Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Professor Tiger]

He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he's since "changed his mind.") If he had won, we'd be carving his image on Mount Rushmore.

Defeat Ted Kennedy? Why defeat Kennedy when you can, instead, hug him? Like this:

[innocentbystander]

No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare.

Anybody who knows Romney as Mass. Governor should absolutely be concerned that he will double cross us on Obamacare. He explains his liberal record by saying he really didn't mean it when he was champion of government-run health care and the individual mandate. Maybe he was crossing his fingers behind his back when he supported more gun control laws and abortion too. He says he was just doing what he had to do to get elected.

In Massachusetts, YOU BET!!!!

For the record, Mitt was NEVER Pro-Choice. Conservatives (and most moderates) know this even if liberals don't. That is why (in 1994) he had one of the people in his Ward put their unborn child up for adoption instead of abortion.

Hell, even liberal Shannon O'Brien (the Dem Mitt was running against for Gov of Mass back in 2002) knew Romney was as Pro-Life as could be. She said that in the debates. She wasn't stupid. So I ask that you not be.

Don't (on a principle) stand against Romney because he successfully bullshitted the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You vote for a winner. We will hold his feet to the fire once we get him into the White House where he belongs.

Among Romney's positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts -- one of the most liberal states in the union -- by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

Well, if he was lying to the voters of Massachusetts to get elected governor, then he is just as likely to be lying to us in order to get elected president. For all we know, he might suddenly change his position on repealing Obamacare just like he had sudden and self-serving conversions to pro-life and pro-2A. If he were to somehow win the election, he might just spontaneously support Canadian-style single-payer healthcare for all we know.

No.

This will NOT happen. Romney may be many things but he isn't a carpet-bagger. His home state (after attending Harvard) was Massachusetts, not Michigan and not Utah. His business was in Massachusetts. So he had to run for office there. But more importantly, he had to win. There aren't very many options for Republicans to win office in Massachusetts. And Mitt was very good at exploiting those very few options.

We drew a trump card, we have a winner here. As Rat said, only one Democrat has never won re-election for President. And it took a man like Reagan to accomplish that. This is OUR Reagan.

[Professor Tiger]

Moreover, if Romney was "The Establishment" candidate now, why didn't "The Establishment" pick him in 2008? Why NOW but not THEN? What, was John fucking McCain BETTER for "The Establishment" at making them money than Willard Mitt Romney? Are you high? Or perhaps John had the name recognition that Willard Mitt didn't have? (Probably.) The fact that Romney won so many states (most Caucus states) in 2008 against "The Establishment" candidate says more about Romney's electability than any money given to his Super-Pac from those ficticious Captains and the Kings.

Maybe the Establishment liked McCain because it was "his turn" (they do that a lot). Maybe better name recognition at the time, as you said. Maybe Romney's rampant flip-floppery was still a little too recent and needed a little more time to recede. I can't speak for the Establishment and why they may like one RINO over another RINO.

Why has Santorum (but not Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain) been putting up such a strong fight? Why has Newt disappeared from view (but is still ahead by 10 points in Georgia?) Why has Ron Paul NOT attacked Willard Mitt Romney in the debates? Why HAS Santorum been attacking Willard Mitt Romney in the debates? Why was Santorum the ONLY ONE to attack Willard Mitt Romney on Romneycare in the debates? There are very good, very specific reasons for these things, and if you think about this pragmatically for just 5 minutes, all will be clear to you without me explaining it.

Um, I think...maybe... uh... Santorum wants to win? And since he wants to win, his biggest competition is Romney? And the most obvious way to defeat Romney is to advertise his pattern of flip-flops on extremely important policy issues like health care and the individual mandate? And I dispute your assertion that Santorum is the only R candidate to attack Romneycare. I could fill this place with youtube clips of all of them doing that throughout the campaign.

[innocentbystander]

Moreover, if Romney was "The Establishment" candidate now, why didn't "The Establishment" pick him in 2008? Why NOW but not THEN? What, was John fucking McCain BETTER for "The Establishment" at making them money than Willard Mitt Romney? Are you high? Or perhaps John had the name recognition that Willard Mitt didn't have? (Probably.) The fact that Romney won so many states (most Caucus states) in 2008 against "The Establishment" candidate says more about Romney's electability than any money given to his Super-Pac from those ficticious Captains and the Kings.

Maybe the Establishment liked McCain because it was "his turn" (they do that a lot). Maybe better name recognition at the time, as you said. Maybe Romney's rampant flip-floppery was still a little too recent and needed a little more time to recede. I can't speak for the Establishment and why they may like one RINO over another RINO.

Why has Santorum (but not Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Tim Pawlenty, or Herman Cain) been putting up such a strong fight? Why has Newt disappeared from view (but is still ahead by 10 points in Georgia?) Why has Ron Paul NOT attacked Willard Mitt Romney in the debates? Why HAS Santorum been attacking Willard Mitt Romney in the debates? Why was Santorum the ONLY ONE to attack Willard Mitt Romney on Romneycare in the debates? There are very good, very specific reasons for these things, and if you think about this pragmatically for just 5 minutes, all will be clear to you without me explaining it.

Um, I think...maybe... uh... Santorum wants to win? And since he wants to win, his biggest competition is Romney? And the most obvious way to defeat Romney is to advertise his pattern of flip-flops on extremely important policy issues like health care and the individual mandate? And I dispute your assertion that Santorum is the only R candidate to attack Romneycare. I could fill this place with youtube clips of all of them doing that throughout the campaign.

