See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 6th, 2012 at 6:59 pm, CandanceM said:

   Quick comment about Santorum’s electability. Gingrich was drummed out of Congress 15 years ago. Romney lost the nomination to a dinosaur named John McCain 4 years ago. I don’t judge people by examples of lost elections in the past.

2. #102
   On February 6th, 2012 at 7:16 pm, sbw999 said:

   General Election Match-Ups:
   Santorum: 45%
   Obama: 44%

   Romney: 43%
   Obama: 47%

   Gingrich: 41%
   Obama: 49%

   If there is anybody that still doubts that our uber-corrupt mass media is the GREATEST THREAT to this country, there is your concrete proof above. If Obama was a Republican presiding over the imminent bankruptcy of the US, the difference would be 20 percentage points for the dem over the Repub incumbent across the board. The lying corrupt press has abdicated its supreme role under our Constitution, in favor of being a propaganda arm of the democrat party. These people are as much enemies against our Country as Al Qaeda, and I look at them that exact way. The difference is that Al Qaeda doesn’t have the power to destroy our Country. When are people going to take this threat as serious as any other threat we face?

3. #103
   On February 6th, 2012 at 7:30 pm, happyscrapper said:

   On February 6th, 2012 at 2:17 pm, txvet2 said:
   Phil’s got a pretty high opinion of his own intelligence. I guess nobody ever told him that 90 isn’t considered a high IQ.

   What? I thought PP had perfect IQ…20-20!

4. #104
   On February 6th, 2012 at 7:43 pm, John Deaux said:

   Harry, you just pointed out Santorum’s “nutty” stance on contraception. You declared him nutty based on his opinion on contraception.

   Do you think everyone who has a different opinion of you is nutty?

5. #105
   On February 6th, 2012 at 7:44 pm, T-Bone said:

   As I get older, I get smarter. The trick is to remember it all.

   What was the question again?

6. #106
   On February 6th, 2012 at 7:46 pm, John Deaux said:

   For the record Harry, I made two separate statements that you inferred were related.

   You also made the assumption based on that inferrence that I was basing my alleged statement on your prior post and not the body of posts that you have placed on this site.

7. #107
   On February 6th, 2012 at 8:02 pm, HarryBailey said:

   On February 6th, 2012 at 7:43 pm, John Deaux said:
   Harry, you just pointed out Santorum’s “nutty” stance on contraception. You declared him nutty based on his opinion on contraception.
   Do you think everyone who has a different opinion of you is nutty?

   Uh, no I don’t think that. Here’s the exchange. Who mentioned nuts? I was simply pointing out that I thought it was out of the mainstream of thought in this day and age:

   On February 6th, 2012 at 5:46 pm, HarryBailey said:
   A modest proposal: Please, please bring on the man who thinks that all contraception, even within a marriage, is “immoral”.
   Let’s see how that flies in America in 2012.

   On February 6th, 2012 at 6:21 pm, John Deaux said:
   Hmmm. Shake a tree and watch the nuts fall out.
   How ya been, Harry?

   On February 6th, 2012 at 6:28 pm, HarryBailey said:
   Pointing out Rick Santorum’s stance on contraception makes me nutty?
   Talk about epistemic closure….

   You, John Deaux, are the one who called Santorum’s position on contraception “nutty”.

   Just to be clear.

8. #108
   On February 6th, 2012 at 8:13 pm, Hiraghm said:

   There are no inevitabilities in politics.

   A variation of Sturgeon’s Law as applied to politics?

   Nothing is absolutely so – Sturgeon’s Law

   Of course, one could apply Sturgeon’s Revelation to this election:

   “90% of the GOP candidates are crud”

   90% of science fiction is crud. But then, 90% of everything is crud.

9. #109
   On February 6th, 2012 at 8:15 pm, Hiraghm said:

   Unless Santorum develops a Reaganesque charisma, he’s not going to beat Obama.

10. #110
    On February 6th, 2012 at 8:16 pm, beenthere said:

    Would I vote for Santorum? Sure, why not? I doubt I’ll have anything better to do this November. I voted for Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008. Obviously, I have a reputation and will vote for anyone the Republican cow-cusses and party-hard voters send my way.

