The American Spectator : Common Cause

The Empiricist| 5.14.12 @ 1:47AM

Liberty is a diploma mill.

The Empiricist| 5.14.12 @ 2:09AM

but a good story nonetheless.

Pseudo-Intellectual | 5.14.12 @ 6:30AM

Stop fighting Romney and start pushing him to be
more conservative...

aware| 5.14.12 @ 6:37AM

Hilarious! What's next, trying to make Obama be "more white"?

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:03AM

How do you make Obama more white?

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 7:52AM

Ask Michael Jackson's Plastic Surgeon.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 8:23AM

How do we make KKlint normal and human?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 8:24AM

Not possible. The DNA is deeply corrupted.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 8:54AM

Your RINO-CINO Ruling Elites' Agenda Is Corrupt, Dr.Reich.

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"
"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 10:52AM

Hmmmm...Interesting.

But the "RINO-CINO Ruling Elites" have managed to kick your canddate's ass...AGAIN!

Oh, well, Clint...you'd better toddle-off and find another political man-crush!

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:11PM

Interesting, How RINO-CINO Dr.Reich Boldly Is A Cabana Boy For Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Fop Frontman, Mittens Romney.

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"

"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added.

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:39AM

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 8:50AM

What " We ", Israel FirsterSmear Bund BibiBot, Little Micky ?

You Israel Firster Smear Bund RINO-CINO Traitor Bastards Think It's Normal To Place Israel's National Interests Over The National Interests Of The United States.

Oldefarte| 5.14.12 @ 3:44PM

'.....NewsmaxRon Paul Says He'll No Longer Campaign for GOP Nomination Monday, May 14, 2012 02:50 PMRep. Ron Paul says he will no longer actively campaign for the GOP nomination, but will continue to work to secure delegates at upcoming Republican state conventions."Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," said Paul, in a statement released Monday afternoon. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have."
But the longtime congressman from Texas, who's making his third bid for the White House, says he'll continue to try and secure delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., in late August."Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future," adds Paul, in his statement.Paul's campaign had $1.8 million cash on hand in April.Paul is the last remaining major candidate still standing against former Massachusetts Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, after. Romney has secured 945 delegates, compared with 286 for Rick Santorum, 145 for Newt Gingrich and 99 for Paul, according to CNN. One-thousand, one-hundred and forty-four delegates are needed to clinch the nomination.......'

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:16PM

Top Contributors To Mitt Romney:

Goldman Sachs $564,580
JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
Bank of America $364,850
Morgan Stanley $363,550
Credit Suisse Group $316,160
Citigroup Inc $286,015
Kirkland & Ellis $235,802
Barclays $229,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $208,750
HIG Capital $191,000
Wells Fargo $183,100
UBS AG $182,500
Blackstone Group $179,550
Bain Capital $151,500
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $125,625
Bain & Co $122,800
Elliott Management $118,475
Sullivan & Cromwell $108,650
Ernst & Young $104,750

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"

"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."

DRA2010| 5.15.12 @ 2:23AM

And did you note that every one of those donors (such as Goldman-Sachs) gave twice as much money to Obama? Or that Bill & Hillary's daughter (the Princess Chelsea) is married to Mr. Mezvinsky, at that time a Goldman-Sachs investment banker? It's NOT just the Republicans who hang out w/rich financiers!

aware| 5.14.12 @ 12:32PM

Hey Mickey, you are dense aren't you? Let me spell out my comment so even an obviously challenged knave like you can understand: You will have more chance of making Obama more white than Romney more conservative. Get it?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:07PM

Yeah. We get it.

You like to post idiotic things about Mitt Romney.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 1:36PM

aware can't answer or is afraid to answer the question.

aware| 5.14.12 @ 1:44PM

You 2 gotta be the stupid kings today. Idiotic is thinking you can make a conservative out of Romney.

And Mickey, you still don't get what I said in spite of me dumbing it down as far as possible. You have far exceeded my previous estimation of the depths of stupid that is you.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 2:56PM

Once again, the argument went WOOOOOSH!!!! - right over your head...

I have never claimed, nor do I expect Mitt Romney to be a "Perfect Conservative."

Frankly, other than Ronald Reagan, I don't know what a "perfect Conservative" is, and neither do you, so don't pretend that you do.

But as far as I'm concerned, Romney is Conservative ENOUGH to do what needs to be done to get this country moving back in the right direction. Period.

But of greater importance is what Romney is NOT - he's NOT Obama. And that's the key.

Obama is the Destroyer. He's a malignant menace. He must be politically dispatched to retirement AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Those who fail to understand that (you), and those who think Romney and Obama are the same are complete loons. That opinion is not supported by facts, logic, or history.

In 2012, getting Obama out-of-office is more important than who we replace him with, short of replacing him with Joe Stalin.

To that end, if he were running against Obama, I'd vote for:

1. Ron Paul
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Rick Santorum
4. Herman Cain
5. John Huntsman
6. Tim Pawlenty
7. Michelle Bachman
8. Bill Clinton
9. Hillary Clinton
10. Spiderman
11. An orange juice can
12. The homeless guy I pass every day in Penn Station who walks around in his underpants picking lint out of his navel
13. Abraham Lincoln's corpse
14. A tree
15. A kindergartner

etc, etc, etc...

Wise-up.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 3:50PM

aware is just a snarky KKlint, possibly more stupid.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:23PM

Aaaand, Israel Firster Smear Bund Bibi Towel Boy,Little Micky Is As Bitchy & PMS'Y As His Girlfriend Dr.Reich,Equally RINO-CINO Stupified.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:17PM

Do you talk like that to Jamaica?

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:39AM

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.

chuck| 5.14.12 @ 6:46PM

I bet aware is just another name KKKlint uses.

aware| 5.14.12 @ 5:22PM

Look, I completely agree about Obama, though I see him as the inevitable capstone on a movement going way back before there was an Obama, and voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" sure played a big part in accomplishing the agenda. But to claim that the coming calamity is totally his fault and only started with him, and especially to claim it will be averted with him gone, is to completely ignore the data and history for the last century. Wise yourself up on that.

