June 13 New Hampshire Republican Debate
15 Jun 2011, 2:20 pm
My opinions.
Bachman: She made a strong entrance in the debate and a great first impression. She demonstrated that she was very intelligent.
Santorum: While he exuded optimism, he failed to convince me that he is capable of receiving anything more than 2% of the GOP vote.
Pawlenty: He made a huge mistake by choosing not to attack Romneycare, though he had no problem with doing so before the debate. Likely, he does not want to be Romney's enemy, because he wants to be his VP nominee if he wins. Things certainly are not looking good for him.
Paul: His views of bringing most of the troops overseas home will deny him the nomination. He articulated his points well, but he won't convince most Republicans to elect him.
Cain: With the big players entering the race, the shine he had in the previous debate had dimmed slightly, and Bachman may cut into his Tea Party support. Still, he is among the most charistmatic members of the Republican Party and won the Fox News poll on which candidate people want to debate Obama.
Romney: He emerged out of the debate unscathed and defended his health care plan well. He probably did not win the debate, but he is still the frontrunner for now.
Gingrich: I think the debate benefited Gingrich the most. The day before there were questions on whether his campaign would end. Now, voters know his campaign is still strong. I think, overall, Gingrich won.
15 Jun 2011, 2:54 pm
Video of debate:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politi ... part.1.cnn
Transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... se.02.html
15 Jun 2011, 3:44 pm
I think Romney won the debate, based on the fact that the conservative press still considers him the front runner. That's not to say he improved his position the most, but the front runner really only has to maintain his position, not improve it.
My opinions, based on reading the transcript rather than watching the debate:
Santorum handled his questions intelligently, though he seemed to get less air time than most. Perhaps he was obeying the informal time limits better. For me, he transformed from an unknown to a respectable candidate.
Bachmann wowed the liberal press, who evidently believed their own negative propaganda about her. She handled the political questions competently; it's the science questions she gets tripped up on, and they were absent here.
Gingrich showed by far the best knowledge of the issues. Pity he's terrible at campaigning.
Romney made himself look like the one who would do best against Obama. He did a good job pointing out differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. He felt a bit weak on foreign affairs, though.
Paul gave strict libertarian answers to everything. It played well in front of this audience, but the president needs to be able to work out compromises. I'd also like to see him reconcile his strict libertarian philosophy with his position on abortion.
Pawlenty's mistake was before the debate, in choosing to attack Romney in the first place. His backing off during the debate makes him look like a wimp. More importantly, though, he seems to have only a superficial grasp of most of the issues - he's more of a politician than a statesman.
Cain did not seem to articulate his positions very well. I still like most of his positions, but they didn't come across in the debate.
15 Jun 2011, 3:51 pm
Nah, they're all a bunch of morons.
minervx wrote:
Bachman: She made a strong entrance in the debate and a great first impression. She demonstrated that she was very intelligent.
She revealed herself to be a complete ditz.
Quote:
Santorum: While he exuded optimism, he failed to convince me that he is capable of receiving anything more than 2% of the GOP vote.
His desire to bring back manufacturing jobs shows that his optimism is misdirected.
Quote:
Pawlenty: He made a huge mistake by choosing not to attack Romneycare, though he had no problem with doing so before the debate. Likely, he does not want to be Romney's enemy, because he wants to be his VP nominee if he wins. Things certainly are not looking good for him.
Maybe they'll be too scared to attack "Obamacare" in the general election.
Quote:
Paul: His views of bringing most of the troops overseas home will deny him the nomination. He articulated his points well, but he won't convince most Republicans to elect him.
He threw quite a lot of jargon around, but his economics is nonsense.
Quote:
Cain: With the big players entering the race, the shine he had in the previous debate had dimmed slightly, and Bachman may cut into his Tea Party support. Still, he is among the most charistmatic members of the Republican Party and won the Fox News poll on which candidate people want to debate Obama.
You've got to take anything reported by Fox "News" with a grain of salt. He really isn't "president" material.
Quote:
Romney: He emerged out of the debate unscathed and defended his health care plan well. He probably did not win the debate, but he is still the frontrunner for now.
He thoroughly rehearsed what he was going to say, and said it, regardless of the actual question asked. He was very unclear about his health plan, and why his was acceptable while the national plan isn't.
