Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney Endorse Romney

[Dirty Penguin]

Just to put your mind at ease, the election has never been close, according to the 538 polling average, the bookies, or any serious analyst. Romney's chances have never risen much higher than 35%, and now they are closer to 25%.

Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com

A gimme is not very newsworthy, though, so the papers tend to hone in on the percentage of the popular vote rather than the likelihood of winning the electoral collage. It looks almost like a dead heat if you do that, but Obama still has over 50% of the popular vote, and is gaining votes daily.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed....:drool:

 

[Alceste]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed....:drool:

The whole world is crossing its fingers on this one. We don't want to have to deal with another Bush.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The whole world is crossing its fingers on this one. We don't want to have to deal with another Bush.

I miss GWB. Penguin, I watched the videos. FH, legislation from the bench is wrong, right? We should get rid of Row vs Wade then too.

 

[Revoltingest]

For "morality" to be legislated?

Certainly, all politicians want to legislate morality. What differs is the flavor of it (eg, secular humanism, Xian theocracy, modern liberalism,
Sharia) & the extent of it (eg, statism, laissez faire). Obama & Romney seem quite similar in wanting to impose their values upon us,
so the issue becomes what the values are & what success they'll have. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking only the other guy wants to
micro-manage our affairs.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I miss GWB.

Not me. He did seem to come across as a social conservative which seems to be polar opposite than many in the GOP today.

Penguin, I watched the videos.

Yep. The Blind Trust is in Ann Romney's name and she and Mitt made at the minimum $15 Million from the auto bailout of Delphi Automotive but may have actually made $115 Million. All the other investors made billions and that name "Dan Senor" keeps popping up. This story is deep and may answer some of the questions why Romney is refusing reveal his tax returns prior to 2010.

We should get rid of Row vs Wade then too.

Why......?
Since you're not a woman your answer should prove interesting.

 

[Father Heathen]

FH, legislation from the bench is wrong, right? We should get rid of Row vs Wade then too.

There is a huge difference between protecting rights, freedom and equality, and restricting them.

*edit*

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Certainly, all politicians want to legislate morality. What differs is the flavor of it (eg, secular humanism, Xian theocracy, modern liberalism,
Sharia) & the extent of it (eg, statism, laissez faire). Obama & Romney seem quite similar in wanting to impose their values upon us,
so the issue becomes what the values are & what success they'll have. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking only the other guy wants to
micro-manage our affairs.

There you go again......

 

[Revoltingest]

There you go again......

I'm powerless to resist the urge to obstreperate.
Example.....

There is a huge difference between protecting rights, freedom and equality, and restricting them.
I don't want your religious swill made into my laws. You're welcome to your rubbish, but it should stay in your personal life rather than imposed upon the public.

Areligious values can vex us too.
To protect some rights (eg, the "right" to subsidies, freedom from insult) have costs (eg, higher taxes, censorship).
I'm not so ready to say that Rev Rick would impose his values upon us any more than some of my godless brethren (& sistern)
might. I'll look at it more issue by issue. (Of course, I don't let religion off the hook....it has potential for tyranny.)

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Please keep all forum rules in mind while posting, particularly Rule 1 and Rule 3:

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

 

[Reverend Rick]

Our country is divided right down the middle. Many Progressives who champion freedom in one breath want to restrict freedoms with the next breath. Its all about control on both sides. Honestly if either side has total control they take things too far in either direction.

Right now, we need to get folks back to work and later we can enjoy the luxury of debating social issues. People want jobs and the issue is who will provide us with the most good paying jobs the quickest.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Right now, we need to get folks back to work and later we can enjoy the luxury of debating social issues. People want jobs and the issue is who will provide us with the most good paying jobs the quickest.

I agree that we need to get more people back to work and that is happening now. Some conservatives believe our economy is all doom and gloom but that is far from the case. It needs improvement but our economy is doing a whole lot better than it was before Obama took office.

As far as social issues I totally disagree with you. There's no reason to address Roe v. Wade. There's no reason to ban abortion. There's no reason to not sign the revised Violence Against Women Act. There's no reason to not pass legislation that requires employers to pay women the same as they do men. There's no reason to deny LGBT the same rights as anyone else etc...

Social issues can be addressed at the same time we're working to put more people back to work. The Republican platform does away with many of these social issues. This has been self evident with all of the state and federal legislation in he past two years. Many conservatives have no plans on dealing with these social issues other than to deny them so to say we should deal with them later won't work because they're proving to us they have no plans on dealing with them other than to strike them down.