He has more than done his part, but the blame spreads wide in this and even includes what passes for citizens. What's worse, to really avert the reckoning hasn't a chance of even being proposed, much less accepted. You better wise up. Just mention a military cut here and you get the same reaction mentioning a welfare cut gets you at HuffPo.

The transformation from the State back to the Republic will be very painful at this point and I don't see many of my fellow "citizens" that are up for it.

A solution is now politically impossible. Why whore yourself out in the last inning when soon you may not have anything left but your principles? I don't care if anyone is influenced by my opinion or not. Or if it's popular either.

Now you guys can call me names and even claim I some kind of Leftist or Paul supporter, but I assure you my criticism is coming from the Right.

This election is a farce and the Overlords worked hard to have just that way. I'll tell you the only way Obama loses and "getting out the vote" for the anti-Obama doesn't even enter the equation.

He loses if, and only if, the real masters think he may have pushed a little to fast and is making the herd nervous. Then they may go with a subtler pusher of the agenda. If they figure he may rile the herd up but it's nothing they can't handle, then get ready for your worst possible outcome.

At the moment, I say it's looking like they will keep what they got.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 6:57PM

We not calling you names, just sayin you stupid like KKKlint.

Barky K9 | 5.14.12 @ 6:27AM

Romney will carry 40 states due to Obama being called the first Gay President.

Alan BRooks| 5.14.12 @ 7:05AM

Reagan made these a-holes overconfident- now they think they can run whomever they want and the electorate will automatically vote for their candidate.

Jack in Wi.| 5.14.12 @ 7:19AM

Romney was a Mormon bishop who supported abotion and did nothing to stop gay marriage when he was governor. Now Mormons are supposed to be against abortion and homosexual marriage. A lot of Mormon money was put into fighting for normal marriage in California, in the vote to ban gay marriage. Romney is a bad Mormon. He also said he was alright with gay adoption. In my opinion, it is a terrrible crime aginst humanity to put children in such disfunctional homes. To me Romney has no common sense.

Now on Mormons being non Christian. I believe it to be a cult which uses the name of Jesus in a false way. What passes for Mormon theology can't be called Christian in any historical context. That should not bsr him from the Presidency. There have been plenty of non Christian Presidents. I would say the majority were nominal at best, if not outright heathens.

Logic| 5.14.12 @ 11:24AM

No Jack, tell us what you really think. Your comments sound more like someone with an axe to grind with Mitt Romney and Mormons in general than a logical and objective criticism.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:08PM

Jack has an axe to grind with THE WORLD, Logic...

He's a malcontent.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:27PM

Uh Oh !

The Giant Yellow Dr.Reich Bus Calls A Canary Yellow.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:18PM

Uh-oh!

The dummy says dummy stuff and does dummy things...

How's Jamaica?

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:39AM

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.

Vicky Bennett | 5.14.12 @ 9:59AM

You work VERY hard to get that diploma, not easy. I should know.

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 6:28AM

And it managed to evade the fact that a lot of people at Liberty were against Romney speaking there because Mormons are not Christians. This is an article that could have been written approvingly about Sibelius speaking at Georgetown (a putative Catholic university).

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:04AM

Decide Obama or Romney and stop whining.

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 7:21AM

It's a false choice.

How about "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve?"

Steve| 5.14.12 @ 8:04AM

No, we are choosing who will serve us.

aware| 5.14.12 @ 12:38PM

Ah yes, the old "servant of the People" claptrap.
Hey Steve, how is it these "servants" get to live better and with more than their "masters"(us)?

Kinda turns the servant/master thesis on its head when the reality is observed.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:08PM

Those that say/think/post that Romney is no better than Obama are too ignorant for words.

aware| 5.14.12 @ 5:25PM

I never claimed they were the same. Just that there will be no conservatives on the ballot in November.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 1:38PM

aware must be talking about Obma/Michelle/Biden. Romney is living on his earned money.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 8:25AM

Your'e a whiner. Same every day. This isn't a choice about religion, choice about the economy.By not voting you serving Obma. Face the facts. Grow up.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 8:59AM

These Israel Firster Smear Bund, Bibibots Are Throwing Religious Conservatives Under The Bus.

Romney On Abortion-2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Oldefarte| 5.14.12 @ 3:44PM

'.....NewsmaxRon Paul Says He'll No Longer Campaign for GOP Nomination Monday, May 14, 2012 02:50 PMRep. Ron Paul says he will no longer actively campaign for the GOP nomination, but will continue to work to secure delegates at upcoming Republican state conventions."Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," said Paul, in a statement released Monday afternoon. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have."
But the longtime congressman from Texas, who's making his third bid for the White House, says he'll continue to try and secure delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., in late August."Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future," adds Paul, in his statement.Paul's campaign had $1.8 million cash on hand in April.Paul is the last remaining major candidate still standing against former Massachusetts Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, after. Romney has secured 945 delegates, compared with 286 for Rick Santorum, 145 for Newt Gingrich and 99 for Paul, according to CNN. One-thousand, one-hundred and forty-four delegates are needed to clinch the nomination.......'

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:29PM

Top Contributors To Mitt Romney:

Goldman Sachs $564,580
JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
Bank of America $364,850
Morgan Stanley $363,550
Credit Suisse Group $316,160
Citigroup Inc $286,015
Kirkland & Ellis $235,802
Barclays $229,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $208,750
HIG Capital $191,000
Wells Fargo $183,100
UBS AG $182,500
Blackstone Group $179,550
Bain Capital $151,500
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $125,625
Bain & Co $122,800
Elliott Management $118,475
Sullivan & Cromwell $108,650
Ernst & Young $104,750

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"

"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 6:59PM

KKKlintie, is the cut and paste Obama troll now that his Ron Paul doll blew up.