Quote:
Gingrich: I think the debate benefited Gingrich the most. The day before there were questions on whether his campaign would end. Now, voters know his campaign is still strong. I think, overall, Gingrich won.
He didn't come off as "strong." He's just occupying space.
15 Jun 2011, 4:12 pm
pandabear wrote:
He was very unclear about his health plan, and why his was acceptable while the national plan isn't.
You might want to reread this part of the transcript:
Romney wrote:
Obamacare spends a trillion dollars. If it were perfect -- and it's not perfect, it's terrible -- we can't afford more federal spending.
Secondly, it raises $500 billion in taxes. We didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts.
Third, Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare. We, of course, didn't do that.
And, finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution, and if people don't like it in our state, they can change it. That's the nature of why states are the right place for this type of responsibility.
Secondly, it raises $500 billion in taxes. We didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts.
Third, Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare. We, of course, didn't do that.
And, finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution, and if people don't like it in our state, they can change it. That's the nature of why states are the right place for this type of responsibility.
There are other differences, but they don't fit in a one minute sound bite. These are sufficient, though. Obamacare is a spending program - essentially an income redistribution program. Romneycare is not. Romneycare is basically Massachusetts' version of state health insurance regulation, which every state has some version of.
15 Jun 2011, 5:32 pm
The Debate to me showed that Fox News was a lot more professional about hosting debates than CNN. Fox News didn't let candidates ramble without answering the question.
@ psychohist
Cain called out the moderator when the moderator tried to distort Cain's statements.
Anyways here is my feeling of the candidates:
Newt: Very knowledgeable, answered questions.
Bachmann: Made the press look like idiots.
Cain: Straightforward and answered questions
Paul: A quack
Romney: Used Car Salesman
Other two candidates: meh
15 Jun 2011, 6:02 pm
psychohist wrote:
pandabear wrote:
He was very unclear about his health plan, and why his was acceptable while the national plan isn't.
You might want to reread this part of the transcript:
Romney wrote:
Obamacare spends a trillion dollars. If it were perfect -- and it's not perfect, it's terrible -- we can't afford more federal spending.
Secondly, it raises $500 billion in taxes. We didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts.
Third, Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare. We, of course, didn't do that.
And, finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution, and if people don't like it in our state, they can change it. That's the nature of why states are the right place for this type of responsibility.
Secondly, it raises $500 billion in taxes. We didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts.
Third, Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare. We, of course, didn't do that.
And, finally, ours was a state plan, a state solution, and if people don't like it in our state, they can change it. That's the nature of why states are the right place for this type of responsibility.
There are other differences, but they don't fit in a one minute sound bite. These are sufficient, though. Obamacare is a spending program - essentially an income redistribution program. Romneycare is not. Romneycare is basically Massachusetts' version of state health insurance regulation, which every state has some version of.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachuse ... are_reform
The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also partially-subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. These subsidies and FPL-related calculations affect very few of the over 6,000,000 people (see Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy quarterly Key Indicators report) that had healthcare insurance prior to the enactment of the law.
The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector. Among other roles, the Connector acts as an insurance broker to offer private insurance plans to residents.
The reform legislation also included tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, penalties increased by monthly increments.
...
Employers with more than ten full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) must provide a "fair and reasonable contribution" to the premium of health insurance for employees.[23] Employers who do not will be assessed an annual fair share contribution that will not exceed $295 per employee per year.[23] The fair share contribution will be paid into the Commonwealth Care Trust Fund to fund Commonwealth Care and other health reform programs.
The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1] who are not eligible for Mass Health (Medicaid). The law also partially-subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. These subsidies and FPL-related calculations affect very few of the over 6,000,000 people (see Massachusetts Department of Healthcare Finance and Policy quarterly Key Indicators report) that had healthcare insurance prior to the enactment of the law.
The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector. Among other roles, the Connector acts as an insurance broker to offer private insurance plans to residents.
The reform legislation also included tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, penalties increased by monthly increments.
...
Employers with more than ten full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) must provide a "fair and reasonable contribution" to the premium of health insurance for employees.[23] Employers who do not will be assessed an annual fair share contribution that will not exceed $295 per employee per year.[23] The fair share contribution will be paid into the Commonwealth Care Trust Fund to fund Commonwealth Care and other health reform programs.
