68
   

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

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 05:03 pm
I know that Santorum is against indexing the minimum wage.
I think he is suggesting that if a certain percentage (7%?) of workers are at that level, that would be the time to raise the minimum wage.
Is that how you all read his comments?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 05:37 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O: I am clearing my desk of notes to myself. A few days/pages ago you said that the price of gas at the pump would increase to $5/gal by the time of the November election. Are you sticking to that claim?
Thank you for responding. -Johnboy
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 05:43 pm
@realjohnboy,
Mr Santorum is in that class of persons who, in the words of one long dead President, fishes up the wealth from the labouring classes.

As such, it is reasonable to presume, given human nature being as it is, that any proposal he makes will be in the service of him filling his nets fuller and with the least effort possible.

The question he should be asked is what proportion of the population it is safe to allow to engage in this so very obviously attractive activity.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 05:53 pm
@realjohnboy,
Yes I am.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 05:56 pm
@cicerone imposter,


Ci ~
Every time you post you reconfirm that you are an ignoranus and your response
to this post will just reconfirm what we all know to be true... it's all about you.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:01 pm
@H2O MAN,
And what would be the reason for the increase to $5/gal? Israel attacking Iran or Syria imploding or Greece going belly up? Can you blame Obama for those scenarios? You must have something else in mind. Right?
What is your rationale for gas going to $5/gal this summer?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:11 pm
@realjohnboy,
There is only one rationale for gas going to $5. It is that the traffic will bear it.

H2O ought to have said by the inauguration rather than by the election.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:15 pm
@realjohnboy,
If Obama doesn't do any further damage to our economy and the private sector continues their slow rebuild after 3+ years of Obama's terrible handling of our economy we should see an increase in demand for gasoline that is about to become more expensive anyway because of the change back to the summer season blend. This will cause prices to rise.

If Obama continues to restrict the drilling for and the piping of oil in the country we are at the mercy of huge price increases for crude. Obama's stubborn unwillingness on this matter just tells the world that we can be manipulated and that our president does not care about his people. Prices rise again.


If the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz is restricted we are even more at the mercy of world market prices for crude. There are a growing number of hot spots in that area and war(s) large & small can break out at any time cause a restriction in supply. Mere speculation of these events causes prices to rise.

Given Obama's lack of experience and lack of a true love for this country as an American, plus the big ifs listed above, I feel confident that $5.00 or more per gallon regular will happen sooner than later.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:55 pm
Whose policies, again, was it that caused domestic oil production to fall, and whose policies, again, saw rising oil production rates? Well, let's look at the FACTS.

  http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Bush-Obama-Oil-Production-graph.jpg

Wrong again, H2O. Eight years of drops and then stagnation at historic lows under Bush and the Republicans. Two years of continual rise under Obama (2011 results not done yet, but reports thru Novembers whoed the US exported more oil for the year than it imported). Winner: Obama.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 08:41 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
You are wrong, he is right.


Well, that settles it, doesn't it?

Conswervatives do not know what a fact means. They are simple robots, easily programmed by any other conswervative.

Anderson Cooper EVISCERATES Michele Bachmann on history of telling LIES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWVGVuviDIQ
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:10 pm
@MontereyJack,
MJ, Graphs and facts doesn't mean anything to watersquirt; he doesn't know how to "read" and interpret them. He only understands what he hears from FOX News - like a brainless parrot. He's a good imitation of a parrot, don't you think? He doesn't have to learn anything on his own; just repeat what he hears - like a robot.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 06:14 am
@spendius,
$4.00 by May
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 10:22 am
If Obama loses, (say he loses), then Im sure he will allow the Bush tax cuts to die and thios will , of course , cure the deficit and the GOP will take credit, like the rooster telling the sun who's responsible for the day
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 10:47 am
From RedState today:

Quote:
Panic Time for Everybody. Sepuku Seems To Be Winning the GOP Primary.

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

Monday, February 13th at 11:14AM EST
11 Comments

Mitt Romney should win Michigan. It is his for real home state — not one of the adopted or moved in to and bought a big house home states. Michigan is Mitt Romney’s home state as in his father was Governor of Michigan.