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:47AM

Top contributors to Ron Paul:

Clint.....$2.00 [from refinancing his third mortgage on his double wide]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:40AM

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.

Scorpio51| 5.14.12 @ 9:00AM

No, this is a choice about the man, Mitt Romney, who he is and his background. Do you chose a President on looks?

The background of "the man" is really what a person should choose a President. His religion plays a part in that. Mormonism is a "theological cult." Don't be ignorant of the facts, please.

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 10:49AM

I am chosing the man. Do you honestly expect me to believe Obama is the better choice?

Dream all you want about Ron Paul getting the nomination but sooner or later you will have to come to terms with the fact that it is either Romeny or Obama in this race. At that point you will have to decide which is more important to you, the survival or your country or the survival or your religous bigotry.

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 11:47AM

Nice speech at Liberty. Falwell, of course, was quite pro-Israel as well.

Romney will do fine, I'm sure.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:44PM

Mitt Romney saying "marriage is between one man and one woman" I completely agree.

However, coming from a Mormon, that is either disingenuous, or a complete repudiation of his own faith.

Panda Bear or no principles. Pick your poison. Just illustrates his lack of any core.

Cheers!

DRA2010| 5.15.12 @ 2:29AM

It would appear that your knowledge of the Church of Christ and the Latter-Day Saints is a little out of date. The LDSs haven't been polygamous since Utah became a state (it was a precondition).

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 1:01PM

So would you rather be stabbed to death or shot? If you say you're not voting to be stabbed, does that mean you're willing to be shot?

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 1:40PM

Stupid answer. If you can't see the difference between Obama and Romney your'e either stupid or a Democrat, or both.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 2:58PM

Is there a difference?

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:31PM

If you're willing to sit out the election and not vote for Romney, then what you're willing to do is to commit suicide, which is worse. You knowingly want to take part in re-electing Obama? That fits the definition of insanity.

aware| 5.14.12 @ 12:48PM

Appleby, don't you see that if your really a "conservative" you have to vote for the liberal? The same paragons of conservatism that are lecturing you on what you should do will be back to harping on those "core values" of "conservatism" they are happily ignoring while supporting the GOP progressive as soon as it's convenient to. Just watch.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:15PM

"...don't you see that if your really a "conservative" you have to vote for the liberal?"

No.

That's an unbelievably stupid thing to say.

The mere idea that a second term of Obama will automatically usher in a new era of Constitutional Conservatism after 2016 is a joke...a pipe-dream promulgated by people with a child's understanding of history, politics, and economics.

You don't like Mitt Romney? Who cares??? He wasn't my top choice, either, but I'm smart enough to realize that now is NOT the time for internecine squabbling and bitching because "my guy" lost the nomination.

That's because getting rid of Obama IS more important than who we elect to replace him.

ALL of the GOP candidates would do 1,000% better than Obama. That's because none of them are socialist liars who hate their country.

I'm sick-to-death of the infantile jack-offs on this board, particularly the Paul-bots, whose political myopathy and utter immaturity prevents them from seeing the big picture.

Get a grip.

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 1:55PM

Well said. Dr. Right.

It simply amazes me how some people spend 4 years screaming about how bad Obama is, but then are willing to let him stay in for 4 more years simply because THEIR canidate didn't win.

Basically they are saying the rest of the country should be punished because they were not smart enough to get their canidate chosen as the nominee.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 2:59PM

Exactly.

They are selfish little babies.

aware| 5.14.12 @ 1:57PM

From frying pan to fire and back to frying pan. Don't you ever get tired of the burning?

Maybe you want to convince me Romney is NOT a liberal? Excuse me for only having the record to judge by. If you want to vote for leftists, be my guest. That's all you got this time, just like last.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 3:01PM

Your premise is flawed.

GW Bush was not perfect, but nor was he a "frying pan,' per your analogy.

Bush fought 2 wars, and kept the economy at basically full-employment until 2006 when the Dems took over Congress. That's when the frying began.

Under Obama, the heat has been turned-up, and they've rolled us in lard.

Romney is NOT another "frying pan;" he's the medicine where the country awakens from our national, Obama-induced hangover.

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 4:06PM

Valiant effort DR but aware and like minded will not listen. They are in a funk because it just hit the airwaves that Ron Paul will end his active campaign. Or course in typical Ron Paul fashion he will still try to gather delegates (why?) at teh state convention. Of course he has to suspend his campaign. He barely has over a million dollars left. You can't bus very many supporters to the convention with that kind of cash flow.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:31PM

Top Contributors To Mitt Romney:

Goldman Sachs $564,580
JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
Bank of America $364,850
Morgan Stanley $363,550
Credit Suisse Group $316,160
Citigroup Inc $286,015
Kirkland & Ellis $235,802
Barclays $229,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $208,750
HIG Capital $191,000
Wells Fargo $183,100
UBS AG $182,500
Blackstone Group $179,550
Bain Capital $151,500
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $125,625
Bain & Co $122,800
Elliott Management $118,475
Sullivan & Cromwell $108,650
Ernst & Young $104,750

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"

"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:19PM

....zzzzzZZZZzzzzzzzzz....

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:49AM

Romney doesn't put out a anti-Semitic newsletter, so he has to get his contributions from somewhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:48PM

Ron Paul doesn't need to bus his supporters -- unlike what other less principled candidates need to do (throw in lunch and a couple drinks too). His supporters actually believe in their man and will get themselves thre (as they have already done in a couple of state conventions the last couple weeks).

Why he "pulls out" with some potentially good states coming up for him, however, raises some questions.

Answer: Rand.

Cheers!

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 7:47PM

His supporters - all 6 of them - are mentally deranged.

And so is Ron Paul.

