Kindly note that the people pushing the global warming scam had carefully arranaged to make themselves a great deal of money out of it. And power – for most of these people, power is far more valuable than money.

These con men MUST be tried, convicted, and punished. Long prison sentences, massive fines. For the integrity of both government and science.

BTW, I think this highlights the need to put scientific policy under the supervision of engineers. We engineers have the scientific knowledge to follow the arguments, leavened with the realism to avoid going down ideological rabbit holes.

I can be somewhat lenient on the social conservative’s agenda. But, gay marriage is more than a private act between a person (couple) and God. It is a civilization turning point, going against thousands of years of religious doctrines and the like. Also, in a reproductive sense, that is what marriage is all about — a religious, binding union that creates a human basis for reproducing the species. Without this inclusive arrangement, creating a man/woman/child nucleus, the family unit becomes blurred and drifts as to it’s meaning and purpose.

Also, civil unions are clearly universally accepted as a means for same sex couples to maintain a long-term relationship, having most of the same rights incorporated within it as a legal marriage, sans the validation of a religious ceremony. For most same sex couples this legal arrangement has proven to be satisfactory. But for some, gay marriage is taken up as an ongoing cause, through activist measures, forcing the recognition of their couple-hood onto the religious community. Therefore, I feel there needs to be a continuation observing the rituals of marriage, as subscribed by religious tenet, rather than capitulating to the pressures of political correctness.

Me, too! And I’m fed up with the RINO agenda, too.

I disagree with DeMint in regards to being fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. I think they do go hand in hand. Morals are important but by the same token, the gay marriage is a judgment issue between them and God as long as they don’t harm the society and live among us in peace.

I saw this list last week. I already knew Santo was a BIG government Republican and I knew that I would have a problem with Santo on certain things. But at least he’s consistent and honest. And stay above the fray of the fights between Rom and Newt.

but who knows, maybe enough people are finally fed up enough with the left wing agenda that a hard right social warrior can win! I sure hope so.

Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted for minimum wage increases 6 times
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

It’s going to be difficult for Santorum to say anything negative about Romney’s MR comment. His union support and his lack of support for RTW laws are against the current republican grain today, as well. And, then you have to wonder about his repudiation of Romneycare when his own record shows he was for mandates before he is now against them.

Also, regarding Romney: It’s not a matter of forgiving Romney’s political stances in the past, as much as not seeing them as being ones of a flaming liberal. At best Romney has shown more of a neutrality in his assessment of right/left issues, which is reflected in his affiliation of being an independent before he became a republican.

I’ve said this more than once here, Romney is not ideologically-driven in his decision making. Rather, he pencils out the numbers and is a technocrat in evaluating moves which he sees as being fiscally sound, instead of simply pleasing the far sides of the political spectrum. His “core values” seem centered around what works best at a given moment. In a way, that’s why I see him as the right person for this time frame, as we need someone who will be able to appraise our economy based less on emotion and more geared towards a higher speed aimed at recovery.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/

Frogg1. I have no problem with Ricks prior statements about Gays. as you said many were 10 years ago, back in the days when Romney was a flaming liberal that so many are so eager to forgive him for. Many people evaluate their positions over the years and modify them for good reasons, at times. Certainly my position on homosexuality has evolved over time. I think the reason Romney is ” not being able to message conservatism strongly.” is because it is not something he is familiar with or accustomed to. He mostly acts conservatively when it is politically expedient to do so. Now, I have no problem with politicians being political, that’s what they all do to some extent.

I also believe all marriages should be ‘states’ issues because there is no rights associated with marriage in the constitution. There is no right to marry or no right to not marry contained therein.

We need a solid conservative in order to save our country. I did not like Newt or Rommney but I am going to vote for whoever wins the chance to run against President Obama. I saw a part of Rick Santorum speaking last summer and had been impressed. However, it did not look all that good for him. I saw his speech last night and was impressed again. I still don’t know much about him. But if he keeps speaking like he did last night, I will want him more than any of the others.

All three of the top candidates would do well on foreign policy. And, they will certainly have challenges in their term (probably even bigger challenges than Bush had).

None of them are as strong on fiscal conservatism as I would like (although I would probably give a slight nod in Gingrich’s favor on this aspect). However, I think they all understand the grave fiscal danger we are in and would all make improvements on some level. None of them will veto fiscally conservative legislation coming from Congress.

I still don’t know how I will vote. I’ll wait and see how things play out. But, I’d like to ask the Santorum supporters to go google “Santorum” and “gay marriage” and look at his prior statements/videos….and, tell me how he overcomes it……because I’d like to think he could. I’m socially conservative and don’t support gay marriage (civil unions are fine)–and, I would prefer this issue be at the state and local level as much as possible (not Fed level)….and, I don’t see how he overcomes it. I really don’t.

Your counting is off. There have been 8 primaries. Santorum won the last 3, CO,MO,MI, and Iowa is technically his by the final ‘official’ vote count. However, there were 8 precincts that Romney didn’t contest, that weren’t counted and were weighted in his favor, so I kind of look at Iowa as draw (as I considered it when Romney originally was said to have won it by 8). Mitt has won NH, FL, and NV (3), and Newt SC (1).

WWS

Mitt ran that Ohio ad, IMO, because Newt was there Tuesday saying he was ahead there. Romney seems to be taking no chances with Gingrich, as he has risen from the dead so many times.

I do agree with you that no candidate has coalesced a voter majority around them. Although, Romney has been consistently 1st or 2nd in all the primaries, with the except of MO. None of the other candidates have shown as high of a floor level as Romney, thus far.

The big state of super tuesday to watch is that travesty VA. If Paul can win 40% that would be a huge black eye on Mitt.