Santorum HAS to win. He will not have a job in Romney's administration the way Ron Paul (and perhaps Newt) probably will. Santorum wants to be President, and (unlike Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich) still irrationally believes that will happen. And failing that, Mitt will not have Santorum in his administration as only the VP slot would do and that has already been spoken for (Chris Christie.)

Ron Paul hasn't touched Romney in a debate since the New Hampshire primary. And he will not touch him, he only attacks Santorum. This is by design. Ron Paul has a spot somewhere in Romney's administration. Newt Gingrich hasn't touched Romney either since he's been on the "defensive" since he won South Carolina (sadly for Newt, his one lone victory.) Newt might wind up as Mitt's National Security advisor. I can very easily see that happening, but Newt has come to terms with the fact that his two divorces have disqualified him from the office of the President of the United States.

There is no room for Rick Santorum in Romney's administration. That's too bad since Rick Santorum is such a nice guy and was (by all measures) a very good, well meaning Senator. I believe that Willard Mitt has nothing but respect for Rick Santorum. But the differences on how the two of them look at the Constitution (more specifically, Amendment number ten) makes them incompatible. Rick would never work for Willard Mitt, ever. So, Mitt can't (and wont) use him. So he is forced to put up a fight for the nomination.

Rick Perry (the true establishment candidate) proved in the debates he was not qualified to be President. The best thing Perry could have done was to do what Bob Dole did in 1996, that is BOYCOTT all the GOP debates. That way, is incompitance was not made public until it was too late, he would have beaten Romney and gotten pummelled by Obama. Michelle Bachman is a lovely lady but that in and of itself is not enough for this job, we are talking about the President of the United States. Tim Pawlenty was a pussy back in 2011 who refused to debate Romney on Romneycare when he had the chance And Herman Cain turned out to be twice the sleezeball Newt Gingrich was but we only found that out after he was vetted. That left only two viable, well-spoken, intelligent, articulate candidates, Santorum and Romney. It should be no surprise that these two men are leading in all the states not named Georgia.

[Professor Tiger]

Having a place in some imaginary Romney administration is certainly the least of Santorum's interests. Same for Paul and Gingrich. They aren't going through all this just to be palace eunuchs. And your assumption of a future Romney administration is premature. First he needs to win a majority of primaries and caucuses before the title "Mr. Inevitability" doesn't sound like something from Baghdad Bob.

Santorum HAS to win.

If ANYBODY has to win Michigan, it's Romney. If he can't win his own home state where his father was a popular governor, then he will quickly stop being Mr. Inevitability even to his supporters. The fact that Michigan is a dead heat is a danger sign.

[sardis]

Extremely rare cogent point by tick.

Prof predictably pulls for the papist over common sense.

IB likes transvestites.

Rat wants to send America to hell.

[Professor Tiger]

Prof predictably pulls for the papist over common sense.

FTR, I'm not that crazy about Santorum. I said a couple of weeks ago, when he was still in single digits in the polls, that all I knew about Santorum was he was pro-life. He was really, really pro-life. Did I say he was pro-life? Now that he is tied for the lead, that's still all I know about him. Now I'm very pro-life, but a future president needs to be a lot more than that.

I'll probably vote for the other papist, Gingrich. Or I might decide on primary day that, as Boone said in Animal House, "This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on someone's part, and I'm just the guy to do it." I might vote for Paul.

Since I live in Illinois, I might vote for both of them. Maybe several times.

[innocentbystander]

Extremely rare cogent point by tick.

Prof predictably pulls for the papist over common sense.

IB likes transvestites.

Rat wants to send America to hell.

We are in Hell already. Rat just wants to keep us there. Afterall, he's just a kid having fun.

[Professor Tiger]

We're not in hell. We're in purgatory. Paulie will explain...

[10ac]

Why don't protestants get a purgatory? With us it's either heaven or hell.

[Professor Tiger]

Incorrect. A LOT of protestants get purgatory. Eventually.

[Jungle Rat]

Is IB done acting like a fool yet?

[bluetick]

Nice counters, prof, but your Animal House reference was a tad off the mark (it was Otter's line, not Boone's).

[Big Orange Junky]

This is a great story and puts it in the proper perspective.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/catholi ... osher-deli

[Toemeesleather]

I loved Reagan

There's not 10 cents difference in how the press portrayed Reagan during the primaries and what's happening today....a bumbling old actor with no foreign policy experience.....polls show Carter will win despite economy....

One difference however, the hostage situation was in the news everyday....now, the MSM relies on faux news...contraception and who got divorced 20 years ago to keep the focus off unemployment....gas prices...obammercare....and dead soldiers.

[Toemeesleather]

Home prices low, gas outta sight.....4 MORE YEARZZZ!!111




Single-family home prices ended 2011 on a downbeat note as a drop in December prices sent the seasonally-adjusted index to its lowest level since 2003, according to a closely watched survey on Tuesday.

[sardis]

I guess it seems to be a liberal trend that it's ok to make stuff up to argue a noble cause. First to discredit MMGW folks and now the rich 1%...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-no ... 56900.html

[Professor Tiger]

Nice counters, prof, but your Animal House reference was a tad off the mark (it was Otter's line, not Boone's).

I stand corrected.

[innocentbystander]

Nice counters, prof, but your Animal House reference was a tad off the mark (it was Otter's line, not Boone's).

I stand corrected.

Everyone wanted to be Otter.

[Professor Tiger]

For the record, Mitt was NEVER Pro-Choice.

Really?



He sounds about as passionately pro-choice as you can possibly get. He was even trying to out-pro-choice Ted Kennedy, for crying out loud. But I guess other than that, he was "NEVER prochoice." LMAO.