Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:32 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:56 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
juditupp wrote:
I thought Santorum did a poor job. He wasn't clear or concise. He rambled when he answered the questions and half the time my daughter and I couldn't even figure out what his actual answer was. I think focusing his closing remarks on the social issues was a strategic mistake. Everyone already knows he won't back down on that. We want to know what else he stands for. I was very impressed by Perry's performance. If I was an uninformed voter this might have won me over. Bachmann did a good job too. My daughter thought someone had her doing yoga or something because she was so calm and collected, lol! She thought that her performance tonight was a big contrast from what we've seen from her previously. I missed part of Gingrich as I didn't get dinner done quite on time so I don't feel I can judge his performance fairly. Romney (as usual) was smooth as silk and full of bologna. Paul was rambling as usual. Apparently giving him equal time doesn't help.


I heard the debate over XM radio and not on TV and had the opportunity to hear everyone in their entirity except for Newt (caught the beginning and end of his segment but unfortunately missed a lot of it). My impression was that Santorum did a very good job, just hearing him and not seeing him. I thought his answers to questions were both direct and precise. I thought Perry did better than he did during other debates but totally disagreed with his answer that he'd be legally able to overturn Federal Law through an Executive Order. He didn't impress me but I did think he did better than before. The more Paul talks, the more I realize why I could never vote for him even though I admire his sincerity for his convictions.

This forum should serve as a lesson for the entire media on how to conduct a Presidential debate. They eliminated all the nonsense that we saw at all the other debates and forced the candidates to answer direct questions that weren't formulated to start a food fight for entertainment value. Kudos to Mike and every other media outlet that hosted a debate is probably kicking themselves for not thinking of this first.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:12 am 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
In Santorum's defense he gave a really good explanation for why the human life amendment was so important in regards to states rights and abortion. Since the states have to ratify amendments it would essentially give the states the right to determine abortion law. Interesting perspective. I've actually never heard anyone put it quite like that.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."



Post by juditupp Liked by: TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:13 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Miserere wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Romney is SUCH a suck up. :barf

And where'd he get that Boehner tan? :lol:


I don't know, from what I saw, he was the only one kind of pushing back against the AGs' apparent view of things, e.g. when he said he wouldn't want to get rid of all federal labor law.
What little I could catch, I have to admit that Romney sounded decent.

What was it that the AG's were saying or asking that bothered you?


It just seemed a little unrealistic and abstract. The gist of the whole thing was, why do you think the feds should be doing this, why do you think the feds should be doing that, what is the constitutional basis for the feds doing this, etc. And those are good questions, but my personal view is that the answers involve a lot of nuance, and it does a disservice to the Constitution to oversimplify it.

And part of the problem I think is that the candidates aren't really up to providing that nuance.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:28 am 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
Miserere wrote:
It just seemed a little unrealistic and abstract. The gist of the whole thing was, why do you think the feds should be doing this, why do you think the feds should be doing that, what is the constitutional basis for the feds doing this, etc. And those are good questions, but my personal view is that the answers involve a lot of nuance, and it does a disservice to the Constitution to oversimplify it.

And part of the problem I think is that the candidates aren't really up to providing that nuance.

Shouldn't they be up to it though?? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If they can't articulate how that works in the nitty gritty of the job they're interviewing for then perhaps they shouldn't be applying.

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."



Post by juditupp Liked by: Indiana4Huck
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:57 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
juditupp wrote:
Miserere wrote:
It just seemed a little unrealistic and abstract. The gist of the whole thing was, why do you think the feds should be doing this, why do you think the feds should be doing that, what is the constitutional basis for the feds doing this, etc. And those are good questions, but my personal view is that the answers involve a lot of nuance, and it does a disservice to the Constitution to oversimplify it.

And part of the problem I think is that the candidates aren't really up to providing that nuance.

Shouldn't they be up to it though?? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If they can't articulate how that works in the nitty gritty of the job they're interviewing for then perhaps they shouldn't be applying.


Maybe. On the other hand, the president will have legal counsel telling him what's legal/in keeping with precedent and what isn't.