 

[Reverend Rick]

OK Mr.Penguin, bestow your common sense upon me. When half the country wants one thing and the other half wants the opposite, what is the solution?

When the GDP is limping along at just over 2% and we need it to double to get everyone who wants a job to get back to work and our government liabilities will not be funded until this happens, how can we continue to limp along at this pathetic pace?

With Obama, we get get more of the same and that is not working. How can you be satisfied with our anemic economy?

Are you saying social issues are more important than economic issues?

Mitt Romney has a proven track record of improving economic problems while social issues will remain at a stand still until this country is ready to reach consensus or reach a compromise.

Why would you believe Obama will do anything beyond giving you lip service on any of these social issues?

 

[Revoltingest]

When the GDP is limping along at just over 2% and we need it to double to get everyone who wants a job to get back to work and our government liabilities will not be funded until this happens, how can we continue to limp along at this pathetic pace?

I wonder if this 2% is adjusted for currency devaluation (inflation). My rental rates are still at bottom-of-the-crash levels,
I'm giving multiple commercial tenants the boot for non-payment, building materials have skyrocketed (eg, asphalt, concrete),
no bank will refinance my commercial properties yet, & a world wide bacon shortage looms. Obama apologists say things are
greatly improved, but I don't buy it. We might see more dollars being churned, but with less economic activity.

 

[Sunstone]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

With Obama, we get get more of the same and that is not working. How can you be satisfied with our anemic economy?

I am satisfied that our economy is moving in the right direction compared to the 8 eight years of Bush. Again, I want to remind you that MANY of the people on the Romney staff are from the Bush Administration. If you are expecting some new grand or bold ideas you're in for a rude awakening.

Are you saying social issues are more important than economic issues?

No. What I'm saying is it's equally as important. Many understand what it means for a Republican to become president. He will have the opportunity to appoint 1 to 2 new Justices to the Supreme Court. Doing so could mean the overturning of Roe V. Wade. It could mean that many of the record number of anti-abortion legislation the states have been trying to pass can become law on a federal level.

Mitt Romney has a proven track record of improving economic problems

But what you don't understand is why that sounds good on the surface and why it's a great talking point you failed to dig deeper and to do any quality research. Romney received millions of dollars toward the Olympics from the Federal Government . He received a million from the Dept. Of Education to allow children to attend the games but was able to take the remaining to use for other purposes. RomneyCare is not solely state funded. I believe half is funded by the federal government. Romney also received other federal monies for the state of Massachusetts. It's easy to balance your budgets when you're using someone else's money.

while social issues will remain at a stand still until this country is ready to reach consensus or reach a compromise.

You haven't been paying attention to the record amount of anti-abortion bills at the state level over the past two years or the anti-LGBT initiatives lately. Even the Voting Rights Bill of 1965 may be heading back to the courts. If Republicans have control then there is little room for compromise. Just look at early voting in Ohio. The Republican there took his fight all the way to the US Supreme Court after being shot down by all the lower courts including a federal judge. He was not satisfied. He ultimately shortened the voting hours. He wanted it his way for obvious racial reasons. You'll have to excuse me if I not as confident in your party's willingness to compromise as you believe considering they haven't displayed much of a willingness to do so.

Why would you believe Obama will do anything beyond giving you lip service on any of these social issues?

I think you should check the President's stance and record on social issues compared to Romney, many Republicans, an the RNC Platform. I'll take Obama's stance and record over Republicans any day.

 

[Father Heathen]

Our country is divided right down the middle. Many Progressives who champion freedom in one breath want to restrict freedoms with the next breath.

...and which freedoms are those?

 

[Storm]

...and which freedoms are those?

Often the right to bear arms, though that's not universal. I honestly can't think of another example.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you saying social issues are more important than economic issues?

Why should we have to compromise equality, rights and liberty for the sake economic security? Why did fiscal conservatism have to be intertwined with religious fundamentalism? It's like washing your medicine down with poison.

 

[Father Heathen]

Often the right to bear arms, though that's not universal. I honestly can't think of another example.

No serious politician on the left would attempt to completely ban firearms. It would be wildly unpopular and unrealistic.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's like washing your medicine down with poison.

That's voting for ya.....if one chooses between the Big Two candidates, there won't be a perfect fit.
Any choice means sacrificing some values for others.

No serious politician on the left would attempt to completely ban firearms. It would be wildly unpopular and unrealistic.

Of course, a complete ban would happen only after many small steps in that direction.
Each individual step would be popular & realistic. So this right could ultimately be lost.