A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
WHAT HAPPENED!!!
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney it is
Hmm. Of those four I'd say Huntsman is the only one who had a chance of getting double digit voters (percentagewise) in Virginia. I could be wrong, though.
On January 14 2012 10:04 koreasilver wrote: You know, people get regularly banned for posting stupid memes liberally all over forum pages outside of the picture thread. This thread shouldn't be any different.
First time in this giant thread, and it is indeed close-worthy at this point. People are just yelling at each other and posting comics.
A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
WHAT HAPPENED!!!
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney it is
Hmm. Of those four I'd say Huntsman is the only one who had a chance of getting double digit voters (percentagewise) in Virginia. I could be wrong, though.
A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
WHAT HAPPENED!!!
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney it is
Hmm. Of those four I'd say Huntsman is the only one who had a chance of getting double digit voters (percentagewise) in Virginia. I could be wrong, though.
It's Gingrich's home state.
He may currently live there, but I think it's more fair to say that Georgia is his home state. He lived there for years and it's the state he was a representative of when he was speaker.
On January 14 2012 10:04 koreasilver wrote: You know, people get regularly banned for posting stupid memes liberally all over forum pages outside of the picture thread. This thread shouldn't be any different.
First time in this giant thread, and it is indeed close-worthy at this point. People are just yelling at each other and posting comics.
The same pictures, repeatedly, by the same person.
On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote: The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs)
FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010.
Welfare? *facepalm*
Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation.
That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling.
Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education.
EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent.
Ya europe wealfare systems works perfectly, right?. People need to stop saying that because in scandinavian countries welfare works, and in the rest of the world doesn't, it's just about "getting it right"; it's not. What happens everywhere is that either welfare sucks or the government is broken, or will be broken; sometimes both. I'll also bet my ass scandinavian countries would be as good as they are without welfare system.
Did I say a word about welfare systems ?
Uhhh yes? State-controlled healthcare and education is a welfare system -_-
A federal judge on Friday ruled against four Republican presidential candidates seeking a spot on Virginia's March 6 primary ballot, saying they waited too long to file their claims.
Left off the ballot are Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
The four candidates challenged the state's residency requirements for those seeking to circulate ballot petitions, but Judge John Gibney ruled against the challenge.
WHAT HAPPENED!!!
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney it is
Hmm. Of those four I'd say Huntsman is the only one who had a chance of getting double digit voters (percentagewise) in Virginia. I could be wrong, though.
It's Gingrich's home state.
Lived in Virginia all of my life, and only found out earlier this month that Gingrich apparently lives here.
Concerning the 4 being left off the ballot: if you can't follow the simple rules that have been in place the entire time you've been running for office, sorry.
I'm still mad that they're forcing primary voters to sign loyalty oaths that they will vote republican in November if they want to participate.
On January 14 2012 07:15 NtroP wrote: The thing that really pushed me into the Ron Paul camp was the data that all things that the FEDERAL government subsidize inflate at a ridiculous rate. Healthcare, way outpaces inflation. Subsidized food? Food costs are rising faster than inflation. Education? College costs are rising way way way faster than inflation. (in fact, to get maximum federal money, they have to raise their tuition a certain amount each year, artificially inflating education costs)
FDA? They've been beating the rate of inflation as well, and jumped 15% from 2009 to 2010.
Welfare? *facepalm*
Now, the question of course is if we knock the size of the federal government down to where it doesn't run these functions for the country will that inflation just crop up in some other form? Possibly. However, what we can be confident of is that if all of these aspects of our country continue to be run federally we will again have spending that in each of these parts of our society that far outpaces inflation.
That is why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. There are certainly other benefits to a Ron Paul presidency, but the main one would be an effort to limit the size of our government as a large empire simply becomes unduly influenced by all that it is supposed to be controlling.
Did you stop to look outside your country and see why there much more state-controlled healthcare and education are doing much better ? Maybe it is not about the amount of federal control, but quality of that control and implementation. Of course your hybrid public-private system is bloated as it is extremely poorly created system. It says nothing about public healthcare systems, same goes for education.
EDIT: Not to say that there are no places where cutting would not be prudent.
Ya europe wealfare systems works perfectly, right?. People need to stop saying that because in scandinavian countries welfare works, and in the rest of the world doesn't, it's just about "getting it right"; it's not. What happens everywhere is that either welfare sucks or the government is broken, or will be broken; sometimes both. I'll also bet my ass scandinavian countries would be as good as they are without welfare system.