To a certain degree, I think it's problematic for politicians to be talking constitutional law. Someone running for president is running on a certain set of policies and a certain vision for the country. If you start inquiring into his view of the constitution, it puts him in a place where he has an interest in arguing the constitution is consistent with his policies and vision and that it's inconsistent with the other guy's policies and vision.

We saw this stuff against Bush from the left, we see it now against Obama. What gets lost is the constitution itself, and the fact that we usually disagree on policy grounds while the constitutional points are usually pretty arguable (IMO).

I'd much rather settle these issues (the proper understanding of federalism, for example) with elections than expect the Constitution, and therefore the court, to settle them.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:15 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
juditupp wrote:
In Santorum's defense he gave a really good explanation for why the human life amendment was so important in regards to states rights and abortion. Since the states have to ratify amendments it would essentially give the states the right to determine abortion law. Interesting perspective. I've actually never heard anyone put it quite like that.


I agree. Very good perspective and I had never heard anyone mention that either.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:38 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Here's a clip with Santorum's part of the forum


He's stumbling over his words a bit, but my impression was that it was just because he had so much that he was trying to say as opposed to it being confused. I think he actually did pretty well.

I also have read where several people stated that Santorum's closing was aimed at Iowa and that was why he chose to go with the social issues again. It makes sense - Iowa will probably make or break him. If he can't do well there, people will see him as a unelectable so it's pretty do or die at this point.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:44 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Gotta love reporters - Cuccinelli was not "blasting" anybody
Quote:
GOPers keep it friendly at Huck forum

By: Emily Schultheis
December 3, 2011 11:26 PM EST

The presidential race began Saturday with Herman Cain’s dramatic, theatrical exit from the contest, but it ended with a substantive and subdued discussion of constitutional issues at Mike Huckabee’s presidential forum.

Each allotted an equal, set amount of time, six 2012 hopefuls – Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul – fielded questions on issues of state sovereignty and federal power from a friendly panel of Republican moderators.

Huckabee hosted the forum on an extended version of his Fox News show, and invited three Republican state attorneys general – Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia, Pam Bondi of Florida and Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma – to question the candidates.

“We heard more about the Constitution more than every other debate combined,” Bondi concluded at the end of the two-hour event.

It was an opportunity for the candidates to pay homage to Huckabee – who has so far stayed neutral in the 2012 GOP primary. He’ll hold a similar forum in Iowa, focused on abortion, on Dec. 14.

At the start of the forum, Huckabee noted that Jon Huntsman declined “repeated invitations” to participate, and said Cain had also declined before suspending his campaign earlier Saturday.

Gingrich was pressed on some of his more moderate stances – namely, his support for a health care mandate and his appearance in a commercial with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, where the two talked about climate change.

“Sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi is the dumbest single thing I’ve done in the last few years — but if you notice, I’ve never favored cap and trade, and in fact I actively testified against it,” Gingrich said. “I was at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee the same day Al Gore was there to testify for it, I testified against it and through American Solutions we fought it in the Senate and played a major role in defeating it.”

Perry, who has turned in a string of embarrassing debate performances, didn’t make any major gaffes, but did stumble slightly when Cuccinelli challenged him on the assertion that an executive order would effectively repeal health care reform.

“The executive order obviously gives you that authority [to repeal the law],” he told Cuccinelli. “But also, as I said earlier, having men and women in those agencies who are going to share your philosophy – I think that’s an important message.”

Cuccinelli shot back: “I just want to be real clear to make sure I understand this: You are taking the position that you can stop the implementation of a law passed by Congress, signed by the president, with an executive order?”

Perry walked his comments back, saying an executive order could stop “parts” of the health care law.

And Romney defended his role in shaping the Massachusetts health care law, saying the final bill was “different” than the one he’d originally proposed but that he was pleased with the imperfect end result.

“Do I like the bill overall? Yes. Am I proud of what we did for our state? Yes,” he said. “But what the president has done is way beyond what we envisioned.”


