NV is a strong libretarian state. RP has doubled his votes in every primary so far this year than what he did in 2008. I watched a live showing of vote counts in NV, virtually all the votes were for Paul. And there is too much controversary over it for there to not have been something foul going on. I think Paul DEF won NV, or at the very least came in a very close second.

I could post more about that but I dont have time right now I have to get to work. but I just wanted to post this. I thought it was interesting. Hopefully their predictions this time are WRONG, but they werent wrong about Obama last time when they predicted him to be Pres before he even entered the campaign.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42011/prediction-president-and-emperor-santorum639/

Im fucking scared of Santorum on Mitt Romney. They both come across as I dont know... but they scare me.

You should be scared of the people who voted!

[quote="LadyMandingo"]That is funny that you posted that, Dan. Right before he won three states yesterday.

Yes my little politico but please realize that only between 3% and 8% voted.

...politico. It's a keeper!