And my point is, no one here, save for a few Canadians like myself, would know who you are talking about, hence the lack of response from anyone else but me, a Canadian.
You're right that most Swedes got left leaning opinions on economics. But also Swedes are often stuck to moral when it comes to deficit, and earn benefits by working hard. In the 1990s a strong leader of the social democrats did cut quite a few costs to curb deficit. Fortunately since 2006 a non-social democratic government has reduce taxes by say 10 units of percent. I think that's a good start but far from enough. We should be a much more free country.
This site and its poll isn't nation wide, but a quite small and narrow one. I just made a comment about like 500 "voters" in the poll here, supporting a candidate which vs. Obama is a loser due to all professional opinion polls out there.
Nah -- this is nothing; my description of her is polite. The fact is, year after year, election after election, she votes for people she mostly disagrees with over individuals whom she mostly agrees with. This applies to court appointees, too: she'll carry on about what a moron Justice Thomas is and what a soooper-Genius Justice Ginsberg is, only in case after case, practically down the line, she agrees with Thomas and (sometimes, as in the case of Kelo, vehemently) disagrees with her heroine Ginsberg. When I tell her that much of the Democrat Party's core support comes from hard-core socialists and communists, people who want to give the soviet experiment another try, she doesn't believe me. "How could anyone with half a brain believe in such nonsense?" she says and shakes her head. I tell her the Motor-Voter ID law was passed to abet voter fraud, and she says that's crazy. I point out Cloward and Piven at the signing ceremony -- invitees of then President Clinton -- but then I've got to go back and confirm she's read C&P (she hasn't), and in any event she isn't paying attention. She doesn't want to know this stuff. That tape the LA Times has been hiding for 3-4 years now, the one with all the Palestinian radicals and the kids' theater group staging beheadings of Jews as party entertainment -- until it appears reported on CNN and 60 Minutes, and is covered extensively by the New York Times, it cannot exist as even a possibility in her mind.
So she has no idea who ACORN are, doesn't know anything about Saul Alinsky, and has no inclination to look behind the magic curtain to find out what she doesn't know.
I try to explain this to those conservatives who don't know many Democrats personally: a fair amount of them hold pretty conservative views. I think a lot of them are essentially single-issue voters, even if they'd deny that characterization: they don't understand that you can be pro-abortion (as I am) but anti-Roe v. Wade, and the very idea that some women, somewhere, in a post-Roe USA might have to go from Utah to Colorado for an abortion presents such a horrible, coathangery image of the bad 'ol days when the knuckledragger religious right had their way, it obliterates consideration of any other issue or question, no matter how basic or commonsense (e.g., "How the hell are, we going to pay for all of this?").
The plus side with regard to them, however, is that, with the exception of a serious social con like Sen. Sentorum, they're listening to what the GOP contenders have to say. (My mom said what a lot of us here on these threads say: "I love his domestic ideas, but his foreign policy...") A GOP nominee that comes across as smart (Newt), who can clearly articulate (Newt) the commonsense reforms and steps the something like 75-80% of the country knows we should be taking, who focuses on economic issues and leaves the cultural issues to be dealt with by the states (where I think they belong, anyhow), will get their vote. Obama has a record now, and it's a disaster. Even for those who won't yet call it a disaster will come around to using that proper descriptor of what Obama has wrought, *provided* that the GOP nominee gives it to them couched in intelligent, precise, unhesitating terms explaining why it is dead-on the money.
People are scared as can be when it comes to the debt, to the jobs market, to the deficit, and they don't believe Obama's the man to handle these problems. They are waiting for an alternative that they can recognize as plainly intelligent and competent.
Why bring up Hudak here? Other than the few Canadians here, no one knows who he is. There are many more examples that Americans here can relate to.
Bad example anyway, as aside from Hudak's bland personality, the Ontario Conservatives haven't had a decent candidate since Mike Harris was premier and Hudak was just the latest sacrificial leader thrown at the Liberals. But, I'm not here to discuss Ontario provincial politics, neither is anyone else.
No, they established that there are two possible categories for natural-born citizenship, the former to which Ms. Minor belonged, and the latter of which was not to be decided by the court at that time.
Meanwhile Wong Kim Ark goes to great lengths to establish what constituted English common law at the time of the adoption of the constitution and concludes that, in spite of Vattel, English law held that all people born in England - regardless of where their parents hailed from - were English subjects.
I appreciate the conversation RP brings to the primaries. I'm also one of those rare one's who likes the fact that a lot of RP's base is young. These are, after all, the ones who will ultimately pay for the screw up going on now. If we can get them looking & talking about what principles should govern us, that's a good thing.
Let Ron Paul stay in.It gives the Cheetos eating living in their mommas basement stoners something to look at while we take this country back for the rest of the honest Americans.
HUH????? How can you compare Tim Hudak (leader of the Conservative party opposition in Ontario, Canada) to Mitt Romney?????????? Who on this board knows Tim or cares about the comparison?
How do I know who Tim Hudak is? I'm a Canadian, originally from S. Ontario, and he represented me in the provincial legislature.
Triple Face Palm at this one.......
They wouldn't. We might refer to how hilarious it is that - while Obama being born in the US with one citizen parent and one alien parent made him ineligible, miraculously the right has chosen to forget all of this when it comes to nominating someone born in the US of two alien parents, but I don't foresee anyone bothering to challenge his eligibility.
Right, Minor v. Happerset was about Woman Suffrage, and the paragraph that you quoted goes on to read....
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
I believe what he is saying here is that the second class of people, i.e. those born here to non-citizen parents (and let us not forget that Obama's mother was a citizen) is up for debate, but the court has no need to involve itself in that debate when judging Minor v Happerset.