Well, there were tax penalties, after all. Plus, extra taxes to employers who did not provide health insurance. And, they did provide free health insurance to low-income residents.
Regarding so-called "Obamacare": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act
Some taxes are raised to pay for it. It looks like the biggest source of new revenue is a broadened Medicare tax for high-income individuals.
The biggest impact on me is the raise in the Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction from 7.5% to 10%--not a really big deal.
I don't see where $500 billion is taken out of Medicare. It mentions improved benefits for Medicare prescription drug coverage are to be implemented, and a restructuring of Medicare reimbursement from "fee-for-service" to "bundled payments."
The new Long Term Care insurance seems like a good idea.
Anyway, the government needed to do something, and we had only a brief window of opportunity. We'll just have to see how it goes.
15 Jun 2011, 7:05 pm
pandabear wrote:
Well, there were tax penalties, after all. Plus, extra taxes to employers who did not provide health insurance. And, they did provide free health insurance to low-income residents.
Virtually no one pays those taxes in Massachusetts. They are an enforcement mechanism for the mandate, not a a fundraising mechanism. The purpose is to prevent freeloading by people who claim not to be able to afford health insurance.
In contrast, the 1% income tax surcharge in Obamacare is paid even if you have insurance; it's a fundraising mechanism. If anything, it promotes freeloading rather than penalizing it.
The medicare cuts were in the form of lowering reimbursement rates for medicare services. That's why many doctors quit serving medicare patients.
Romney was absolutely correct about the problems with Obamacare.
Quote:
Anyway, the government needed to do something, and we had only a brief window of opportunity. We'll just have to see how it goes.
The government didn't need to do anything, and it's always possible to make things worse by doing the wrong thing, which is what Obama did.
15 Jun 2011, 7:21 pm
This thread is better for this post, I'll remove the post I made in the primaries one.
(CNP From : http://skepchick.org/2011/06/gop-presid ... te-for-us/)
----------------------
US Republican presidential candidates held a debate last night and they sent a pretty clear message to secular progressives: do not, under any circumstances, vote for us.
On separation of Church and State (from this transcript):
Quote:
PAWLENTY: Well, the protections between the separation of church and state were designed to protect people of faith from government, not government from people of faith. This is a country that in our founding documents says we’re a nation that’s founded under God, and the privileges and blessings at that we have are from our creator. They’re not from our member of Congress. They’re not from our county commissioner.
And 39 of the 50 states have in the very early phrases of their constitutions language like Minnesota has in its preamble. It says this, “We the people of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberties,” and so the Founding Fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation come from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. I embrace that.
And 39 of the 50 states have in the very early phrases of their constitutions language like Minnesota has in its preamble. It says this, “We the people of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberties,” and so the Founding Fathers understood that the blessings that we have as a nation come from our creator and we should stop and say thanks and express gratitude for that. I embrace that.
Our founding fathers were deists, atheists, and Christians but above all that they were secularists who made it blindingly obvious that there was to be a clear separation of church and state. Shouldn’t a basic understanding of American history be a prerequisite for a presidential candidate?
Quote:
SANTORUM: I’m some who believes that you approach issues using faith and reason. And if your faith is pure and your reason is right, they’ll end up in the same place.
I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country — Madison called it the perfect remedy — which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you’re not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite — we get along because we know that we — all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That’s what makes America work.
I think the key to the success of this country, how we all live together, because we are a very diverse country — Madison called it the perfect remedy — which was to allow everybody, people of faith and no faith, to come in and make their claims in the public square, to be heard, have those arguments, and not to say because you’re not a person of faith, you need to stay out, because you have strong faith convictions, your opinion is invalid. Just the opposite — we get along because we know that we — all of our ideas are allowed in and tolerated. That’s what makes America work.
Credit where it’s due: congrats to Rick Santorum for saying the least stupid thing that night about separation of church and state.
Quote:
KING: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?
PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral.
But the Constitution addresses this by saying — literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws — which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.
PAUL: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral.
But the Constitution addresses this by saying — literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws — which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.
And an award to Ron Paul for maybe the most stupid! Let’s get a replay of that:
Quote:
But the Constitution addresses this by saying — literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state.