    Look, it’s not that Santorum lost in 2006. It’s that he lost big. It’s not that he’s a so-con (historically very close to compassion cons — yuck), but even his defenders say: don’t worry, none of that stuff he believes will be enacted into law, Congress just won’t permit it. Gee, that’s reassuring. And he is open-borders as well. I thought that was a big deal around here? Guess I thought wrong.

    No, what really concerns me is that while he doesn’t have Romneycare on his resume, the rest of his record is nothing to boast about. If it weren’t for some historical accidents, he would be the “Romney” we’re fleeing. Romney too, as you recall, was going to be electorally terminated after the end of one term, but he solved that problem by splitting massachusetts to go on to honor others with his presence. Sharp move, Mitt.

    Santorum’s a nice guy and by any standard he’s a better father and husband than I am. But I’m not voting for flippin’ Father-of-the-Year.

11. #111
    On February 6th, 2012 at 8:23 pm, fred5676 said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 8:16 pm, beenthere said:

    … And he is open-borders as well. I thought that was a big deal around here? Guess I thought wrong.

    You were wrong, but not the way you think:

    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

12. #112
    On February 6th, 2012 at 8:58 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    @fred5676 – thanks for the post – shows Santorum has the best views on immigration across the board.

    @hangfire (#76) – I think Santorum would reply, “I have yet begun to fight!” (re:John Paul Jones).

    Now we’re getting to the Heartland/Midwest, and I think Santorum will do well. We kind of like nice people with strong convictions, which is sort of Reaganesque. In the latest debate, Santorum gave the best defense of our Constitutional principles based on the themes of the Declaration of Independence.

    I think Americans may not be as stupid as the Liberals think. (God help us if they’re right). Santorum may not be the “Great Communicator” Reagan was, but he’s a true Conservative and does very well communicating Conservative values in a positive way. I could see even my very elderly Democrat parents voting for him because they “like” him”.

13. #113
    On February 6th, 2012 at 9:28 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    Oops – The John Paul Jones quote is “I have NOT YET begun to fight!” (After the British asked for his surrender.) Good slogan for the Santorum campaign.

14. #114
    On February 6th, 2012 at 9:49 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 9:28 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    Let’s have the context for that quote, because it’s such a lovely “middle finger” defiance story.

    John Paul Jones had been given a leaky tobacco boat, renamed the “Bon Homme Richard”. He was sailing in a squadron of 3 ships, two of which were (IIRC) French, and had orders to basically follow their own judgment and not his.

    They encountered the Serapis, a bigger, more powerful ship (and I believe she had a sister ship in the battle). The other two ships started to run. Jones engaged.

    He grappled with the Serapis so she couldn’t use her superior firepower as effectively. Yet, gunfire from the riggings and elsewhere created havoc on both ships.

    The Richard was sinking; she was beaten. The captain of the Serapis graciously offered quarter to Jones, so that he might save what remained of his crew. Jones refused with the famous quote.

    A lucky shot started a fire near the ammo magazine of the Serapis. If it was not put out soon, both ships would be blown to hell.

    The captain of the Serapis surrendered, so that the crew of the Richard could help put out the fire.

    The Richard sank to the bottom, the other two ships returning too late to be of any help. But, Jones claimed the Serapis as a prize.

    Out here in flyover country, where the rednecks graze… we call that, “The American Spirit”.

    (A tradition upheld almost a century and a half later by general McAuliffe when a German officer demanded the surrender of the 101st airborn troops defending the town of Bastogne: “NUTS” was his reply).

    NUTS to you, MSM, et al.

15. #115
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:04 pm, beenthere said:

    fred5676 said: On February 6th, 2012 at 8:16 pm, beenthere said:
    … And he is open-borders as well. I thought that was a big deal around here? Guess I thought wrong.
    You were wrong, but not the way you think:
    http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

    I’d love to believe it but he is on record as opposed to e-verify even if the employer wants to use it. I just do not believe the man has established any credibility on this issue. He’s just one more say anything to get elected type, so I’m not impressed. If he has given a detailed explanation somewhere as to why he changed his position, I will definitely read it. As of now, I remain unpersuaded.

16. #116
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:11 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Santorum is the guy who can beat Obama. Isn’t that the main thing?

    If you live in Virginia and have only two options in the primary, Romney or Paul, I encourage you all to turn out and hold your nose for Ron Paul. The delegate count is what matters in who the nominee is going to be. Romney can be denied 49 delegates by all those who don’t want Romney nominmated if they just hold their nose for Ron Paul.