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:51AM

You must be assuming that they possess anything resembling mental faculties to begin with!!!!!

aware| 5.14.12 @ 6:24PM

Dr., are you really that indoctrinated? Greenspan, not Bush, "kept the economy at basically full-employment". And by the usual scams of easy credit and monetary expansion. The payments started in '06 and we quickly found out the whole party couldn't be paid for.

Bush was wrong about another thing, his "abandoning the free market". He just abandoned more of the little bit of free market that was left at that point.

No point in going over the data of expansion of Federal revenues, spending, increasing the size and scope of the State(with the help of those 2 wars you mention), the borrowing(half of Obama and that's "good", how?), and the continuing destruction of individual liberty. You wouldn't listen.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 7:43PM

Are you really that unaware?

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:20AM

Economically speaking, he's aware is actually partially correct. There's a good point to be made that what we have been dealing with for a LONG time has been a corporatist - not free market - environment.

Alan BRooks| 5.14.12 @ 7:07AM

"Decide Obama or Romney and stop whining."

Obama. He is tanned, rested ad ready.
Quite tan.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.14.12 @ 8:38AM

One thing he won't be accused of is sending his kids to tanning booths.

Dick Nome| 5.14.12 @ 8:39AM

After his 3 year golfing vacation, he is well rested and tanned.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:01PM

Big surprise. Brooks is for Obama. What next?

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:56AM

[1]Tanned....obviously, from lying out in Mooch's vegetable garden
[2]Rested......naturally [from playing golf and basketball 24-7/365 instead of DOING HIS POTUS JOB
[3]Ready......yeah, but for more community organizing/racial agitating, not the job required of the POTUS

Scorpio51| 5.14.12 @ 8:57AM

I agree. The backlash from the parents of these students was tremendous.

A Presidential candidate can have a good scriptwriter, but that doesn't mean the person is a good Christian. Obama could have been standing there uttering the same words.

Vicky Bennett | 5.14.12 @ 10:00AM

Here is as I see it. Many that complain that Romney is Morman, would have easily accepted Obama to speak becase Obama "says" he is a Christian... God only knows where the proof of that is.
Mitt 2012

SUBVET| 5.14.12 @ 11:55AM

The question is.........is the boy in the "Book of Life"?

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:50PM

Nice to see the illiterate crowd in here.

LMA| 5.14.12 @ 7:54PM

Of course Mormons are Christians. They believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whose atonement for sin is necessary for salvation. They believe that the Bible is the Word of God. It's true that they have doctrines at odds with what evangelicals believe, but so do the Catholics and many others in the Christian world. It is time for evangelicals to give up their bigotry.

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:38PM

So, let's see here. Christians are bigots for sticking to Scripture, hmm?
If one doesn't stick to Scripture exclusively, then one isn't Christian.
You may call it whatever you wish, but it isn't Christian, and it won't get you to Heaven.

God only accepts those who accept His Son. And they don't make their Home with anyone who disobey's their Words.

Read John 14:23.

Oh, there's that pesky Scripture again!

aware| 5.14.12 @ 6:35AM

It's enough to make you puke.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:04AM

Get lost. You have nothing to say.

Alan BRooks| 5.14.12 @ 7:08AM

Tell you guys what: run Romney's wife, and I'll vote for HER- not him.
Deal?

Jeff R| 5.14.12 @ 9:27AM

Tell you what, let's just give Barack Obama a nothing-to-lose second term. What happens to the nation then?

Of course, we know that Romney and all those shady conspirators who back his candidacy will throw in with the leftists to steal our freedoms and make a bigger mash of the nation than our charming statist president ever could.

What could I be thinking?

Vicky Bennett | 5.14.12 @ 10:01AM

MItt and Ann will bring some real class to the White house again.

Oust Obama and the misses...

9thID| 5.14.12 @ 10:50AM

Most real Conservatives would greatly prefer substance over "class" any day...

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:52PM

I take it that is a slam on Romney?

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:40PM

"Most real Conservatives would greatly prefer substance over "class" any day..."

Most real conservatives know they want Obama out of the White House, and will do whatever it takes to attain such goal.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:52PM

"Obama and the misses?" I didn't know Obama was a polygamist. :-)

Cheers!

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:57AM

Right, since his wife could do a better job than Obama.

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:41PM

And so could his dog.

Alan Brooks| 5.14.12 @ 7:17AM

Look, no one is saying Mitt is a bad guy, but he is not inspiring; in fact you are--most of you-- more inspired by Rush, a radio guy who has never held public office yet has far more to say to you than Romney.

In other words, you are from desperation.

LMA| 5.14.12 @ 8:00PM

Great. You want your President to be a motivational speaker, who cares if he's a good President. So you were thrilled with Donald Trump, weren't you, when he was spouting birtherism. You were thrilled with Herman Cain, weren't you, even though he couldn't say anything beyond 999 and had girlfriends in the closet. You were thrilled with Newt Gingrich, even though he has an ego as big as the great outdoors, to the point his former GOP colleagues couldn't stand him. Oh, and, oh yeah, his wives hardly overlapped at all. You didn't care, on account of he shore talks purty, right? Why don't you figure out we're looking for a President, not a cheerleader.

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:58AM

To you and yours, Barney Frank is inspiring!!!!

Dr. X| 5.14.12 @ 7:34AM

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing conservative politicians make the obligatory trip to Liberty University to preach to the choir. I have nothing against Liberty, but frankly it's a second-rate school that does not educate the nation's elites.

Conservatives need to make persuasive arguments, and make them often, in the belly of the beast: Yale, Harvard, Georgetown, Cornell, Brown, etc. Until conservatives recognize that these universities are in fact government-supported indoctrination centers for the Left and challenge that status directly, the Left is going to continue to have a monopoly on the education of the movers and shakers in this country.

Jeff R| 5.14.12 @ 9:32AM

Given the twaddle and bilge coming from the nation's "first-rate" schools, I'll take a "second-rate" school like Liberty any day.

Hmm... Was Reagan a Harvard graduate?