So actually it established nothing.
Try reading Wong Kim Ark... it's pretty explicit in its recognition of natural-born citizenship being conferred upon anyone born in the US as long as their parents weren't diplomats etc.
What a victory for Ron Paul! haha Although, I shouldn't mock him because he does have great ideas when it comes to the finances of our government.
I will simply say that I hope I'm right, because if I'm right, then there is a chance. If you're right, then there is little that can be done....I'm taking that chance rather than giving up.
I think Newt wants greatness; and you can't be great if you don't listen to the new conservative movement.
The difference is that you put Newt and Romney in the same category....I don't.
I think Newt wants to be a Reagan (or better)- his ego demands it. He wants to be the best POTUS in history without an ideology. Romney wants to be everything to everybody, and Santorum wants to be a social conservative warrior.
The "establishment" wants Romney, which is why I refuse to vote for him, but the other guys don't have to be Ron Paul to force a 180.
Other than the FOX debates where the questions dealt with real issues, the network ones are gong shows, designed to produce "gotcha" moments.
That kind of backfired on John King as Newt handed him his testicles on a silver platter.
Newt has let the media know that they are in his crosshairs so I'm sure that they will be after him with a vengeance.
I know why people support Paul- I would vote for Paul over Romney, but I also know that there is a huge fraction of Paul's base that are petulant. If you think I am wrong, why don't you take ask around the Paul supporters and see who they would vote for if Paul was eliminated.
"I suspect it could end up Newt/Perry come November."
Boy, would that be a mistake. Perry is about the 50th person who should be the GOP VP nominee in 2012.
Wow look at all that red for Newt Gingrich in that map Scoop posted... MSNBC must really think SC is racist lol...
Napolitano is an avowed Libertarian (hence the Paul support) and 9/11 truther. I stopped "liking" him on Facebook as his updates were turning into Ron Paul primers.
I started looking closer at polls during our elections in Canada and when you actually see who pulls the strings, what the questions asked are, the sampling of people who were asked the questions-it's all another spin tactic.
That's why I detest "exit polls"-my stock answer would be when asked who and why I voted for who I did would be "none of your damned business." Looks at what they did wqth the exit polls in 2004-they had Kerry winning by a landslide-we all know what happened there......
just not that bright are ya...go back to the paulbott station and wait for your marching orders from your paulbott leader....some day you will get off the drugs and look in the mirror and say "were the hell did the last 20 years go"??????
The all Romney station?
The one with the new "Contributor" http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fox-news-hires-soros-funded-activist/ from the George Soros school of fair and balanced?
Fox, CNN, ABC, Rasmussen-doesn't matter which one you look at. They're all skewed. Too much is decided by polls these days. Look to who is conducting the poll and what their biases are.
Mittens is the "Thomas Dewey" of our times, the one that was predicted to win over Truman. We all know what happened there, right? Mittens has won in NH, that's it, in spite of the predictions that he would sweep the caucuses and primaries.
Same thing here in Canada when we had our election last spring. Every slimy, sleazy newspaper, magazine and TV pundit called the Liberals to win by a landslide. All the polls said so.They even saw a surge in our socialist party the NDP. They kind of forgot to tell Canadians that these pollsters are all connected to the liberal parties.
They also forgot one important thing-we were sick and tired of the liberal elitist types that governed us. We didn't behave like sheep and vote the "usual." Instead, we ended up with a conservative majority that smacked the liberals into obscurity. The shock waves are still reverberating with the media talking heads.
Polls? They're only useful for dogs and we all know what dogs do to polls.
I would love to see Michele Bachmann replace Boehner as speaker. I know she doesn't have seniority, but she would FIGHT Obama tooth and toenail...she's got more guts and integrity than Boehner by a long shot.
Romney was supposed to dominate in SC. HE was supposed to dominate in Iowa. Fasten your seatbelts, people, it's going to be a bumpy ride......
Sorry - Nikao is Greek for 'overcomer'... (what I'm desperately trying to do, be.)
In other words, I ain't Santy Clause.
BUT - We the people ARE. VERY. ANGRY. - and the angrier Newt gets (if it's at Obama or the liberals or the media) the more everyone likes him.
The night he said, referring to Pakistan harboring OBL, 'I'd be furious with Pakistan,' it brought down the house.
As long as Newt stays angry with the right people, he will surge.
Wow! 12% margin over Romney, that's huge! Go Newt Go! Things are looking brighter already, all smiles here :D
Newt called Rick Perry tonight and they talked about Rick's concerns...the 10th amendment, etc.
I think this is going to be a good race.
Probably so...I am in FL, but I don't have cable (boycott) so I watch online and don't get the ads. I'm getting calls from Romney, but not Newt, Santorum or Paul...yet.
The folks in SC are spanking the RINOs and the media as well.
Folks in SC are angry - especially the middle income and Christians (the majority of SC)
- angry with Obama the overtly corrupt Crook in Chief and his pridefulness, appointments, actions, lavish vacations, etc.
- angry with his usurpation of power, ignoring our great Constitution and the law.
- angry with his foreign policy and buddying up with Islam
- angry with his domestic policy
- angry about the Keystone Pipeline
- angry about OWS
- angry about the unions
- angry with the courts (the courts are causing much anger and pain for Christians in the US, while Obama's Islamist buds are causing more pain for Christians world-wide)
- angry with the Media trying to push them around and shove liberalism down their throats
- angry with the RINOs, particularly those in DC who are not standing up to Obama
- angry about gas prices, food prices, lay offs, joblessness, etc.