    Come on, you can do it, he’s not as bad as McCain……

17. #117
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:19 pm, AmericaFirst said:

    Santorum has my Minnesota vote.

18. #118
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:27 pm, HarryBailey said:

    Dear John Deaux:

    Cat got your tongue?

    I never said “nutty”. I simply offered my opinion that Santorum’s excoriating the very idea of contraception is outside the mainstream of thought in the US, even among the vast majority of American practitioners of the Catholic faith (and I am one), and therefor likely to be a negative in a general election.

    If you find it a positive, please explain.

    Back to you. If you find contraception abhorrent, please don’t practice it and we will all look forward to many little John Deaux to come. I surely hope they are all healthy and successful and never have to fall into the safety net you so abhor.

    Best,

    HWB

19. #119
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:29 pm, happy2behere said:

    Just received a robo-call from Michelle Malkin urging me to vote in tomorrow’s Colorado Caucus for Santorum. Sorry, can’t do it. Romeny it is, although somewhat tenuously.

    As robo-calls go however, it was very well done.

20. #120
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:35 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:29 pm, happy2behere said:

    Love that individual mandate. Be careful what you ask for…..

21. #121
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:41 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:27 pm, HarryBailey said:

    Better nuitty than allowing unborn children who you could not kill with a late term abortion procedure to die alone in a dirty linen closet

    Our President thinks that’s perfectly fine.

    At least the Nazis shot and gassed their victims.

22. #122
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:45 pm, Raider109 said:

    Romney and Rubio or Martinez will negate anything that Obama can throw back except for the crooked numbers of the unemployment rate.

23. #123
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:51 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    . Romeny it is, although somewhat tenuously

    Really??

    Are you nuts?

    Obama/Romney 2012!

24. #124
    On February 6th, 2012 at 10:56 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Romney is the one candidate that can lose to the worst pResident ever.

    He may depress voter turnout some much it costs the House and Senate as well.

    Great plan…

25. #125
    On February 6th, 2012 at 11:23 pm, ChapBix said:

    #65. On February 6th, 2012 at 1:20 pm, RedDog said:

    Just goes to show one can learn something new even at an advanced age. I did not Selma Hayak was an economist. Was this before she became an actress?

    /sarc off

26. #126
    On February 6th, 2012 at 11:55 pm, almiller said:

    Sanatorium is wishful thinking. Two weeks ago it was Anyone but Mitt Newt. He fizzled and now it is the Anti Mitt Rick. Here we go again to

    Obama in 2012!!!!

    America’s Cesar Chavez who gloats over a fragmented opposition.

27. #127
    On February 6th, 2012 at 11:55 pm, almiller said:

    Sanatorium is wishful thinking. Two weeks ago it was Anyone but Mitt Newt. He fizzled and now it is the Anti Mitt Rick. Here we go again to

    Obama in 2012!!!!

    America’s Cesar Chavez who gloats over a fragmented opposition.

28. #128
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:17 am, Blackstone said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 5:46 pm, HarryBailey said:

    A modest proposal: Please, please bring on the man who thinks that all contraception, even within a marriage, is “immoral”.

    Since he’ll still respect your freedom to use them, the only ones who’d be deterred from voting for him on those grounds would be nuttly liberals who would never vote Republican in the first place.

    But while we’re on the subject, see if you can name the Bible-thumping yahoo who said this:

    “The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure as an aim independent of it. So, as you will see, the breach and turning point in the development of sexual life lies in becoming subordinate to the purpose of reproduction. Everything that happens before this turn of events and equally everything that disregards it and that aims solely at obtaining pleasure is given the uncomplimentary name of ‘perverse’ and as such is proscribed.”

    Give up? It was Sigmund Freud, a renowned atheist. Kinda puts things in a little perspective for you, huh?

    (h/t Ann Barnhardt)

29. #129
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:19 am, happy2behere said:

    What individual mandate? Mittrom said the first thing he’d do in office is give waivers. Name one poll where Santorum is even close to challenging Obama. At least Romney is polling competitive. And don’t use the recent abc poll where obsma beats mittrom, abc won’t release it’s methodology on that one so it’s fishy. Good luck with Santorum.

30. #130
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:21 am, happy2behere said:

    Sorry forgot the polls above. Read it so many hours ago it slipped the mind for a moment, but only a moment.

