Republican Presidential Candidate 2012 - Pt 2

[Lois Gilbert]

If we must...

[jesus marion joseph]

ha ha!

Goody, I don't think crawjo or Stone think that religion itself (pick your brand) is inherently evil, just that many of its adherents have interpreted it to fit their own views and many times their interpretations are at odds with the basic tenets of the faith.

I share that view, fwiw. I'd rather see someone live their life more or less following the teachings of a religion as opposed to putting up a show of being a follower but acting contrary to the teachings of the religion. Rick Perry and his pious public shows of "Christianity" come to mind.

[crawjo]

Gordon, I think you are wrong about Supreme Court appointments. If Romney fails to nominate a social conservative to the court, he will be hammered for it by his base. Abortion is one of the things that is just not negotiable among a large swathe of Republican voters. I am certain of this.

[GoodSpeak]

ha ha!

Goody, I don't think crawjo or Stone think that religion itself (pick your brand) is inherently evil, just that many of its adherents have interpreted it to fit their own views and many times their interpretations are at odds with the basic tenets of the faith.

The hell they don't.

Stoney takes scripture completely out of context to make his specious point about how religion and its adherents are hypocritical if they have a view contrary to Stoney. Crawjo claims all Christians are inherently evil because of the bad things people who claim to be Christian have done throughout history.

Their "interpretations" are based upon hate and a complete lack of knowledge relative to religion. Oh sure, Crawjo claims the upper-hand simply upon the basis of being a student in parochial education. That carries about as much weight as claiming to be an expert on dentistry simply upon the basis of being a dental patient.

All of which is patent, self-serving bullshit.

[Gee wiz. Do Christians use such language? Gosh. I thought they were all perfect, squeaky clean and pompous. Pssh. ]

I share that view, fwiw. I'd rather see someone live their life more or less following the teachings of a religion as opposed to putting up a show of being a follower but acting contrary to the teachings of the religion. Rick Perry and his pious public shows of "Christianity" come to mind.

But that wasn't the point they were making.

They accused me of being a hypocrite simply upon the basis of ONE off-hand remark.

Then they went on this anti-Christ jihad wherein Chritians are responsible for everything since the Spanish Inquisition.

I called them on their bullshit.

Further, I have asked Stoney to tell me what his plan would be if that wacko Iranian despot attacked us. He, of course [and predictably], wimped out on an over-bloated attack on all Christianity and its believers. In short, he has absolutely nothing to go on other than his own unreasonably myopic religious bigotry and hate.

In other words: Stoney punked out. Crawjo followed with his pseudo indictment of all Christianity since Bethlehem.

I objected.


Anything else?

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

I've asked you on several occasions to tell us what Obama has done wrong as President. You never mentioned one thing.

You punked out.

[crawjo]

Goodspeak, it's not even possible to have a real argument with you when you consistently mischaracterize the positions that your opponents are taking. I have never said that all Christians are evil. Such a statement is absolutely absurd. Are you a Christian? I don't think you're evil.

[Gordon B]

Gordon, I think you are wrong about Supreme Court appointments. If Romney fails to nominate a social conservative to the court, he will be hammered for it by his base. Abortion is one of the things that is just not negotiable among a large swathe of Republican voters. I am certain of this.

A President Romney would have an easier time getting a justice confirmed who wasn't a solid vote to overturn RvW than one who was. I don't think he would be in danger of not being renominated. Who was the last incumbent who was not renominated? LBJ, who quit. I could be wrong but I don't think he'd want to get into a major fight with the Democrats and possibly lose by nominating a hard social conservative.

The James Dobson types can hammer away all they like but I don't see them having much leverage over a candidate who was never one of them and who they have never liked.

I think it's uncontroversial to say that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be a disaster of epic proportions for the Republican Party. At least one of a potential majority of five Justices who might want to overturn it might shy away from actually doing it.

I'd rather have a moderately conservative court than a solidly conservative one because the latter would take an expansive view of Executive power.

[crawjo]

But Gordon, there are millions of Christians out there who support the Republican Party expressly because it is ostensibly committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Republican presidents HAVE to be solidly pro-life and have to back it up with their judicial nominations. That was part of the reason (not all, but part) for the backlash against the Harriet Miers nomination. Conservatives were not willing to gamble on an unknown quantity. They wanted a solid conservative to be nominated.

