The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Omsig(godloveyou)David:
Which of the Founders, if living today, would be an Originalist? And why?

Joe(Do you think we should have listened more closely to Roger Williams, not a Founder, but still.... . ?)Nation

U.S. law based on English Common Law

By: GENE VITAMANTI - For The Californian

A major misconception many Americans have about our history is from whence American law was derived. Many people think that it is derived from the Judeo-Christian Bible. In actuality, American law is a carryover from our colonial days when we were ruled by English Common Law. We broke away from England but continued using that law system, which had been developed and continuously refined for over a thousand years. The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with this assessment.


Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_fa2c1730-e483-5e59-8ea1-1b2df9fcc62f.html#ixzz1jfCj6rMx

Greetings womwicodger, ...

Some altar boys wank.

What to Watch for in Tonight’s Debate
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

A dwindling group of Republican presidential contenders — now just five — will debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., tonight as the party lurches closer toward choosing its nominee.

The departure of Jon M. Huntsman Jr. from the race on Monday morning helps clarify the political dynamics that should play out on the debate stage with just five days left before voters here go to the polls.

Mitt Romney is now the lone voice in the race seeking the approval of the Republican establishment as he tries to close out his second bid to become his party’s standard-bearer.

Challenging him from the right are three rivals, each hoping that social conservatives in the state will find them a suitable alternative to Mr. Romney: Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker; Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania; and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

And Representative Ron Paul of Texas remains in the race as he makes the case that none of the other candidates represent the wholesale change to the economic and political system necessary to revive the country’s fortunes.

With just five candidates on the stage tonight, each will get more time to make his case. Even before Mr. Huntsman dropped out, Fox News, the sponsor of the debate, announced that it would allow 90 seconds for answers rather than a minute.

But the smaller field of candidates and the desire by Mr. Romney’s rivals to stop his march toward the nomination may sharpen the potential for personal attacks.

“Super PACs” have been pouring millions of dollars into such attacks in recent days, but even their reach does not compare to the millions of viewers likely to watch the debate.

With that in mind, here are some things to watch for in Monday’s debate:

1. Mr. Romney: First and foremost, Mr. Romney must avoid making mistakes. He is the clear leader in the polls, but there are five days to go until the primary — plenty of time for the tide to turn if he were to make a gaffe or present rivals with a fresh opportunity to question his leadership.

Second, Mr. Romney must find a way to succinctly answer the criticism of his role at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he once led. The attack has prompted a backlash of sorts against Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Perry, but it remains a potential drag on his support here. Look for him to try to put the issue to rest.

And with two victories under his belt, Mr. Romney is hoping to use his time in South Carolina to broaden his appeal and look like the inevitable nominee. He may seek to add a discussion of social issues to his normal answers about the economy. And he will almost certainly train his harshest rhetoric on President Obama as he tries to look the part of the party’s standard-bearer.

2. The Conservatives: For the three candidates on the stage vying for the social conservative vote, the most crucial mission is to stop Mr. Romney. That task may be easier without Representative Michele Bachmann, Mr. Huntsman or Herman Cain on the stage, diverting attention from their goal.

That probably means pressing the attacks on Mr. Romney’s time at Bain, though doing so risks more criticism from Republican voters that they are attacking free enterprise and capitalism. (Mr. Romney is sure to make that case, and could be aided by Mr. Santorum, who has sought to benefit by refusing to take part in the Bain attacks.)

Less clear is how much the three social conservatives will take aim at each other in the hopes of emerging as the one, true alternative to Mr. Romney. Mr Perry, who appears to be struggling at the bottom of the polls, is probably less of a threat to the others. But Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich each know that beating the other may be the only way to continue on to Florida and beyond.

One thing that is likely no matter what is that the debate will focus on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, gun rights and other concerns of the state’s evangelical voters. One thing that is not likely is any criticism of Mr. Romney’s Mormon faith. (Though it’s possible that the subject — and how it plays among religious voters — could be brought up by a debate moderator.)

3. Ron Paul: Having increased his share of the vote since his last White House bid in 2008, Mr. Paul shows no signs of dropping out anytime soon — even if he continues to lag behind Mr. Romney or if he drops behind other rivals.

But the impact of Mr. Paul’s “revolution” on the presidential conversation still depends on his success in attracting votes, and South Carolina may be his toughest state yet. There is less evidence that students or independents will turn out in large numbers in a primary that is typically dominated by conservative, evangelical voters.

Mr. Paul’s debate performances have been remarkably consistent, so watch for more of the same. But keep an eye out for a new and aggressive focus on Mr. Romney. If the perceived front-runner can be slowed down, that probably extends Mr. Paul’s time in the national spotlight.

Have you thought about starting your own threads about topics unrelated to this one?

You hit the nail right on the pointed head.

This is exactly what I believe as do millions of my fellow Republicans.

Are you suggesting that republicans drive nails in backwards or that they do things backwards?

I hope you've not misconstrued my response to your post. I'm not ridiculing you. Far from it. To the contrary, I just wanted to write a goofy post.

I cant answer that old chap. I don't believe in pumping iron, Viagra, tutelage, having a sex drive ( the **** mine got me in doesn't really bear thinking about), or narcissism.

... but be careful with facts.

No; our laws followed the common laws of England.

Quote:

U.S. law based on English Common Law

By: GENE VITAMANTI - For The Californian

A major misconception many Americans have about our history is from whence American law was derived. Many people think that it is derived from the Judeo-Christian Bible. In actuality, American law is a carryover from our colonial days when we were ruled by English Common Law. We broke away from England but continued using that law system, which had been developed and continuously refined for over a thousand years. The Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with this assessment.


Read more: http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_fa2c1730-e483-5e59-8ea1-1b2df9fcc62f.html#ixzz1jfCj6rMx

I learned this in Business Law - about three lifetimes ago.