31. #131
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:50 am, Flyoverman said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:19 am, happy2behere said:

    What individual mandate? Mittrom said the first thing he’d do in office is give waivers. Name one poll where Santorum is even close to challenging Obama. At least Romney is polling competitive.

    In recent polls Santorum performs better versus Obama than Romney does.

    Any waivers the Democrats plan to challenge in court. Ooooooops.

    In terms of promises from ANYONE remember Obama’s rhetoric during the campaign. He has governed EXACTLY along the lines of who he was before he became a candidate. Is McCain like the person he claimed to be when he ran? How about John Kerry?

    Once elected Mitt 2012 will instantly revert to Mitt 1994; you know the man who said he was a moderate with Progressive views.

    Romney 2012 is Obama 2008. If you believe any of what Mitt and Newt are telling you, compare their words to their actions prior to running. That’s who they really are.

32. #132
    On February 7th, 2012 at 8:20 am, John Deaux said:

    Harry,

    I never said I agreed with his stance and I never said you were a nut because you didn’t.

    I implied you were a nut, for reasons that have nothing to do with Santorum. You assumed that I posted my statement based on your single prior post. In fact, it was because I haven’t seen you here for a while.

    If you’d like to build a strawman from that, have at it.

33. #133
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:09 am, RedDog said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 1:03 pm, txvet2 said:
    …I have a better plan. Take all the bennies away from the prisoners, get rid of Medicare, and let people deal with doctors the way they used to – pay for what they get or buy insurance.

    Hard to sell nowdays, but you are right. The reason higher education and the healthcare systems are so screwed up and priced into the stratosphere is the ill-advised meddling and interference of the federal government (read: politicians). Legititimate healthcare insurance is warped into ineffectiveness due to government diktats and illogical restrictive regulation. This is social engineering at its worst.

    If you have a social problem and you want to fix it, avoid government involvement at all costs.

    BTW, Obama is in the doghouse with all the universities because he is mandating that they “cut costs” or lose government boodle. Karma is a beotch is it not? LOL.

34. #134
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:11 am, RedDog said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 8:13 pm, Hiraghm said:
    A variation of Sturgeon’s Law as applied to politics?

    Corollary #1: Always serve with Triscuits.

35. #135
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:14 am, RedDog said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 8:15 pm, Hiraghm said:
    Unless Santorum develops a Reaganesque charisma, he’s not going to beat Obama.

    I see your point but I disagree. He can do it. The ideal would be his intellect and Perry’s personality, sans freaknik moments.

36. #136
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:16 am, RedDog said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 11:55 pm, almiller said:
    Obama in 2012!!!!

    America’s Cesar Chavez who gloats over a fragmented opposition.

    America’s CesarHugo Chavez who gloats over a fragmented opposition.

    FIFY

37. #137
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:17 am, RedDog said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 11:23 pm, ChapBix said:
    … I did not Selma Hayak was an economist. Was this before she became an actress?
    /sarc off

    I forget. My brain turns off when I think about her.

38. #138
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:47 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 11:23 pm, ChapBix said:
    … I did not Selma Hayak was an economist. Was this before she became an actress?

    She may or may not be an economist, all I know is, she’s got me spent!

39. #139
    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:57 am, spaceycakes said:

    apropos of nothing, I just wanna know…

    what’s a ‘monkey pile’?

40. #140
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:07 am, John Deaux said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:57 am, spaceycakes said:
    apropos of nothing, I just wanna know…

    what’s a ‘monkey pile’?

    Most of Phil’s posts are. Easily identified by the presence of fruits and nuts.

41. #141
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:07 am, John Deaux said:

    and occasionally corn.

42. #142
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:17 am, spaceycakes said:

    Ag, sis man!

43. #143
    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:00 am, happyscrapper said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 9:57 am, spaceycakes said:
    apropos of nothing, I just wanna know…

    what’s a ‘monkey pile’?

    Apparently, Phil ran out of nasty names to call us and resorted to that. It is actually kinda cute! I love monkeys! And a pile of them would be adorable!

44. #144
    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:47 am, thejim said:

    Sorry, we seem to be back to judging farting contests. Bad candidates for the greatest nation on earth and simple minded comments from citizens that really should be serious and focused on stoping the destruction.