The religious right is still, I think, the most powerful faction in the modern GOP. It's how they win elections. The party can't afford to betray them because if they do, there will be a revolt. It doesn't mean Romney would fail to be renominated, but it could very well prevent him from being reelected.

Personally, I agree with you that the Republicans need abortion to remain legal in order to continue to motivate the evangelical base of the party. I think that if legalized abortion disappeared tomorrow, you would see a substantial and dramatic shift to the left on a number of issues from health care reform to raising taxes on the wealthy. All those things would become significantly more popular. That's just my opinion...I can't prove it.

[ran]

I'm not a historian nor an educator but I'd like to know if there has been other types of Roe v. Wade's that have polarized this country as long as this has ?

I ask this simply because I think Roe v. Wade is being used as racial tool more then anything else. I refuse to believe that the issue of abortion has kept this going on for 40 years , there has to be something else behind this useless obsession , no ? Or should I just go fuck myself.

For what it's worth , Crawjo , I think your spot on with that evaluation.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

I ask this simply because I think Roe v. Wade is being used as racial tool more then anything else.

For someone who's not known for his intelligence you've nailed it on the head with this one.

The ultimate goal of the Roe v. Wade decision is to control the black population in this country by snuffing out as many black babies as possible.

[Gordon B]

But Gordon, there are millions of Christians out there who support the Republican Party expressly because it is ostensibly committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Republican presidents HAVE to be solidly pro-life and have to back it up with their judicial nominations. That was part of the reason (not all, but part) for the backlash against the Harriet Miers nomination. Conservatives were not willing to gamble on an unknown quantity. They wanted a solid conservative to be nominated.

The religious right is still, I think, the most powerful faction in the modern GOP. It's how they win elections. The party can't afford to betray them because if they do, there will be a revolt. It doesn't mean Romney would fail to be renominated, but it could very well prevent him from being reelected.

Personally, I agree with you that the Republicans need abortion to remain legal in order to continue to motivate the evangelical base of the party. I think that if legalized abortion disappeared tomorrow, you would see a substantial and dramatic shift to the left on a number of issues from health care reform to raising taxes on the wealthy. All those things would become significantly more popular. That's just my opinion...I can't prove it.

I think Miers would have been confirmed if she had the same views but sufficient gravitas.

I believe that most voters who are not particularly partisan are pro-choice and would flip to solidly Democratic if Roe v. Wade were overturned. That would be a bigger effect than the effect on abortion because most states would immediately start proceedings to make it legal.

[crawjo]

I'm not a historian nor an educator but I'd like to know if there has been other types of Roe v. Wade's that have polarized this country as long as this has ?

I ask this simply because I think Roe v. Wade is being used as racial tool more then anything else. I refuse to believe that the issue of abortion has kept this going on for 40 years , there has to be something else behind this useless obsession , no ? Or should I just go fuck myself.

For what it's worth , Crawjo , I think your spot on with that evaluation.

No, I don't think there's much of a racial element to the pro-life movement. I'm sure it's there at the margins, because race is everywhere in American society. But knowing as many people who are ardent pro-lifers as I do, they fervently believe that legalized abortion is one of the greatest crimes in human history. Greater than slavery, greater than Auschwitz. A death factory for innocent human beings. They WILL NOT support any candidate who is not pro-life. When a Supreme Court nomination comes up, these groups are very active and effective in pressuring Congress, pressuring the President, to make sure that the eventual nominee has rock solid pro-life credentials.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to their views, because I do believe that human fetuses are living beings. And I think American society in general is very contradictory on this issue. The one that always gets me is that in some states a person who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with double homicide.

Anyway, I also know that abortion has been around since the dawn of human civilization, in just about every society on earth. I know that the methods for killing fetuses have become increasingly sophisticated over the years. I know that when abortion was illegal in this country, abortion was still very, very common. So I think the pro life movement has picked the wrong battle. I think that they should focus on enacting policies that would reduce the demand for abortion. The pro-lifers I know see this as a liberal dodge of a fundamental moral question, and hell, maybe it is. But that's what I would support--the "safe, legal, and rare" formulation.

Edit: On Abortion, the class element is more pronounced than the racial one, I think.