Apparently Ron Paul doesn’t know the meaning of either theocracy, church, state, or all of the above.
Then the focus switched to Muslims. Herman Cain (who? Oh some businessman who once said he would never want a Muslim to serve on his cabinet) clarified that he’d let a Muslim be in his administration, just not the kind of Muslim that is trying to kill us:
Quote:
CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.
And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.
And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.
And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.
And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.
That’s a good point! Who would be comfortable working with someone who is trying to kill you? He’d probably be totally cool if one of his opponents said the same thing about black people. “It’s not that I don’t want any black people in my cabinet. I just don’t want any black people who may be trying to murder me.”
But here’s the problem: how do you tell the difference between a good Muslim and an evil Muslim? You could ask during the interview process, of course – “Tell me, how do you feel about murdering infidels? Strongly for, slightly for, indifferent, slightly against, or strongly against? Uh huh, I see . . . ” There’s a problem with that, though, which Newt Gingrich quickly pointed out:
Quote:
GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed — when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, “You’re my enemy. I lied.”
Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.
Good point, Newt! How can we possibly separate the Muslims who want to kill us from the ones who don’t? We can’t! So we should probably just find out who all the Muslims are and then black list them, right? That worked really well in the past. What was that guy’s name, McCarthy?
GINGRICH: We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.
Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I’m in favor of saying to people, if you’re not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.
Good point, Newt! How can we possibly separate the Muslims who want to kill us from the ones who don’t? We can’t! So we should probably just find out who all the Muslims are and then black list them, right? That worked really well in the past. What was that guy’s name, McCarthy?
GINGRICH: We did this — we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.
Yeah, remember when we were all like, “Hey, that McCarthy guy really had a point, didn’t he?” Yep.
Then the debate moved on to the gayz and how they’re trying to ruin marriage:
Quote:
BACHMANN:
I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.
I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I carried that legislation when I was a senator in Minnesota, and I believe that for children, the best possible way to raise children is to have a mother and father in their life.
Then she mentions that she was raised by a single mother because her parents got divorced. So yeah, let’s stop the gayz from screwing up marriage! The heteros are doing such a great job with it!
And speaking of the Republican agenda item of making life miserable for gay people, all but Santorum (omg he actually came across as not the worst) favor Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Yes, even the Libertarian idol Ron Paul, who doesn’t believe in gay rights:
Quote:
PAUL: I would not work to overthrow [DADT]. We have to remember, rights don’t come in groups. We shouldn’t have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would (ph) have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
So yeah, it doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight, so long as you never act gay. Acting straight is fine because that’s normal.
And then of course we get to women’s legal right to abortion, an absolutely essential part of women’s health and freedom. Michelle Bachmann is anti-choice and would make the right to abortion illegal if she becomes president. Watch as she refuses to answer whether or not she would allow exceptions for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or maternal death:
Quote:
FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?
BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.
And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.
And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.
BACHMANN: I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.
And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take.
And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.
Tim Pawlenty isn’t going to let her top him:
Quote:
KING: All right. Governor Pawlenty, it was your position that was brought into the question. We’ll give you a few seconds.
PAWLENTY: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results — not just based on words — I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.
As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women’s right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others.
I’m solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven’t just talked about these things; I’ve done it.
PAWLENTY: Well, this is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results — not just based on words — I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race.
As governor of the state of Minnesota, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women’s right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others.
I’m solidly pro-life. The main pro-life organization in Minnesota gives me very, very high marks. And I haven’t just talked about these things; I’ve done it.
And of course Santorum and Gingrich wouldn’t miss the chance to also mention that they’d take away a woman’s right to choose if given the opportunity:
Quote:
SANTORUM: I think — I think an issue should be — in looking at any candidate is looking at the authenticity of that candidate and looking at their — at their record over time and what they fought for. And I think that’s — that a factor that — that should be determined.
You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I’ve taken the — you know, I’ve not just taken the pledge, I’ve taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that’s a factor that people should consider when you — when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?
A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and — and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Governor Romney, let me give you — take — take 20 or 30 seconds, if there’s a Republican out there for whom this important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?
ROMNEY: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I’ve said as — as I’ve been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I’m firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.