45. #145
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:48 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:47 am, thejim said:
    Sorry, we seem to be back to judging farting contests. Bad candidates for the greatest nation on earth and simple minded comments from citizens that really should be serious and focused on stoping the destruction.

    Exactly who are you insulting, thejim? Just curious. The commenters here? Or the candidates? I’m not clear on that. .

46. #146
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:56 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:47 am, thejim said:

    Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

47. #147
    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:58 pm, thejim said:

    Some of both. We are reduced to defending flawed candidates. Anybody care to say that these are the best America can come up with? And as for the constant bickering and out right silly commentary over non-event, inbred material; Have you noticed that less than a dozen people bother posting now? It’s gone from quite a few serious contributors to a few that bicker between themselves.

48. #148
    On February 7th, 2012 at 1:03 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Which means it’s time for Michelle to pull the handle for Open Enrollment!

49. #149
    On February 7th, 2012 at 1:13 pm, thejim said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 1:03 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
    Which means it’s time for Michelle to pull the handle for Open Enrollment!

    I suspect you are right.

50. #150
    On February 7th, 2012 at 1:38 pm, John Deaux said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 12:58 pm, thejim said:
    It’s gone from quite a few serious contributors to a few that bicker between themselves.

    Do not.

51. #151
    On February 7th, 2012 at 1:45 pm, Mister P said:

    So what is Santorum’s view on illegal immigration, amnesty and e-verify?

52. #152
    On February 7th, 2012 at 1:47 pm, Mister P said:

    America’s CesarHugo Chavez who gloats over a fragmented opposition.

    Yes, but Cesar Chavez makes much sense, as he also was an Alinskyite.

53. #153
    On February 7th, 2012 at 2:06 pm, valleygreaser said:

    I am not a Republican-In-Name-Only but an actual partisan who will absolutely vote Republican in November from the top of the ballot to the bottom. The only Republican’s denied my vote are those that hold a current policy position that clearly supports abortion, since I find that morally unacceptable. If front-runner Romney is nominated, I will support him. My preference, at this time, is the more reliably conservative Rick Santorum. Rick is not a great charismatic speechmmaker but if he is able to wrest the nomination away from Mitt then he will have proven his electability. I am hoping he does well in today’s contests and gains some forward momentum. The best thing Newt could do for the conservative cause is to drop out. Newt will not win the nomination and his campaign is designed now not to prevent Mitt from being nominated but to just make him damaged goods if he is. Rick now has an actual chance to win. As a Virginian, I won’t have the opportunity to vote for Rick, but I can speak out about this true conservative who should replace Obama. Go Rick!

54. #154
    On February 7th, 2012 at 2:23 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 12:23 pm, txvet2 said:

    On the other hand, Steyn just mentioned that the latest thing to surface is the allegation that Paul double-billed for airplane travel. No surprise, since he’s also known for his penchant for flying first class at taxpayer expense …

    That’s a flat out lie. He books at the government’s special rate, which allows him to change the flights in case his Congressional schedule changes. He uses frequent flier miles to upgrade.

55. #155
    On February 7th, 2012 at 2:26 pm, valleygreaser said:

    By the way one of the tests for a candidate’s likeability is the old “who would you rather have a beer with” test. Rick Santorum wins that hands down!

56. #156
    On February 7th, 2012 at 2:29 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 12:23 pm, txvet2 said:
    On the other hand, Steyn just mentioned that the latest thing to surface is the allegation that Paul double-billed for airplane travel.

    And there’s no proof here, either. Two tickets purchased at the same time seems to indicate he was traveling with a staffer.

    Good luck getting the Paul people to vote for your candidate of choice.

57. #157
    On February 7th, 2012 at 2:46 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    On February 6th, 2012 at 12:23 pm, txvet2 said:
    On the other hand, Steyn just mentioned that the latest thing to surface is the allegation that Paul double-billed for airplane travel. No surprise, since he’s also known for his penchant for flying first class at taxpayer expense …

    The more I think about this, the more irritated I get. Seriously, how much sense does it make for the only guy to opt out of the government’s pension and health plans to double bill his travel expenses?

    People who will lie us into wars will lie about anything, I guess.

    Ad people who continue to believe them are ruining America.