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 11:49AM

Jeff: Reagan, of course, graduated from a sister school of my alma mater, Texas Christian University, as was proudly noted by his campaign in 1980---Eureka College.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:54PM

That's third rate.

9thID| 5.14.12 @ 10:53AM

The Liberal/RINO "elites" and their elitism are what brought us to the edge of the abyss. These elitist dinosaurs are going to fall hard and wind up going the way of the Bourbons...

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:55PM

Bourbon helps us forget what the GOP (Greedy Old Pigs) are doing to this country.

Cheers!

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 3:06PM

Rubbish.

Who gives a damn what the fools at Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, etc, think?? These elitist, intellectual bastards and their egg-headed ideas are in large part responsible for a lot of the social/political/economic mess this country is in today.

The best way to deal with these a-holes is to IGNORE THEM, like Reagan did when Harvard rebuffed his reasonable request for an Honorary Degree to speak at their 300th Anniversary in 1986. They felt he wasn't worthy - so they hired Prince Charles, instead!!!

I'll take the hard-working, honest, pro-American, Christian students of Liberty ANYDAY over the pampered fools of the Ivy League.

(And don't kid yourself: The Ivy League is rampant with grade inflation, and allows students to drop any courses up to the day BEFORE the final.)

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 7:37AM

Religious Conservatives Are Not To Be Used As " Useful Dupes" By The RINO-CINO Fop Frontman, Mittens Romney.

Romney On Abortion-2002.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 8:26AM

You mean like those "Conservative" Catholics who were duped into voting for Obama in 2008?

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 9:04AM

Uh Oh !

American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic, Turned Ax Grindin' Anti-Catholic Bigot, Dr.Reich Attempts To Blame Catholics, Instead Of McCain Redux.

We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.

These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges, Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.

Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....

Jeff R| 5.14.12 @ 9:11AM

That's right. And there was no moon landing (all done on a Hollywood studio lot) and 2 million conspirators in the JFK assassination, none of whom have ever been brought to justice, and....

Hey, I'm no Romney fan. But you really believe deep down in your ranting soul that four more years of Barack Obama is no worse than a Romney presidency? Goofy.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 10:02AM

The Ruling Elite RINO-CINO Arlen Specter/John McCain School Of The Lesser Evil Attempts To Serve Conservatives Another One Of Their Crap Sandwiches.

Real Conservatives Are Not To Be Used As " Useful Dupes" For The GOP Ruling Elites' RINO-CINO Democrap Lite Agenda.

" Santorum: Might As Well Have Obama Over Romney

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

"You win by giving people a choice," Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. "You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who's just going to be a little different than the person in there."

Santorum added: "If they're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future."

Santorum was referencing Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's comment Wednesday that "everything changes" for the fall campaign. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch," he said on CNN. "You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again."

The remark reignited criticism of Romney as the type of politician who will say or do anything to win."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 10:15AM

He can't actually answer you like a normal person. He has to look into his "cut-n-paste" file.

That's because he and Jamaica are too busy dog-sitting...

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 10:31AM

Dr.Reich's Thinks Bein' American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic, Turned Ax Grindin' Anti-Catholic Bigot Is Normal.

Dr.Reich Lets Mittens Sit On His Face, Among Other Things.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 4:30PM

KKlint,
Why do you care about Santorum's opinion when you worked to beat him with Casey? You bragged you didn't vote for Santorum in the election with Casey.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:33PM

Tell It To Rick Santorum's Supporters, RINO-CINO Arlen Specter Towel Boy Little Micky.

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:02PM

I'm saying it to you, KKKlintie. Who you voting for? Man up. Pulling another Casey?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 10:14AM

Not my fault you worship a "perpetual virgin," and bow-down to a guy in a funny hat whose Primary job is to:

1) Keep the money rolling in, and...
2) Keep the pedophile scandal buried DEEP.

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 10:25AM

Spoken Like American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic, Turned Ax Grindin' Anti-Catholic Bigot You Are, Smear Bund Boy, Dr. Reich.

Interesting, How You RINO-CINO's Ignore The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room To Continue Attacking The Catholic Church.

"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by public school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 11:14AM

Clint...what's the price of tea in China?

Does Jamaica know?

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:34PM

Ask Yo Mama, Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 7:48PM

I'd rather ask Jamaica...

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 11:22AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03.....wanted=all

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:37PM

Spoken Like American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic, Turned Ax Grindin' Anti-Catholic Bigot You Are, Smear Bund Boy, Dr. Reich.

Interesting, How You RINO-CINO's Ignore The Elephants In The Middle Of The Room To Continue Attacking The Catholic Church.

"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by public school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:20PM

Spoken like a joke who gets laughed at...a lot.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 11:27AM

http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-.....0967637112

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:40PM

Spoken Like American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic, Turned Ax Grindin' Anti-Catholic Bigot You Are, Smear Bund Boy, Dr. Reich.

Interesting, How You RINO-CINO's Ignore The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room To Continue Attacking The Catholic Church.

"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by public school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 11:28AM

http://gawker.com/5825254

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:42PM

Spoken Like American Spectator's Resident Lapsed Catholic, Turned Ax Grindin' Anti-Catholic Bigot You Are, Smear Bund Boy, Dr. Reich.

Interesting, How You RINO-CINO's Ignore The Elephant In The Middle Of The Room To Continue Attacking The Catholic Church.

"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by public school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:57PM

That line is getting really tired. Don't you have anything new, Tim*

Cheers!

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 1:02PM

Who were they?