[crawjo]

I think Miers would have been confirmed if she had the same views but sufficient gravitas.

I believe that most voters who are not particularly partisan are pro-choice and would flip to solidly Democratic if Roe v. Wade were overturned. That would be a bigger effect than the effect on abortion because most states would immediately start proceedings to make it legal.

That's what the pro-lifers want. They want Roe v. Wade overturned and then a bloody, protracted, state by state battle. Depending on how the question is asked, the U.S. population is split almost 50/50 on this issue. I think you are right that ending Roe would redound to the benefit of the Democratic Party, but it doesn't matter because the vast majority of Republicans are pro-life, and they are the ones who pick the nominee for their party. Ideally they want somebody whose convictions on Roe match their own, which is one major reason why Romney is having such a hard time consolidating support. They don't buy his convictions. If he gets the nomination, this is one issue he will not be able to betray his base on.

You may be right about Miers, but I would add that if she was a rock solid pro-life nominee with a lack of gravitas, she would have still been nominated. It took both her shaky pro-life credentials and her lack of gravitas to get enough people opposed to her to force Bush to withdraw her name.

[steve(thelil)]

From the Guardian UK web site.

Stephen Colbert for president? TV host hints at entering Republican race
Satirical news show host paves way for presidential bid by transferring control of political fundraising to Jon Stewart

Stephen Colbert, host of the US satirical news show The Colbert Report, has paved the way for a presidential bid by transferring control of his political fundraising organisation to his fellow comedian Jon Stewart.

Lampooning the campaign finance rules that permit such fundraising groups, known as super pacs, Colbert announced it would be renamed the Definitely Not Coordinated with Stephen Colbert Super Pac.

Stewart, whose popular series The Daily Show precedes The Colbert Report on the Comedy Central network, made a guest appearance to sign the documents that made the transfer legal.

The move potentially paves the way for Colbert to enter the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, his home state. Campaigning politicians are prohibited from simultaneously running super pacs, or political action committees.

Colbert merely hinted at such a decision, which he had hyped ahead of Thursday's show. He announced the formation of "an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the president of the United States of South Carolina".

Patriotically coloured balloons were released in the studio while a graphic screamed: "I'm Doing It!"

Super pacs stem from a 2010 supreme court decision that changed the rules of corporate political donations, and have played a significant role in the 2012 race. A group supportive of the Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, funded a slew of devastating TV ads in Iowa ahead of the caucuses there, ruining the chances of his rival, former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Super pacs must be legally independent from the candidates they support, but in practice they do not need to co-ordinate: the Romney super pac is run by people who have known the former Massachusetts governor for much of his political life and have intimate knowledge of his campaign goals.

On Comedy Central, Stewart and Colbert discussed the peculiar legalities of their arrangement. With Colbert's lawyer, Trevor Potter, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, they spelled out that while Colbert was legally forbidden from participating in strategy and advertising with the super pac, he could still talk about his plans on his TV show and even volunteer for the group.

Stewart declared Colbert vice-president of youth outreach for the super pac. Along with Potter, the three joined hands like a sports team and, with thick irony, cheered in unison: "Non-co-ordination!

Colbert has been using his super pac, launched in May 2011, to parody the electoral system's contradictions and potential conflicts of interest.

The former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, appearing on the David Letterman show on Thursday night, criticised the system.

"The United States supreme court showed a degree of ignorance and naïveté I found shocking," he said.

Colbert made an attempt to run for presidency in the 2008 race, but his attempts to enter the South Carolina primaries were blocked – on the Republican side by the size of the fee, and on the Democrat side by a decision of the local party to block him.

The super pac may eliminate any such financial concerns. Colbert has not publicly revealed the amount raised from viewer contributions by the super pac, but on Thursday he repeatedly hinted that it was substantial.

A Public Policy Polling survey released on Tuesday found Colbert is polling ahead of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman in South Carolina. According to the survey, Colbert has 5% of the vote and Huntsman has 4%.

Reading out the figures on his Wednesday show, Colbert said: "This just got real."

[Gordon B]

You may be right about Miers, but I would add that if she was a rock solid pro-life nominee with a lack of gravitas, she would have still been nominated. It took both her shaky pro-life credentials and her lack of gravitas to get enough people opposed to her to force Bush to withdraw her name.

I agree.