You can look at my record. Not only have I been consistently pro-life, but I’ve taken the — you know, I’ve not just taken the pledge, I’ve taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues. And I think that’s a factor that people should consider when you — when you look, well, what is this president going to do when he comes to office?
A lot of folks run for president as pro-life and then that issue gets shoved to the back burner. I will tell you that the issue of pro-life, the sanctity and dignity of every human life, not just at birth, not just on the issue of abortion, but with respect to the entire life, which I mentioned welfare reform and — and the dignity of people at the end of life, those issues will be top priority issues for me to make sure that all life is respected and held with dignity.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Governor Romney, let me give you — take — take 20 or 30 seconds, if there’s a Republican out there for whom this important, who questions your authenticity on the issue?
ROMNEY: People have had a chance to look at my record and look what I’ve said as — as I’ve been through that last campaign. I believe people understand that I’m firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.
Yep, Santorum is taking the bullets! Not the bullets meant for abortion providers, of course. No, those are in the process of being protected by his Republican cohorts in South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska.
No seriously, go back and read that link. It’s about a man who traveled to Madison, WI in May to shoot abortion providers “right in the head.” The day he was arrested a State committee approved a bill to allow residents to carry concealed weapons with no permit or training. The article also mentions that Nebraska is considering the same bill that was overturned in South Dakota that considered the murder of abortion providers as justifiable homicide. Just an aside.
So anyway, there you have it: anti-abortion, anti-first amendment, anti-gay rights. Stellar line-up, Republicans!
_________________
.
15 Jun 2011, 7:47 pm
Vexcalibur wrote:
So anyway, there you have it: anti-abortion, anti-first amendment, anti-gay rights. Stellar line-up, Republicans!
Paul's not a big fan of kids either, at least not illegal ones:
KING: And so, Dr. Paul, to you on this one, the question comes up, though, once they're in the country illegally, you have -- compassion sometimes bumps up against enforcing the law and state budget crises. A 5-year-old child of an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room. Does the child get care?
PAUL: Well, first off, we shouldn't have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn't give them easy citizenship.
We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make any sense to me.
(APPLAUSE)
But on -- on coming in, you know, there was a time when government wasn't -- we didn't depend on government for everything. There was a time when the Catholic Church actually looked after...
KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
If we believed in our free society -- as a matter of fact, this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. People aren't coming over as much now because it's weak. When we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn't work (ph) and people flowed over here getting jobs. So there is an economic issue here, as well.
But, no, if you have an understanding and -- and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. You don't have to say, oh, you're not going to have care or there won't be any care and everybody is going to starve to death and -- and die on the streets without medical care. That's the implication of the question. That's just not true, and you shouldn't accept it.
Didn't anyone ever tell this guy that freedom costs a buck o' five?
15 Jun 2011, 8:08 pm
number5 wrote:
KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
The "no" clearly refers to whether the taxpayers should have to pay for the care, not whether the child should get the care. Paul is talking about allowing the Catholic Church to take on charitable cases like that, rather than the taxpayers ending up paying for it.
As in some other cases, he didn't explain clearly enough for some people to understand, obviously.
15 Jun 2011, 8:30 pm
psychohist wrote:
number5 wrote:
KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
PAUL: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong.
The "no" clearly refers to whether the taxpayers should have to pay for the care, not whether the child should get the care. Paul is talking about allowing the Catholic Church to take on charitable cases like that, rather than the taxpayers ending up paying for it.
As in some other cases, he didn't explain clearly enough for some people to understand, obviously.
Oh, it was plenty clear. If an illegal child is fortunate enough to have the Catholic Church foot his bill the no worries. But, if an illegal child should lack this charitable support, then it's A-OK to say "Sorry kid - not the taxpayers' problem."
15 Jun 2011, 8:32 pm
minervx wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Anyways here is my feeling of the candidates:
Newt: Very knowledgeable, answered questions.
Bachmann: Made the press look like idiots.
Cain: Straightforward and answered questions
Paul: A quack
Romney: Used Car Salesman
Other two candidates: meh
Newt: Very knowledgeable, answered questions.
Bachmann: Made the press look like idiots.
Cain: Straightforward and answered questions
Paul: A quack
Romney: Used Car Salesman
Other two candidates: meh
My thoughts EXACTLY
Clearly if only aspies voted in the primary, Gingrich would have the nomination tied up.
