The Cellar - Election 2012

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Election 2012 (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27441)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs (Post 826026)

Just some funny video of Paul Ryan being asked about his love of Ayn Rand by a Catholic activist.

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/p...about_ayn_rand

Maybe Paul Ryan should have Mike Huckabee as his spritual advisor instead of being a cathunist. It's all good, I have in laws that are conservative catholics, they do exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maineiac04631 (Post 827369)

....I have in laws that are conservative catholics, they do exist.

Rick Santorum is their king.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maineiac04631 (Post 827369)

Maybe Paul Ryan should have Mike Huckabee as his spritual advisor instead of being a cathunist. It's all good, I have in laws that are conservative catholics, they do exist.

Church leaders prefer only conservative Catholics exist. Liberal Catholicism is being systematically swept from the Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 827371)

Church leaders prefer only conservative Catholics exist. Liberal Catholicism is being systematically swept from the Church.

"Voices of the Faithful" having been banned from church properties for advocating progressive reforms.

I'm really curious.

We've seen plenty of the Republican campaign so far and all of the Republican National Convention. The Democratic campaign is well publicized too and their convention is happening now. I've noticed a conspicuous absence. Here's a picture, check it out.

Attachment 40468

Jimmy Carter gave a speech tonight and he sounded very intelligent, as always. Tomorrow night Bill Clinton is scheduled to give a speech at the convention. But we've heard and seen ZERO from the living presidents from the Republican party. Why is this? What are they hiding?

I did notice repeated invocations of Saint Reagan, but he's dead. If there's so much emphasis on the performance of the different parties, why aren't the Republicans talking about any of "their" presidents?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 828412)

...why aren't the Republicans talking about any of "their" presidents?

Their surnames?

I wish i were joking!

The emphasis on debt doesn't mesh well with Bush II's unfunded wars and Mitt is playing a very close game railing both against Iran and the entanglement in Afghanistan. He needs to hold both the newly engaged isolationist wing and the neo-cons two ideologically incompatible groups. That Obama is continuing Bush II's failed policies and is itching to play the neo-con game in Syria probably doesn't help.

:jig: Michelle Obama :jig:

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 828456)

:jig: Michelle Obama :jig:

Hell yeah!

This was new to me... :rolleyes:

Who is the only politician that believes Roe vs Wade are two ways to cross the Potomac River ?

Dan Quail

In the lead-up to an election, a candidate's reactions under stress
may show what sort of President he/she would make.
Here is Mitt Romney's foreign relations moment...

Romney ratchets up criticism of Obama on initial response to embassy attacks
NBC News
Tom Curry
9/12/12

Quote:

Richard Engles:
At 10:25 p.m. ET Tuesday night -- after news of the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi
but before it was confirmed Stevens had been killed --
the Romney campaign released a statement in which Romney said,

Quote:

“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions
in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi.
It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn
attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”<snip>

But a few hours later...

Andrea Mitichell:

Quote:

But NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported that the Cairo embassy
statement was issued six hours before the mob attacked the embassy.
She pressed Romney foreign policy advisor Ambassador Richard Williamson
to explain why Romney had criticized a statement made before the mob assault.

Each election, the talking heads revive conspiratorial tactics about the Republicans
reaching bargains with foreign powers on what they will do for them when/if they are elected.

This year it has started with Romney and Netanyahu creating a crisis for Obama over a "nuclear Iran"
Without explanation, seemingly it's a lose-lose situation for Obama
....either a war with Iran or a nuclear bomb in Iran.

But that's not necessarily the case.
It may just be a case of "wag the dog" to bolster Romney's political campaign.

FoxNews.com
9/11/12
Romney win could spur longtime pal Netanyahu to face Iran threat

Quote:

Mitt Romney and Benjamin Netanyahu go way back, and some in Israel
believe the prime minister sees his old friend capturing the White House
as the perfect opportunity to vanquish Iran's nuclear threat.

The depth of their relationship, sown back in the 1970s when they both worked
as corporate advisers at the Boston Consulting Group, has been on
the minds of Israelis lately as the American election season grinds along.

In addition to an entry on their resumes, Romney and Netanyahu appear to share
a similar perspective of the danger Iran poses to the Jewish State.
And given the often-frosty relations between Netanyahu and the Obama administration,
decisive action by Israel could come quickly if Romney wins on Nov. 6.

But the world diplomatic community feels differently...

The Telegraph
9/13/12

MI6 boss 'visited Israeli Prime Minister to urge against attacking Iran'

Quote:

The head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, paid a visit to Israel's Prime Minister
to urge him not to back strikes against Iran, it was reported last night.
Sir John paid a personal visit to Benjamin Netanyahu to appeal to the leader
to hold fire after he appeared to be impatient over the UK and US's approach
towards Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his nuclear programme.

Yesterday, Mr Netanyahu said the US did not have the "moral right" to stop Israel
from taking action against Iran, where he is concerned by a number of nuclear sites.
"The world tells Israel to wait because there is still time," he said.
"And I ask: Wait for what? Until when?
Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines
before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."<snip>

Fears over Iran and debate about what to do about the threat it poses has reached a fever pitch.
The most recent meeting of the security cabinet was abandoned midway
after Netanyahu learned that alleged differences of opinion between Israel’s security services
over the best course of action had been leaked ahead of the top security gathering.
Netanyahu is now reportedly considering submitting all members of the security cabinet
to polygraph tests in order to establish the source of the leak.

The US position is that an war with Iran could only postpone the current situation,
and could lead to even more problems in the middle east,

Business Week
Tony Capaccio
September 12, 2012

Iran Attack Would Halt Nuclear Bid for Four Years, Report Says

Quote:

A U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would derail
the Islamic Republic’s suspected weapons program for four years at most
while uniting its citizens and alienating the Muslim world, according to a report.

The report to be released today by the “Iran Project,” a bipartisan group
of former national-security officials and foreign-policy specialists, discusses
the military pros and cons of a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and outlines
the less- discussed political fallout of any such attack. <snip>