The forum was specifically designed to prevent infighting between the candidates in attendance – each was interviewed separately, and even during the candidates’ one-minute final statements, they did not appear on the set together. Also missing were the raucous crowds and the journalist-moderators drawing the candidates out of their comfort zones. The questioners — all Republican elected officials — often voiced agreement with the candidates on their answers to policy questions.

When Bachmann said she’d abolish the Environmental Protection Agency, Cuccinelli said, “You’re talking to a crowd here that is all suing the EPA in one way or another.”

“I think we heard thoughtful, substantive conversation without infighting,” Bondi said at the end of the forum.

But it didn’t take long for the collegiality to dissolve.

While Huckabee said all the candidates did “an outstanding job,” Cuccinelli — himself a tea party hero who recently signaled he would run for governor of Virginia in 2013 — didn’t feel the same way. In a post-forum interview on Fox News, he blasted Gingrich’s moderate stances and also said he wasn’t persuaded by Romney.

“My benchmark was: I want to leave with comfort that each of these six candidates is going to be a limited-government, conservative president,” he said. “And despite pressing Newt Gingrich several times, I didn’t get that. I did not get that. We could have another compassionate conservative on our hands.”

Of Romney’s stances on health care, he said: “I don’t see a lot of difference there between him and the president.”

And the candidates themselves, denied the opportunity to challenge one another face to face, quickly got to work doing so once the forum wrapped.

In response to Gingrich’s claim that he testified against cap-and-trade, both the Perry and Paul campaigns emailed around a 2007 interview in which Gingrich said a 2000 carbon cap pledge George W. Bush made was “something I would strongly support.”


© 2011 POLITICO LLC

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 49B3745AB1


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:24 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Here is Gingrich's part from the Forum


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:28 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:12 am
Posts: 3819
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Likes: 194
Liked: 215
Entire debate:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/huckabee-presidential-forum

_________________
Ken



Post by FirstCoastTerp Liked by: ohiorepublican09
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:30 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Here's a clip with Santorum's part of the forum


He's stumbling over his words a bit, but my impression was that it was just because he had so much that he was trying to say as opposed to it being confused. I think he actually did pretty well.

I also have read where several people stated that Santorum's closing was aimed at Iowa and that was why he chose to go with the social issues again. It makes sense - Iowa will probably make or break him. If he can't do well there, people will see him as a unelectable so it's pretty do or die at this point.

I think Santorum was rushing through his answers like he had to in other debates. I liked that he brought up the 17th amendment ([8:18] in the vid), but I wish he would have gone farther to say that we need to rethink that amendment.


Huntsman made a mistake skipping this event. What was he thinking?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:40 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:30 pm
Posts: 1586
Likes: 9
Liked: 72
Anyone else notice Drudge has totally ignored the best debate by far of this primary season and a model for all? scratch

_________________
I have my tin foil hat on, wearing it proudly, and will take it off on Inauguration Day 2017. Image

"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles..." George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:51 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:01 pm
Posts: 884
Location: Indianapolis
Likes: 166
Liked: 73
Miserere wrote:
juditupp wrote:
Miserere wrote:
It just seemed a little unrealistic and abstract. The gist of the whole thing was, why do you think the feds should be doing this, why do you think the feds should be doing that, what is the constitutional basis for the feds doing this, etc. And those are good questions, but my personal view is that the answers involve a lot of nuance, and it does a disservice to the Constitution to oversimplify it.

And part of the problem I think is that the candidates aren't really up to providing that nuance.

Shouldn't they be up to it though?? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If they can't articulate how that works in the nitty gritty of the job they're interviewing for then perhaps they shouldn't be applying.


Maybe. On the other hand, the president will have legal counsel telling him what's legal/in keeping with precedent and what isn't.

To a certain degree, I think it's problematic for politicians to be talking constitutional law. Someone running for president is running on a certain set of policies and a certain vision for the country. If you start inquiring into his view of the constitution, it puts him in a place where he has an interest in arguing the constitution is consistent with his policies and vision and that it's inconsistent with the other guy's policies and vision.