58. #158
    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:35 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    General Election Match-Ups:
    Santorum: 45%
    Obama: 44%

    Romney: 43%
    Obama: 47%

    Gingrich: 41%
    Obama: 49%

    That is national polling, of people who answer the phone, and while New York and California have a lot of electoral votes, Obama gets the same number from them whether he wins by 10,000 votes or a million votes. These are the polls people will see, rather than the polls that suggests despite having the first and third biggest prize in the electoral college sewn up, Obama is actually in trouble based on how the states go. ‘The Purple States’, like Missouri, Florida, Ohio, that are fairly large but usually close, they go Santorum, and Obama could win the overall vote but lose the election.

    Speaking of the MSM, this is the kind of polling they will run, to discourage voter turnout. If people are convinced Obama is a lock, some will stay home (and probably drink).

59. #159
    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:41 pm, spaceycakes said:

    It’s gone from quite a few serious contributors to a few that bicker between themselves.

    I wonder where thejim puts me? I know–let’s ask Ota of Olay!

60. #160
    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:43 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    OT- I sincerely hope this is a tin foil hat WND/Michael Savage type whacky John Birch flavored website.

    But it just sounds like Weepy McBoehner, the Speaker Castrati of the House…

    Boehner in (reported) deal with Holder to let Holder off the hook for perjury before Issa’s committee in exchange for documents for prosecuting low level DoJ officials in ‘Fast & Furious’ case that led to hundreds of dead Mexicans and at least two dead Americans law enforcement agents.

61. #161
    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:52 pm, Flsteve said:

    Rick Santorum = ridiculous choice, and a complete waste of time. He lost by 20 points the last time he ran. You might as well anoint Romney, God knows this site has helped Mitt as much as anyone. Now, cue up the Rick Perry hate montage again…

62. #162
    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:55 pm, John Deaux said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:41 pm, spaceycakes said:
    I wonder where thejim puts me? I know–let’s ask Ota of Olay!

    That depends. Did you pay for the five minute argument or the full half hour?

63. #163
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:19 pm, spaceycakes said:

    John Deaux said:

    Well ‘Argument’ is next door…with that one it’s ‘Abuse’.

64. #164
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:22 pm, John Deaux said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:19 pm, spaceycakes said:
    Well ‘Argument’ is next door…with that one it’s ‘Abuse’.

    No it’s not.

65. #165
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:23 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    Santorum lost in a state that more often than not votes Democratic, in 1996, a bloodbath year for the Republicans nationwide, to a faux Catholic faux pro-life son of the last real moderate pro-life Democrat of any importance. Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was not allowed to address the 1992 DNC that nominated Bill Clinton, because he actually was pro-life. Casey Jr. has voted for abortion on every important bill he has had a chance, from foreign aid for aborting Third World children (that Bush 43 had ended) to ObamaCare.

    Mitt Romney lost to Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Newt Gingrich lost his bid to remain Speaker and quit the House in a huff. Ron Paul has represented the same House district for years. So has Barney Frank, who will finally retire because the flood of people fleeing from the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts has cost that state a House seat, and so has Nancy Pelosi, who will either retire or die in office, representing the voters of the Castro.

66. #166
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:23 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    *2006*, not 1996…

67. #167
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:38 pm, spaceycakes said:

    stupid git.

68. #168
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:39 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Governor Casey is a legend in Pennsylvania and Junior rode his father’s coattails to win in a bad year for Republican’s there. Santorum’s loss is the equivalent of Romney’s loss to Kennedy. Rick carried the state twice under more normal circumstances. Newt has never won a general election statewide contest at all. Rick has good working class appeal and could give Obama competition in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and even New Jersey. I think a Santorum/Rubio ticket would clean Obama’s clock.

69. #169
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:51 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    It’s gone from quite a few serious contributors to a few that bicker between themselves.

    The Cast (in order of appearance.)
    M= Man looking for an argument
    R= Receptionist
    Q= Abuser
    A= Arguer (John Cleese)
    C= Complainer (Eric Idle)
    H= Head Hitter

    M: Ah. I’d like to have an argument, please.
    R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
    M: No, I haven’t, this is my first time.
    R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
    M: Well, what is the cost?
    R: Well, It’s one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
    M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
    R: Fine. Well, I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
    Pause
    R: Mr. DeBakey’s free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory.
    Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
    M: Thank you.