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 11:00AM

He can't be 'duped', since that implies possessing a brain!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 5.14.12 @ 3:45PM

'.....NewsmaxRon Paul Says He'll No Longer Campaign for GOP Nomination Monday, May 14, 2012 02:50 PMRep. Ron Paul says he will no longer actively campaign for the GOP nomination, but will continue to work to secure delegates at upcoming Republican state conventions."Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted," said Paul, in a statement released Monday afternoon. "Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have."
But the longtime congressman from Texas, who's making his third bid for the White House, says he'll continue to try and secure delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., in late August."Our campaign will continue to work in the state convention process. We will continue to take leadership positions, win delegates, and carry a strong message to the Republican National Convention that Liberty is the way of the future," adds Paul, in his statement.Paul's campaign had $1.8 million cash on hand in April.Paul is the last remaining major candidate still standing against former Massachusetts Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, after. Romney has secured 945 delegates, compared with 286 for Rick Santorum, 145 for Newt Gingrich and 99 for Paul, according to CNN. One-thousand, one-hundred and forty-four delegates are needed to clinch the nomination.......'

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:45PM

Top Contributors To Mitt Romney:

Goldman Sachs $564,580
JPMorgan Chase & Co $400,675
Bank of America $364,850
Morgan Stanley $363,550
Credit Suisse Group $316,160
Citigroup Inc $286,015
Kirkland & Ellis $235,802
Barclays $229,650
PricewaterhouseCoopers $208,750
HIG Capital $191,000
Wells Fargo $183,100
UBS AG $182,500
Blackstone Group $179,550
Bain Capital $151,500
EMC Corp $129,200
Citadel Investment Group $125,625
Bain & Co $122,800
Elliott Management $118,475
Sullivan & Cromwell $108,650
Ernst & Young $104,750

" Gingrich: Conservatives Won't Let Wall St. And Romney "Buy Election"

"Look, the conservative movement is not going to sit by and let a Massachusetts liberal, who's pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase, pro-gay rights, whose Romneycare in two articles in the last 24 hours were described as the equivalent of Obamacare and who George Soros says is just fine. He'd be happy with either Obama or Romney [be]cause they are both the establishment -- that's just George Soros," Newt Gingrich told FOX News' Bret Baier on the campaign trail in Tampa, Florida.

"Now, the conservative movement isn't going to sit back and say 'Oh yes, let's let Wall Street, and Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney buy the election. So you're going to see a real grass roots fight. It will be people power vs. Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney," he added."

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:58PM

That line is getting really tired. 4th time on one article. Don't you have anything new, Tim*

Cheers!

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:05PM

Shocking. KKKlintie was Tim*? How can he keep all these names and brilliant posts separate?

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 11:02AM

Top contributor to Ron Paul......Clint.....one BJ!!!!

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:40AM

Moving forward, however, we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primaries in states that have not yet voted. Doing so with any hope of success would take many tens of millions of dollars we simply do not have.

Kelly Staples| 5.14.12 @ 8:10AM

Didn't Falwell say that America brought 9/11 on herself? He was a rebarbative charlantan who made his living on the credulity of the simple-minded. Beware of the wisdom of "holy" men.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 8:29AM

Yeah, and he condemned calvinists from the pulpit as well.

Jeff R| 5.14.12 @ 9:06AM

Beware the wisdom of "holy" men. Not a bad point.

I'd add, beware the wisdom and compassion of unholy men - you know, the atheists and statists who've butchered tens of millions people across the globe since the opening chapters of the 20th Century.

Vern Crisler| 5.14.12 @ 10:37AM

I believe he also apologized for those comments.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:58PM

Amen!

Louis Jenkins| 5.14.12 @ 8:49AM

Yes, Obama is very tanned and rested after all the golfing trips and vacations he's taken. Romney has to get some face time one way or another, and yes, Rush gives a more inspirational talk. When you call Fluke a slut, man, that's gets the listeners burning, doesn't it?

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:59PM

I believe Hitler did the same.

Cheers!

Scorpio51| 5.14.12 @ 9:09AM

Mitt was carefully scripted with well placed "words."

http://www.renewamerica.com/mormon_god.htm

Jeff R| 5.14.12 @ 9:15AM

Conspiracy! Everybody hide under the covers!

JP| 5.14.12 @ 9:15AM

As was Ronald Reagan's speech there 33 years ago. Mitt gave exactly the kind of speech he needed to give. Evangelicals have reasonable fears of Mormonism; they take thier religion seriously and deserved a speech like this.

I wasn't a fan of Mitt's during the primary. But, I have to admit he and his campaign team have done a pretty good job the last 4 weeks.

Mimi| 5.14.12 @ 9:46AM

JP I agree! Saw the speech on C-Span...He came off as presidential, and gave a confidence of doing God's will in office. Above all the feeling of uncorruptability! He looked and sounded REAGAN enough for me.
We can't get all we want in the next President...Romney will rally us in our PRIMARY goal of turning OUT the worst of the worst American President in History.

Jeff R| 5.14.12 @ 9:54AM

Mimi, you have your eye on the ball. The 2012 presidential election is about ousting a president who has pursued an anti-liberty agenda from the get-go. By that standard, President Obama is a dangerous man. A lame duck term for Obama should be unthinkable to anyone who prizes freedom.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:07PM

I would love to know the specifics of what Obama has done that is "anti-liberty". Must be a matter of perspective. Seems to me that GW Bush the Second clobbered him on that count. Talk about a full (and back) frontal (and behind) assault on our liberties. Been to an airport lately? Illegal wiretapping. Suspension of hapeas corpus. Waterboarding and other torture forbidden under international agreement (which the US itself created as a pretext for it post WW-II war crimes tribunals -- talk about hypocrisy!!). Etc...

Maybe you really need some stuff. The egregious abuses of the Constitution under GWB II are not hard to find. Just takes some thoughtful thought and not blind fury and unreason.

Cheers!

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 12:50PM

For one, he discourages the free market. One of the most liberating things is the ability to live without the need of getting something from the government for little or no effort.

There are too many obstacles to creating and succeeding in small business in America. Regulations, taxes, etc, all hinder the free market.