We saw this stuff against Bush from the left, we see it now against Obama. What gets lost is the constitution itself, and the fact that we usually disagree on policy grounds while the constitutional points are usually pretty arguable (IMO).

I'd much rather settle these issues (the proper understanding of federalism, for example) with elections than expect the Constitution, and therefore the court, to settle them.
Please don't confuse constitutional law with the Constitution. Constitutional law is about setting precedence which in fact is a form of judicial activism, i.e. legislation from the bench.

Understanding the Constitution and how it dictates to the three branches of government is imperative for the leader of this great nation. And it should be mandatory study for every voter. The judicial branch was to be, on purpose, the least powerful branch and is without 'will or power' to carry out its 'judgments', especially if the executive branch and/or We the People ignore its judgments (ref. Obama's refusal to prosecute violations of DOMA, which by the way is legislation).

Another case in point, the courts wrote an 'opinion' that prayer was not allowed in school. However, there has never been 'legislation' and therefore a law making it illegal. It is only because we the people are intimidated by the court that we agree with this 'ruling' from a body that is misguided concerning so-called separation of church and state.

The founders were uncanny in their foresight and brilliant in their thinking when they created our government structure. Truly it is for a moral people only and because our society has fallen so short of morality, I am afraid we are doomed unless enough people, who understand the Constitution as it was written and debated over in its creation, become activists, i.e. citizen representatives. They intuitively put safeguards in place, checks and balances if you will, to ensure that We the People would have representation.

When Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, e.g. ObamaCare, it is up to the Executive Branch to stop it, e.g. presidential veto, but if the President ignores its duty to the citizens and the Constitution and allows it to stand, the Judicial branch then must rule against the unconstitutional legislation (Obamacare to the Supreme Court this coming spring) or it will have complicity with the other two branches, However, should this check fail at the Judicial branch and it become complicit with Congress and the President, one final chance to thwart the usurpation of power is available for We The People by removing these usurpers from being our representatives.

(Forgive me if I don't explain this well. I have taken a Constitution class series and I can tell you that I had no idea how misinformed the general public is about the Constitution. I am still trying to process and articulate what I am learning. I am no way an authority but compared to most, I certainly have some insight.) I hope this generates some discussion as I am fascinated by the Constitution and want to learn more. I am so sorry I missed Mike's forum. I will tape it tonight as I am working again.



Post by Indiana4Huck Liked by: juditupp
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:38 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
Quote:
Please don't confuse constitutional law with the Constitution. Constitutional law is about setting precedence which in fact is a form of judicial activism, i.e. legislation from the bench.

Certainly there's a difference between the Constitution and the body of cases that have interpreted it over the years. But what matters, practically, is constitutional law. That's what I was getting at with noting the abstract nature of the whole debate on the Constitution.
Constitutional law is inevitable. When the court decides a constitutional case, it inevitably must interpret the Constitution. It isn't always clear what the Constitution requires, what the proper construction of a particular clause is, and people are going to disagree about those things. So a case dealing with a particular clause in the Constitution becomes the government's working understanding of that particular clause.

Quote:
Understanding the Constitution and how it dictates to the three branches of government is imperative for the leader of this great nation. And it should be mandatory study for every voter. The judicial branch was to be, on purpose, the least powerful branch and is without 'will or power' to carry out its 'judgments', especially if the executive branch and/or We the People ignore its judgments (ref. Obama's refusal to prosecute violations of DOMA, which by the way is legislation).

So, if the court strikes down Obamacare, are Congress, the Executive, and the people free not to listen to it? It seems like you're saying perhaps we shouldn't listen to courts when they make bad judgments, but then Obama could adopt the same rule and not listen to the courts when he thinks they make bad judgments.
As to Obamacare. I don't know how the court will rule. But ignoring precedent and constitutional law altogether, just for fun, and just focusing on the text of the Constitution, even then it's debatable whether it's constitutional or not.