    (Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

    Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
    M: Well, I was told outside that…
    Q: Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
    M: What?
    Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
    M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
    Q: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
    M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
    Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
    M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
    Q: Not at all.
    M: Thank You.
    (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

    (Walk down the corridor)
    M: (Knock)
    A: Come in.
    M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
    A: I told you once.
    M: No you haven’t.
    A: Yes I have.
    M: When?
    A: Just now.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: You didn’t
    A: I did!
    M: You didn’t!
    A: I’m telling you I did!
    M: You did not!!
    A: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
    M: Oh, just the five minutes.
    A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
    M: You most certainly did not.
    A: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
    M: No you did not.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: No you didn’t.
    A: Yes I did.
    M: You didn’t.
    A: Did.
    M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
    A: Yes it is.
    M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: It is!
    A: It is not.
    M: Look, you just contradicted me.
    A: I did not.
    M: Oh you did!!
    A: No, no, no.
    M: You did just then.
    A: Nonsense!
    M: Oh, this is futile!
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: I came here for a good argument.
    A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
    M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
    A: It can be.
    M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
    A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
    A: Yes it is!
    M: No it isn’t!

    A: Yes it is!
    M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
    (short pause)
    A: No it isn’t.
    M: It is.
    A: Not at all.
    M: Now look.
    A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
    M: What?
    A: That’s it. Good morning.
    M: I was just getting interested.
    A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
    M: That was never five minutes!
    A: I’m afraid it was.
    M: It wasn’t.
    Pause
    A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
    M: What?!
    A: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
    M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
    A: (Hums)
    M: Look, this is ridiculous.
    A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
    M: Oh, all right.
    (pays money)
    A: Thank you.
    short pause
    M: Well?
    A: Well what?
    M: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
    A: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
    M: I just paid!
    A: No you didn’t.
    M: I DID!
    A: No you didn’t.
    M: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
    A: Well, you didn’t pay.
    M: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
    A: No you haven’t.
    M: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
    A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
    M: Oh I’ve had enough of this.
    A: No you haven’t.
    M: Oh Shut up.

    (Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)

    M: I want to complain.
    C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I’ve only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
    M: No, I want to complain about…
    C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
    M: Oh!
    C: Oh my back hurts, it’s not a very fine day and I’m sick and tired of this office.

    (Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)

    M: Hello, I want to… Ooooh!
    H: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
    M: uuuwwhh!!
    H: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
    M: No.
    H: Now..
    M: Waaaaah!!!
    H: Good, Good! That’s it.
    M: Stop hitting me!!
    H: What?
    M: Stop hitting me!!
    H: Stop hitting you?
    M: Yes!
    H: Why did you come in here then?
    M: I wanted to complain.
    H: Oh no, that’s next door. It’s being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.
    M: What a stupid concept.

70. #170
    On February 7th, 2012 at 4:55 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    This Missourian just voted Santorum the prettiest.

71. #171
    On February 7th, 2012 at 6:15 pm, 4gotnblud said:

    Open enrollment? I guess that may be needed. Anyone desiring to participate in a forum that attacks ideas and opinions with defamatory, name calling responses would certainly be attracted. Responses that lack reason or rationality.

    Of course one would want to participate in a forum that practices the MSM principles(?) of exclusion. I’m sure our founders sought to repress opinion and speech – but no, they embraced it with the 1st Amendment. But that aspect of our sacred rights may be omitted here.

    MM has adopted her own censorship through exclusion – she is truly worthy of the title “mainstream”. Those who accept inclusion of other’s opinions (even when wrong(headed) and irrational are willing to debate but that is not what is generally found here. Instead of attacking others’ opinions they attack others. Instead of supporting an argument with facts they resort to ad hominem responses.

    Michelle, is your exclusion of Ron Paul’s poll numbers (you included all the other candidates’) an oversight or are you just another voice that attempts manipulation through exclusion? Is the 1st amemdment not in your bill of rights?

72. #172
    On February 7th, 2012 at 6:30 pm, inspector_javert said:

    Don’t know much about Santorum personally but I do know that we need the independents to win in this election, and the independents run from social conservatism like vampires from a cross (at least before they took God out of the vampire movies…).

    Santorum’s controversial statements on homosexuality, and abortion are going to drag him down and are going to be repeated endlessly in Obama campaign ads and the media. Romney has his own issues but I don’t think saying “I like to be able to fire people” is going to have as much effect as opposing abortion even in the case of rape.