The more people that can engage in the free market, the more free we become as a nation. Otherwise producers are held hostage to takers, and takers live in subservience to the state.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 9:57AM

I completely agree with the last sentence. I'm no Romney fan at all, and may still yet vote third party, but his campaign has done well the last few weeks.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 11:21AM

Brilliant!

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:48PM

Brilliant? He may vote third party and that's brilliant to you?

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 9:14AM

Conservatives need to avoid Harvard, Cornell, Yale, etc. at all costs since they really gain nothing at those breeding grounds for Marxist dogma. BTW try as you might, detractors, Mormonism IS NOT a cult. Baptists may very well be, but not Mormons.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 10:02AM

"Cult" status often depends on who you talk to. In a technical sense, Mormonism IS a cult in that it is an offshoot of a belief system more widely considered "orthodox."

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 11:16AM

...Just like Catholicism!

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 1:09PM

Eh, no. Sorry. Technically, Christianity started as a "cult" of Judaism, and adopted the title of "Roman Catholic Church" and various others pretty early on.

Early Christianity was Catholicism. Either that, or there were no Christians for the first 1500+ years of Christianity.

And, frankly, too many Christians practically hold that Christianity didn't start until the late 1800s.

And, btw, I'm fairly evangelical. Reformed Baptist is probably the best label for me.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:22PM

Eh, no. Sorry.

Truthfully (not technically), Christianity NEVER adopted the name of "Roman Catholic Church."

That name was adopted by the former pagan priesthood of Rome after Constantine adopted Christianity, appropriated Christian principles and combined with Roman Paganism.

I'm not really concerned about people who believe that there were no Christians until the 1800's; I don't share that belief, but whatever, it's a free country.

There have been Christians since Christ. There has been Christianity since Christ. By your logic, there would be NO Christians between Christ and Constantine's edict.

The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the Church of the New Testament.

Why be a "Reformed Baptist"?

What are you "reforming"?

Why not just be a "Christian"??

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 3:41PM

I can claim to be a Christian, and also accept a label which is useful in determining a theological bent. It's not such a bad thing.

Actually, it's by YOUR logic which proclaims that there were no Christians for about 1500 years after Christ. Practically ALL Christians were Catholics of one sort or another during that time period.

I could almost point out certain theological perspectives which you may hold to be essential to Christianity which practically none held during that time period.

Unless there was another church which we don't know about in history?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 4:23PM

"Practically ALL Christians were Catholics of one sort or another during that time period."

Ummmm....WHAT?!?!

That statement is not supportable by ANY historical facts, whatsoever.

The Roman Catholic Church, as a construct, did not begin until Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of Rome. To claim otherwise is to claim ignorance of Christianity, the Bible, and history, or to lie.

As I already stated, there have been Christians since Christ. There were Christians before the advent of the Roman Catholic Church, there were Christians after the advent of the Roman Catholic Church, and there are Christians today.

"Christian" and "Catholic" are not synonymous, interchangeable terms.

So much of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, preaches, and holds as doctrine is not only in conflict with the Scriptures, it's in complete contradiction to the Scriptures.

There's NOTHING I believe from Scriptures that needed to be codified, refined, improved, or refined by the Roman Catholic Church. NOTHING.

But go ahead and try, if you want.

This could be interesting...

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:26AM

Let's take the post-Constantine point you are making, then.

What church did most people who claimed Christ belong to between Constantine and the Reformation, then?

I'm NOT stating that the RCC had its theology right in any time period, by the way.

I'm just pointing out that the forms of modern Christianity - and most of what you espouse is found in one form of Protestantism or another - actually developed only about 125 years ago or so.

Case in point - believer's baptism is a VERY new concept, particularly its wide acceptance. Practically ALL reformers practiced one form or another of infant baptism, and ALL Christian churches (after at least 100 AD) taught it up until around then.

Yet now, it's practically a heretical viewpoint in some protestant branches.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:11PM

"Case in point - believer's baptism is a VERY new concept."

Wow. Just wow!

You're either a liar or really stupid. Or never read the New Testament, which is full of the accounts of the Apostles leading people to Christ and then immediately baptizing them. Christians have been doing that ever since then. Catholicism isn't Christianity and they teach the false doctrine that baptism saves, and do not teach being born of the Spirit. Catholicism began the whole infant baptism nonsense, not Christians.

Ryan| 5.16.12 @ 8:38AM

Several issues here that you are going to need to explain - particularly points 2-3 below.that many modern evangelicals don't consider.

One, there are several instances of times of "household" baptisms in the NT, and it cannot necessarily be ascertained that babies were excluded (and no judgment can be made from scripture there).

Two, there was NO controversy about the matter in the first and second century - where we find that the church as a whole was baptizing infants as an accepted practice.

Three, the initial Reformers - Luther, Calvin, et al. all held to infant baptism in one form or another, and the outcasts were the ones who insisted in believer's baptism only.

Looking at the above, if believer's baptism is the only valid mode, then for the FIRST 1500 YEARS of Christianity, they were living in egregious sin, according to regular theology....and even until the concept of believers' baptism became more widely accepted 200-300 years LATER.

Oddly enough - I'm a Baptist, and hold that it was an issue that simply didn't come up during that period of time - but I believe there is enough Biblical and historical evidence to show that it simply isn't as big an issue as many modern evangelicals make it out to be.

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 5:50PM

If you were a genuine Christian, you'd be quoting Scripture to back your Catholic tendencies, but of course you don't, because you know what you're saying is false.

So, please post the instances in Scripture that say that infants were baptized, otherwise you're adding your own interpretation.

The Bible states that we must repent and be baptized, and since infants are unaware of sin, you should know that that is an utterly ridiculous presumption.

In fact, genuine Christians (meaning Biblical Christians) that refused to abide by this Apostate teaching, were put to death for it. This was not a teaching of Christianity (infant baptism), but one of Catholicism, an Apostate Religion.

So for you to try and say that there was NO, as you put it in capital letters, NO controversy, means you are either again, lying or ignorant of the truth and of history.