He should win it.

He is losing it.

He is losing it to Rick Santorum.

A PPP poll now has Santorum 16 points ahead in Michigan. An ARG poll has Santorum ahead by 6 points.

If Romney pours money in to Michigan to win, he will do it the way he has won the other races — through destroying his opponent, not building himself up. Romney knows the value of negative advertising. Santorum winning will cause abject panic among the powers that be in Washington, DC because they don’t think he can win a general election. They are sure he cannot win a general election. They are sure all the things he has written about women working outside the home, gays, beastiality, etc. will come back to bite him in the general election.

If Romney wins, the conservative base will panic because he will be one step closer to wrapping this thing up and they don’t want him to wrap it up. They want him beaten. They just aren’t sure they want Santorum, or Gingrich for that matter, to be the one to do it.

So everybody sit back and panic. It’s panic time in the GOP. In a race they should be winning against Barack Obama, the only winner seems to be sepuku.


http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/13/panic-time-for-everybody-sepuku-seems-to-be-winning-the-gop-primary/

Erikson is absolutely right. A Santorum win in MI will cause panic amongst the GOP elites.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 10:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Republicanism is the party of destruction whether it's about Obama or their own party members. Why can't people see this? Their negativism should frighten most people, but it seems conservatives are prone to self-destruction.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 02:41 pm
Cyclo cited the PPP poll in Michigan. Here are some more details:
> Santorum- 39%; Romney- 24%; Paul- 12%; Gingrich- 11%
> That leaves Undecided/Other at 14%
> 53% of those polled said they might be inclined to change their vote. That is a huge number and we can expect Romney to hurl huge amounts of money into negative advertising in the long two weeks between now and February 28th
< People who identify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party go for Santorum 53% to 22% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich
< Self-described Evangelicals tend toward Santorum with 48% vs 20% for Romney and 12% for Gingrich.
< And "Very Conservative" voters go for Santorum at 51% to 20% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 03:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I thought this viewpoint was interesting (emphasis mine):

We Need a Second Party

Quote:
You know how in Scrabble sometimes you look at your seven letters and you’ve got only vowels that spell nothing? What do you do? You go back to the pile. You throw your letters back and hope to pick up better ones to work with. That’s what Republican primary voters seem to be doing. They just keep going back to the pile but still coming up with only vowels that spell nothing.

There’s a reason for that: Their pile is out of date. The party has let itself become the captive of conflicting ideological bases: anti-abortion advocates, anti-immigration activists, social conservatives worried about the sanctity of marriage, libertarians who want to shrink government, and anti-tax advocates who want to drown government in a bathtub.

Sorry, but you can’t address the great challenges America faces today with that incoherent mix of hardened positions. I’ve argued that maybe we need a third party to break open our political system. But that’s a long shot. What we definitely and urgently need is a second party — a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country.

...

But when all the Republican candidates last year said they would not accept a deal with Democrats that involved even $1 in tax increases in return for $10 in spending cuts, the G.O.P. cut itself off from reality. It became a radical party, not a conservative one. And for the candidates to wrap themselves in a cartoon version of Ronald Reagan — a real conservative who raised taxes, including the gasoline tax, when he discovered his own cuts had gone too far — is fraudulent.

...

Until the G.O.P. stops being radical and returns to being conservative, it won’t provide what the country needs most now — competition — competition with Democrats on the issues that will determine whether we thrive in the 21st century. We need to hear conservative fiscal policies, energy policies, immigration policies and public-private partnership concepts — not radical ones. Would somebody please restore our second party? The country is starved for a grown-up debate.

H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 03:27 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ignoring the truth won't make it not true.

H2O MAN wrote:



It's a shame that the dumbmasses have been brainwashed by the left, Obama
is destroying this country and liberal democrats are blindly assisting him.


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 03:29 pm
@DrewDad,
Yeah, the funny thing is, there's ALREADY a party that supports the things that Friedman calls for: the Dems. He just can't quite admit it.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 06/25/2024 at 11:00:07