    Sadly it’s not going to be our opinions that matter in this race it’s going to be the independents’ and if we nominate Santorum we will once again see Obama taking the oath of office (Which he will immediately set about violating).

    It comes down to this a 0% chance of conservatism prevailing or a >0% chance. If we want the latter Romney is our man.

73. #173
    On February 7th, 2012 at 6:38 pm, DirkDiggler said:

    C’mon 4go…….The 1st Amendment is still valid here. You get to complain about Ron Paul’s “exclusion” with no fear of retribution, no knock on the door in the middle of the night tonight…….Whats more, you get to establish your own website and discuss Ron Paul’s chances to your heart’s content. The 1st Amendment is alivbe and well here.

    You, like many others, are confusing the “right” to access someone else’s forum–not your own–to express your views.

    If the folks running this particular forum have decided that Ron Paul is drawing gadfly support, akin to Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 Dem primaries, its at least a reasonable judgement, not an attack on free speech. Candidates have to earn their way into the conversation. Paul hasn’t done that, and sorry, but there’s no recess lady to plead your case to….

74. #174
    On February 7th, 2012 at 6:55 pm, valleygreaser said:

    I seem to recall the last two two-term Republican presidents ran as pretty strong social conservatives. Independent voters are, by nature, more liberal than Republicans on social issues. They also put them way down on their list of important issues. Rick will be running on jobs and bringing manufacturing back to the USA. If Obama chooses to focus on Rick’s personal view on birth control or some such, he does so at his own peril. If Obama focuses on abortion he runs the risk of the electorate learning just how radical he is on the issue. Even NARAL opposed the outright infanticide which he supported. Sure, Hollweird will rage against Santorum but they’ll do the same with anyone we nominate under some pretext or another. Let’s not be persuaded by the left that we must nominate someone who doesn’t offend them so much.

75. #175
    On February 7th, 2012 at 6:59 pm, RedDog said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 3:41 pm, spaceycakes said:

    It’s gone from quite a few serious contributors to a few that bicker between themselves.

    I wonder where thejim puts me? I know–let’s ask Ota of Olay!

    I don’t care. All I know is that you’re on my Selma Hayak List for sure.

76. #176
    On February 7th, 2012 at 8:26 pm, ChapBix said:

    #113. On February 6th, 2012 at 9:28 pm, gmatt2003 said:

    He (Santorum) had better get it in gear and start fighting. There is still time but the sand is dropping through the hourglass.

77. #177
    On February 7th, 2012 at 8:59 pm, DirkDiggler said:

    @valleygreaser: A-1

78. #178
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:35 pm, ChapBix said:

    #170. On February 7th, 2012 at 4:55 pm, GladzKravtz said:

    This Missourian just voted Santorum the prettiest.

    So did I. By the time I arrived to cast my ballot, I was the only voter in the place.

    Should Santorum go on to win all three contests tonight, Neal Boortz will have a hissy fit tomorrow morning.

79. #179
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:39 pm, ChapBix said:

    There is plenty of talk on here about electability of R candidates. I do not trust the polls I have been seeing about who is the more electable of the R’s against Obama.

    The best weapon the R candidate has is Obama’s own words and actions. Play them over and over in every state and territory right up through election day.

80. #180
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:42 pm, ChapBix said:

    #172. On February 7th, 2012 at 6:30 pm, inspector_javert said:

    Don’t know much about Santorum personally but I do know that we need the independents to win in this election, and the independents run from social conservatism like vampires from a cross (at least before they took God out of the vampire movies…).

    Or so we have been told.

81. #181
    On February 7th, 2012 at 10:50 pm, ChapBix said:

    #174. On February 7th, 2012 at 6:55 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Let’s not be persuaded by the left that we must nominate someone who doesn’t offend them so much.

    Hurrah!

82. #182
    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:36 pm, Blackstone said:

    On February 7th, 2012 at 6:55 pm, valleygreaser said:

    Sure, Hollweird will rage against Santorum but they’ll do the same with anyone we nominate under some pretext or another.

    But the question is, will he be able to fight back effectively? My problem with him is that he doesn’t seem to be able to srgue his point with a lot of confidence. Maybe others have a different perception, but that’s how I see it.

83. #183
    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:37 pm, Blackstone said:

    srgue=argueb

84. #184
    On February 7th, 2012 at 11:37 pm, Blackstone said:

    Only without the b.