[GoodSpeak]

I've asked you on several occasions to tell us what Obama has done wrong as President. You never mentioned one thing.

You punked out.

That would be wrong, Wozzie.

I have already answered this question...you just didn't read it. You ignore me, remember?

Speaking of a lack of intelligence:

For someone who's not known for his intelligence you've nailed it on the head with this one.

The ultimate goal of the Roe v. Wade decision is to control the black population in this country by snuffing out as many black babies as possible.

You're an idiot.

[GoodSpeak]

Goodspeak, it's not even possible to have a real argument with you when you consistently mischaracterize the positions that your opponents are taking. I have never said that all Christians are evil. Such a statement is absolutely absurd. Are you a Christian? I don't think you're evil.

David,

This all began with an off-hand remark followed by a personal assault from Stoney wherein he went off on me about Christianity and my personal faith [which he has absolutely no clue about].

You came back with all this business about how religion is the reason all wars are fought or some such nonsense.

Both comments had more to do with a lack of tolerance and understanding of what Christianity is or who is involved. Neither addressed the core issue of what to do about that nut case running Iran.

Never ONCE did either of you ask me my beliefs on whether or not religions play a role in wars, etc. Not once. Now Ran feeds Wozzie this stuff about Roe v. Wade in an apparent assumption that abortion is a racial tool and, by tranferrence, all Christians are opposed to abortion. Neither is true.

My point is this: If you are going to start up an argument opposed to religion and its adherents, you had better get your facts straight. White washing all of us with the same misinformed brush only proves my point about religious bigotry.

You want to know what I believe? Ask. I will be happy to tell you.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

The drama queen is back in full force.

[clinthopson]

People can believe whatever they choose. Assuming they have been given a choice.

To me, religious beliefs, as differentiated from behavior beliefs, are based on mythology and superstition.

Organized religion is inherently evil as it forces its believers into accepting information that is complete fantasy. In many religions the belief force causes wars, genocide and human suffering.

This is the 21st century, it's time for humanity to shed these archaic beliefs.

[GoodSpeak]

The drama queen is back in full force.

Read it again, Wozzie:

Speaking of a lack of intelligence:

You're an idiot.

[GoodSpeak]

People can believe whatever they choose. Assuming they have been given a choice.

To me, religious beliefs, as differentiated from behavior beliefs, are based on mythology and superstition.

Organized religion is inherently evil as it forces its believers into accepting information that is complete fantasy. In many religions the belief force causes wars, genocide and human suffering.

This is the 21st century, it's time for humanity to shed these archaic beliefs.

We'll have to disagree on this point, Clint.

However, I respect your right not to believe.

What puzzles me is how the radical right "christians" got snookered into believing any of those republican candidates [past or present] are actually Christains themselves. It further perplexes me how religion is even a part of the political equation in the first place.

What abortion has to do with the economic crisis is beyond me.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

This is the 21st century, it's time for humanity to shed these archaic beliefs.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

It further perplexes me how religion is even a part of the political equation in the first place.

The reason that religion plays such a prominent role in politcs in this country (at least most politicians pretend that they are religious) is that most Americans are religious to one degree or another.

A vast majority of them are Christians.

[Pete C]

What puzzles me is how the radical right "christians" got snookered into believing any of those republican candidates [past or present] are actually Christains themselves.

They're as christian as you, Mr. Holier Than Thou.

[jesus marion joseph]

Mr. Holier Than Thou.

*ahem*

[Gordon B]

Nate Silver sees my position on the Bain attacks but agrees with David's.

[GoodSpeak]

They're as christian as you, Mr. Holier Than Thou.

Right. And pigs can fly. What do you know about my beliefs?

When have I ever put you down for being an atheist, Pete? And upon what self-righteous pomposity gives you the right to put me down for my belief?


Wow.

[GoodSpeak]

The reason that religion plays such a prominent role in politcs in this country (at least most politicians pretend that they are religious) is that most Americans are religious to one degree or another.

A vast majority of them are Christians.

No doubt.


But that smacks of vote getting, not an actual belief in anything.

[clinthopson]

A vast majority of them are Christians.

And practicing hypocrites

[RBS]

I think religion is a purely personal issue between a person and his or her God. My biggest issue is with those that go around preaching about what your relationship with God should be and how you are supposed to carry it out.