Did I say a word about welfare systems ?
Uhhh yes? State-controlled healthcare and education is a welfare system -_-
Ok, if you want to include them in the definition which I find a bad idea, they are still just part of welfare system not whole, and I am not talking about the rest. Anyway, as for your points. Both of those systems work very well not only in Scandinavia, but in all of first world countries that use public systems. You betting your ass is not really a convincing argument. Predicting how those countries would have fared without a system that is so essentially integral to them is fools errand.
Has anyone seen this video? I don't want to spoil it (so people watch the video, instead of going based on assumptions fo what specifically happens), so all that I'll say is it shows Mitt Romney blatantly showcasing his ideology of actual truth/morality/logic < winning (imo).
It's kinda hard to justify this, if I say so myself. He just completely avoids a question to which he's wrong. True or false?
On January 14 2012 13:14 Zanno wrote: and romney turned out as a manipulative chameleon with the outward appearance of a loaf of bread
This is kinda what I was trying to get at. The man says his stance, but as soon as he comes to turns with the negatives (which come with every choice that's made), the man almost literally runs away to preserve his translucent image. I'm saying he's a coward, and his constant stance changing shows that he doesn't really hold any legitimate, solid beliefs, and is quite literally saying whatever sounds nice at the time.
On January 14 2012 12:24 TALegion wrote: Has anyone seen this video? I don't want to spoil it (so people watch the video, instead of going based on assumptions fo what specifically happens), so all that I'll say is it shows Mitt Romney blatantly showcasing his ideology of actual truth/morality/logic < winning (imo).
It's kinda hard to justify this, if I say so myself. He just completely avoids a question to which he's wrong. True or false?
Not to be rude, but did you really expect a republican candidate on the national stage to take a pro-marijuana stance? It isn't a stance most of his base supports. It really doesn't matter what the reasoning is behind the usage of marijuana, they are just against it period.
On January 14 2012 12:24 TALegion wrote: Has anyone seen this video? I don't want to spoil it (so people watch the video, instead of going based on assumptions fo what specifically happens), so all that I'll say is it shows Mitt Romney blatantly showcasing his ideology of actual truth/morality/logic < winning (imo).
It's kinda hard to justify this, if I say so myself. He just completely avoids a question to which he's wrong. True or false?
Not to be rude, but did you really expect a republican candidate on the national stage to take a pro-marijuana stance? It isn't a stance most of his base supports. It really doesn't matter what the reasoning is behind the usage of marijuana, they are just against it period.
On January 14 2012 12:24 TALegion wrote: Has anyone seen this video? I don't want to spoil it (so people watch the video, instead of going based on assumptions fo what specifically happens), so all that I'll say is it shows Mitt Romney blatantly showcasing his ideology of actual truth/morality/logic < winning (imo).
On January 14 2012 12:24 TALegion wrote: Has anyone seen this video? I don't want to spoil it (so people watch the video, instead of going based on assumptions fo what specifically happens), so all that I'll say is it shows Mitt Romney blatantly showcasing his ideology of actual truth/morality/logic < winning (imo).
I'm not saying that Romney doesn't have a slew of problems, but I just find all this to be cheap jabs. I honestly don't really find it too different from looking at some of the unsavory past issues of Ron Paul, for example. It's what's occurring today that are more relevant.
Besides, it is not as if almost all the candidates are not manipulative. Most people already know what happened four years ago during the presidential race, and trying to dig these things up just seem like a ploy used because they either don't have anything more to say or they are just looking for easy jabs. Their pasts might be unsavory, but this kind of ploy is unsavory in itself.
There's a report that Gingrich was booed on Huckabee's show for criticizing Romney. As I said before, the Republicans may seem splintered and unhappy with their field, but once they pick a candidate they will all jump behind him. Rush Limbaugh didn't care for John McCain before he got the Republican nomination in 2008, but I can't recall him saying a bad thing about McCain after he was nominated. Limbaugh also criticized Gingrich for attacking Romney's time at Bain saying he is playing the same "blame the rich" game that OWS is playing. Limbaugh is the most influential person of the Republican party by lightyears and he can easily rally the conservatives to get behind a moderate like Romney.
EPT