Article I, Section 8,
"The Congress shall have Power...
To regulate Commerce...among the several States...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To regulate is to prescribe a rule by which some some activity is conducted (according to early 19th century dictionaries). Obamacare, in requiring citizens to have health insurance, is simply prescribing a rule by which healthcare - an integral part of commerce among the states - is conducted.
Or, supposing it isn't a regulation of interstate commerce: Congress has determined it is necessary and proper that citizens should have health insurance, in order to carry into execution the power to regulate commerce among the states. People without health insurance are freeloading on the system, thereby increasing health costs for the country.
So should the court substitute its judgment for Congress's (elected by the people) judgment about what is necessary and proper?

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:51 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
I was happy to see Mike Huckabee getting kudos out there in the political world for his forum.

I thought it was very informative and well done.

My only disappointment was that Huckabee did not ask a question to each candidate himself. I am puzzled why he did not do that. He did ask one of Rick Perry-sort of a follow up.

I also enjoyed the AG's and Mike Huckabee on Justice following the forum talking about the candidates strengths and weaknesses in the forum.

Sigh...I still do not have a candidate to vote for.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/



Post by ConservTexan Liked by: justgrace
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 2:55 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 3685
Location: Colorado
Likes: 341
Liked: 247
ConservTexan wrote:
I was happy to see Mike Huckabee getting kudos out there in the political world for his forum.

I thought it was very informative and well done.

My only disappointment was that Huckabee did not ask a question to each candidate himself. I am puzzled why he did not do that. He did ask one of Rick Perry-sort of a follow up.

I also enjoyed the AG's and Mike Huckabee on Justice following the forum talking about the candidates strengths and weaknesses in the forum.

Sigh...I still do not have a candidate to vote for.


I'm with you...I still have no idea who I'm going to support. :(


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:28 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
FWIW, I haven't been impressed that any of them have any strong points that are significant enough to draw me to them, so I am looking at how weak are their weak points.

I believe that Gingrich, Romney & Perry have untrustworthy records and money is clearly their strongest principle. Bachmann is too raw & inexperienced & doesn't have the ability to communicate as effectively as is needed for the presidency. Huntsman is just another "lite" Republican. And Paul is a libertarian.

As far as viability, I believe that Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman & Paul have pretty much hit their ceiling; and barring the unforeseen, will not pick up more support from here. Gingrich and Romney are currently the strongest candidates. Santorum is a longshot, but it could be his turn to surge.

So, I have finally decided to support Santorum. I looked up his record, as well as his campaign stances - he has a more well-rounded resume than I had thought - and see in him the only one left in the race who has a political resume of worthwhile accomplishments, but most importantly, he is a man who can be trusted more than poll leaders Gingrich or Romney to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Santorum would be more focused on America and her people than on his resume or his portfolio - Gingrich and Romney's records tell us that they think it's all about them.

If Santorum doesn't catch fire in Iowa, I believe he's finished. But I am giving my "widow's mite" to help him now when it matters, in prayerful hope that I won't be left having to choose between Gingrich and Romney as that's where we are fast heading.



Post by QuoVadisAnima Liked by: maryrae
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:01 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:01 pm
Posts: 736
Location: Lakewood, CO
Likes: 118
Liked: 147
Side note on the forum. Most interesting answer of the night was from Paul. They asked him if he thought any of the amendments to the constitution were a bad idea. I can't believe he didn't jump on that and answer the 16th!!!! That is the one that permitted the income tax, right? He totally failed me in the one area I agree with him on, lol!

_________________
Judith Martinez
"It is true poverty for a child to die so that we may live as we wish."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:39 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Yeah, Paul surprised me that way, too.

Several people were complaining that Bachmann chose to criticize the property rights SCOTUS decision instead of Roe v. Wade.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:16 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:52 pm
Posts: 4803
Location: Texas
Likes: 90
Liked: 259
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Yeah, Paul surprised me that way, too.

Several people were complaining that Bachmann chose to criticize the property rights SCOTUS decision instead of Roe v. Wade.


Those people failed to recognize that Pam Bondi stated Bachmann could not include Roe v Wade in her answer.

_________________
ConservTexan

http://ilikemikehuckabee2012.blogspot.com/



Post by ConservTexan Liked by: ColoradoMom4Huckabee
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY