Black Republican
Member
The Super Tuesday thread is up:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465594
Get your primary/caucus discussion in there and maybe we will see some surprises tomorrow.
tonight Poligaf dines in hell
The Super Tuesday thread is up:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=465594
Get your primary/caucus discussion in there and maybe we will see some surprises tomorrow.
Yeah I wanted a title that's more mature but not too "old sounding" if that makes sense.
And a buzzer sounds interesting but potentially abusive.
Also what's with the left's hate on vaccines?.
It's March.http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/03/obama-holds-massive-lead-with-latinos.html
Obama leads Romney with Latinos 40-38.
And by Latinos I mean Latinos who voted for John McCain.
So you're telling me the gap is going to widen?It's March.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.htmlFluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke.
Looks like Mittens finally has this thing.
...or could someone else knock him back down again?
At this point there's no one else left to do it. Santorum was the latest, and final, flavor of the month.
It's March.
Looks like Mittens finally has this thing.
...or could someone else knock him back down again?
At this point there's no one else left to do it. Santorum was the latest, and final, flavor of the month.
It's March.
"There's no compromise here," said GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, a Catholic and favorite among religious conservatives. "They are forcing religious organizations, either directly or indirectly, to pay for something that they find is a deeply, morally, you know, wrong thing. And this is not what the government should be doing."
I'm not saying they weren't good guests, but they are random folks from the Internet, and if schedules conflict, your show is probably a lower priority. You've had to beg and postpone your podcast a few times for just that reason. Nothing wrong with bringing them on when available (I think GAF is a great source for intelligent liberal and conservative views), but I wouldn't plan my show around them.
Anyway, best of luck!
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) regrets voting for a controversial birth control amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and wouldn't vote for it again if given the chance, she told the Anchorage Daily News this week.
"I have never had a vote I've taken where I have felt that I let down more people that believed in me," she said in a Sunday interview with the newspaper. Asked if she would vote for the amendment again if she could do it over, Murkowski said, "No."
Murkowski voted in lockstep with most of her party to try to pass Blunt's amendment to a senate transportation bill, which would have allowed any employer to refuse to cover contraception or any other health service by citing moral reasons. The measure went down in a 51-48 vote, but only after weeks of both parties ratcheting up the debate over protecting women's access to contraception versus preserving religious liberty. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican who voted against it.
The Anchorage Daily News column says Murkowski returned to Alaska after the amendment failed and kept running into female voters unhappy with her over her vote. Murkowski told them she had voted for the amendment because she wanted to send a message that the health care law needed stronger protections for religious conscience. But public debate on the measure had changed, she said, and what was supposed to be a "messaging amendment" on religious freedom, an issue Republicans were hoping to champion, ended up becoming a vote on contraception rights.
In the end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) saw Republicans' plan backfiring and pushed for a vote on the GOP amendment to give Democrats a political win.
Murkowski conceded that Republicans lost that battle. "The wind had shifted, and Republicans didn't have enough sense to get off of it," she told the n]ewspaper.
Reuters said:Eastern Libya defies Tripoli to create autonomous council
(Reuters) - Civic leaders in Libya's eastern Cyrenaica province, home to most of the country's oil, have declared the creation of a council to administer the province's affairs.
Tuesday's declaration does not carry official force but it puts the province - unhappy for many years at what it regards as neglect by rulers in Tripoli - on course for a confrontation with Libya's interim leadership, the National Transitional Council (NTC).
About 3,000 delegates at a congress in the eastern city of Benghazi installed Ahmed al-Senussi, a relative of Libya's former king and a political prisoner under ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi, as head of the new council.
Moves towards greater autonomy for Cyrenaica will worry international oil companies operating in Libya, because it raises the prospect of them having to re-negotiate their contracts with a new entity.
The declaration by the congress did not make clear whether the new provincial council would exist within the NTC's institutions, or be a rival to it.
Asked to clarify that point, Mohammed Buisier, one of the organisers of Tuesday's congress, told Reuters: "I've been in contact with people in Tripoli and I told them 'come here and negotiate'... It should be through negotiation." (Additional reporting by Ali Shuaib, Christian Lowe and Hisham El Dani in Tripoli; Writing by Christian Lowe; editing by Robert Woodward
The Anchorage Daily News column says Murkowski returned to Alaska after the amendment failed and kept running into female voters unhappy with her over her vote. Murkowski told them she had voted for the amendment because she wanted to send a message that the health care law needed stronger protections for religious conscience.
Lisa Murkowski admits she fucked up and wouldnt vote for the blunt bill if she had a 2nd chance:
Hey does anyone know which Democrats voted for the blunt amendment?
On Tuesday, Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) will introduce a bill aimed at cracking down on prescription drugs like Viagra that treat erectile dysfunction. Turners legislation would make men jump through certain hoops such as psychological screenings before they could obtain the meds.
I care about the health of men as well, and I thought it only fair that we illustrate that and make sure that a man is fully informed of the risks involved in taking these drugs and also the alternatives such as natural remedies or also celibacy, Turner said.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...l-health-and-prove-a-point.php?ref=fpnewsfeed...state Sen. Janet Howell introduced an amendment to the bill that would have required men to get a rectal exam and cardiac stress tests before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication. Her amendment failed 21-19 while the ultrasound bill ultimately passed.
Casey (PA), Manchin (WV), Nelson (Neb)
"I don't even consider myself wealthy..."
This angle was brought up on The Diane Rehm Show the other day. Since health insurance is considered part of ones compensation - essentially salary - the GOP is trying to regulate individual employees use off their own salary. It gets right back into defending unequal pay for women.Mitch McConnell and the GOP are going to continue to push this?
I just don't get it. I really really don't. How is this some religious infringement? I mean the health insurance companies want to provide it. If you're against contraception you don't have to buy it. Trying to demand that insurance companies cannot cover it to your employees is crazy. It's like demanding that employees can't do or buy something with their salary. I mean this is their pay. It's pretty much a part of their salary.
"I don't even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing. It can be here today gone tomorrow."
I don't even consider myself wealthy...
Some people have lovers in every port; I have horses in every port.
Who are these people?...Surely she doesn't actually have a horse in every port (though she does have a very expensive collection of horses)
The better part of that quote is the ending:
What in hell is she planning to do that could get rid of like $200 million? She seriously lives in fear that her money could be gone tomorrow? What the hell? That's a special kind of deluded, I think.
Not when you got it all stashed away in a Swiss account.Mitt Romney, if I remember correctly, didn't make any money in 2009. He's worth 200 million on paper, but paper has a way of losing its value if the economy craters like it did in 2007. It's not a wholly unreasonable thing to say.
Motivation notwithstanding, he closed his Swiss account years ago. But that's beside the point. I don't think it makes sense to be zealously uncharitable about everything the Romneys say, even if my distaste for him as a politician is profound. Romney is not sitting on 200 million in liquid assets, and his wife's statement that their wealth could disappear quite suddenly is not inaccurate or ridiculous.Not when you got it all stashed away in a Swiss account.
Mitt Romney, if I remember correctly, didn't make any money in 2009. He's worth 200 million on paper, but paper has a way of losing its value if the economy craters like it did in 2007. It's not a wholly unreasonable thing to say.
without a crushing return into a recession with complete reversal of job gains and flaming rain drops from the sky, its over. Its been over for at least 3 months
Motivation notwithstanding, he closed his Swiss account years ago. But that's beside the point. I don't think it makes sense to be zealously uncharitable about everything the Romneys say, even if my distaste for him as a politician is profound. Romney is not sitting on 200 million in liquid assets, and his wife's statement that their wealth could disappear quite suddenly is not inaccurate or ridiculous.
Mitt Romney, if I remember correctly, didn't make any money in 2009. He's worth 200 million on paper, but paper has a way of losing its value if the economy craters like it did in 2007. It's not a wholly unreasonable thing to say.
If Romney is good with his money (and he is), he'll have diversified his assets so that they are either rather liquid or are invested in rock-solid industries.
Basically, if the Romney fortune vanishes it's rather indicative of a economic crisis where we're all fucked.
Ugh, just had the worst dentist visit. Normally during the checkups, she has the tv on playing Fox News. I just ignore it, or laugh quietly to myself about the stupid stuff they say and low lay. But today she was watching and commenting on the stories and asking me all sorts of questions. I just nodded my head and smiled, figured I wasn't in a position to get in a big political argument. She was trying to decide who to vote for in the upcoming primary (We live in Virginia). She said she doesn't like Romney, since "he's basically a Kennedy Democrat" nor Ron Paul because "I tried the Libertarian thing, and I think we need at least some regulation" but she'll probably vote for Romney because "We don't need four more years of The Socialist."
without a crushing return into a recession with complete reversal of job gains and flaming rain drops from the sky, its over. Its been over for at least 3 months
The better part of that quote is the ending:
What in hell is she planning to do that could get rid of like $200 million? She seriously lives in fear that her money could be gone tomorrow? What the hell? That's a special kind of deluded, I think.
Yeah, it is looking pretty bad for Romney. And Romney has unfavorable ratings that are currently higher than McCain, W, and Bob Dole had at this point in the contest. The only way I see Romney winning is some big outside factor such as huge European collapse or some other financial disaster.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/how-long-can-states-block-obamacare/2012/03/06/gIQAqHVmuR_blog.html
In a brief interview at the Republican Attorneys General Association meeting, Cuccinelli said it would be contrary to the law not to implement it. But he pointed out that it might not be easy for the federal government to force states to comply if they continued to resist.
Its not like theres criminal penalties out there it becomes a power struggle, he said. Cuccinelli noted that it would not be the first time that states have tried to obstruct federal laws, pointing out that states resisted complying with the Alien and Sedition Acts and fugitive slave laws.
There have been periods of time when states have just thrown their hands up and said, Were not going to do this, he said. Its still possible, but its outside the expected legal structure.
I guess that is why we need to give them more tax cuts.http://news.yahoo.com/ann-romney-talking-awkwardly-money-now-too-225101365.html
Of course not, Ann..."I don't even consider myself wealthy..."
And I also hate when people say he can just slide back to the middle during the GE. I'm sorry but how the heck can he pull that off and NOT piss off the far right? Wouldn't they just sit at home if he pushed back to the middle?
You don't lose all your money when the market is rough. Romeny made $40m over the past two years. That implies a massive bed of wealth they are sitting on. Unless they're dumping it all into amazingly bad investments, it can't just disappear. And even if it cratered to "just" a few million, they're still set for life. It was an absurd comment. I don't really care for elevating stuff spouses say, but it was a pretty telling quote about the bubble the Romney's live in.
Not to mention the money he has from his dad. So yea, the idea of his money being "here today gone tomorrow" is utterly ridiculous.
He has no money from his dad. He didn't need it. He donated his entire inheritance to charity.
He has no money from his dad. He didn't need it. He donated his entire inheritance to charity.
Didn't know that. Well that makes him more generous than Barry, Santorum, etc
The fact the he donated his inheritances doesn't mean he never got money from his dad.He has no money from his dad. He didn't need it. He donated his entire inheritance to charity.
When did he make this donation?
I'm sure his parents helped him through school, etc.The fact the he donated his inheritances doesn't mean he never got money from his dad.
Also, his father died in 95', when he was already a millionaire and a politician.
Also, his father died in 95', when he was already a millionaire and a politician.
It's still a good thing to do, I'm not trying to hate on the guy.Okay so that does change the way I look at that a bit.
1995 according to Wikipedia.
I'm sure his parents helped him through school, etc.