As to what the reformers held to is of no concern to me, as no Christian follows what Man thinks, but only cares about what God's Words actually teach.

You sound like a typical Catholic to me and not a Christian. You say things that are untrue, and presumptuous, and historically incorrect, as well as unscriptural.

Sorry Ryan, but the Bible is the authority for Christians, not Man, no matter how famous they may have been.

On your point 1, the Bible states that "all who understood" were baptized.

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 5:57PM

Disregard the last sentence in my last post as it was supposed to be deleted.

But p.s: "Modern evangelicals?" Oh, you mean all those "other" bad guys, hmm?

Well, when anything is unscriptural and therefore not in accordance with the Will of God, it IS a "big issue". Unless of course you don't care and want to create your own personal Jesus and your own personal Religion. Then you can do whatever you want, albeit but for a very short while. Then comes Judgment.

Vern Crisler| 5.14.12 @ 10:39AM

I agree, Mormonism is not a cult. However, it is a different religion from Christianity. Which of the first six ecumenical creeds does Mormonism accept?

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:52PM

A cult is a Religion that follows the words of Man instead of the Words of God and of Christ.

Catholicism, Mormonism, Buddhism, you name it, are all cults.

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 11:51AM

The solution is to build up Hillsdale into greater prominence.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:09PM

I guess Romney should hace skipped Harvard. Think before you bloviate.

Cheers!

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 9:33AM

Mormons are Christians because they say they are. I'm a Christian because I say I am. I'm not quite so sure about those who constantly have to remind themselves that they believe they are and say that others aren't.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 10:03AM

Ugh. That's a terrible description of how one is defined as a Christian. It's also not Biblical by any stretch.

walley burger| 5.14.12 @ 4:17PM

I was reading all this garbage and had to slip in a comment here. You all are such whiners. Ryan, here is your biblical description of a Christian.

Romans 10:9,12-13
9. That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, though shalt be saved.
12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

By stating that Jew or Greek is open to salvation, isn't the Lord saying that anyone, Mormon or other, that accepts Christ as his Lord is saved. Only God knows what is in the heart of a man and all this squabbling is foolish sophistry.

And calling out the 6 creeds as a lack of evidence just shows that even the early Christians had trouble deciding what Christianity was back then, or they would not have had to sit down together and come up with all these evolving definitions over time.

Get a grip people. It’s Obama, not Romney!

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:10PM

Amen, brother.

But does that apply to LGBT as well?

Cheers!

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:29AM

For the Mormon, the definition of "Lord Jesus" is RADICALLY different from that taught in other churches - which is why some of the creeds help clarify the matters as to WHO Christ is.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:22PM

"isn't the Lord saying that anyone, Mormon or other, that accepts Christ as his Lord is saved."

Romans 10:9&10; speaks of believing and confessing from your heart that He is Lord and that He rose from the dead, so you are justified & saved.

Jesus says however that you must obey His Words as well, as even the demons believe. Believing He is Lord is one thing, but without obedience to His Words there is no Salvation.

"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our Home with him." Jn. 14:24.

Jesus says, "IF".

This is why any Religion that has as its doctrine anything contrary to the Words of Christ are to be discarded entirely.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:26PM

Oh, and one other thing. You said, "even the early Christians had trouble deciding what Christianity was back then.."

Nope. Christians weren't troubled and had no problem "deciding" what Christianity was. They actually lived it. It was a bunch of confused men who weren't enlightened by the Spirit of Christ and of God who had the "problems". God is not a God of confusion, but of Peace, as those who are born of Him well know. 1 Cor. 14:33.

Many a cult and may a denomination came about from the nonsense of men such as those in that day.

Vern Crisler| 5.14.12 @ 10:41AM

An informed Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic, believes in the first 6 ecumenical creeds. If you don't believe in these, you have to question whether you are a Christian, or at least whether you are an informed Christian.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 1:11PM

Practically true - there are a couple of minor differences that can probably be excused (Jesus descending into Hell), but I would say that you are probably correct for 90%+ of what came from those councils.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:24PM

Why do I need a "creed" to be considered a Christian?

I believe the Bible; that's enough.

Vern Crisler| 5.14.12 @ 1:54PM

Because every heretic and his brother claims to believe in the Bible.

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 1:58PM

But do they live by it?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 3:08PM

Even Catholics?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 3:09PM

So let me see if I follow your "logic"...

I should confess a belief in non-Scriptural, superfluous creeds to prove my fidelity to principles that are clearly elucidated in Scripture??

That makes ZERO sense.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 3:44PM

The Creeds are scriptural - most are derived from scriptural proofs, and are just a declaration of what scripture says about certain topics.

Many were not formulated out of thin air - some were particularly formed in answer to specific heresies (ie, the Nicean Creed against the Arian Heresy) OUT OF scriptural ideas.

And MOST Christians throughout history have used them to strengthen and educate faith.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 4:31PM

Heresy or no heresy, you're not answering the question.

WHY do you need a "creed"?

WHAT question/concern does the "creed" answer that isn't already addressed by Scripture??

Seems like a "creed" is the Cliff's Notes version of Christian belief...

In other words, the Church hierarchy comes up with these quaint little creeds that people are supposed to repeat ad nauseum to prevent them from ever needing to look to the Bible as THE source for educating themselves on issues pertaining to Faith.

And that makes sense, actually. Catholics, for example, have never emphasized that the masses should read and study the Bible on their own - in fact, they still don't today.

That's because they don't want parishioners questioning the tenets of Catholicism when they see that it contradicts with the Bible in many, many places.

So they make them memorize "creeds."

"Creeds" which ad NOTHING to the Christian Faith.

Vern Crisler| 5.14.12 @ 5:32PM

The best thing to read on the subject is Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, a Protestant examination of the creeds.

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:33AM

Most old-line conservative churches (for instance, the PCA) use creeds as a part of the service - but scripture has a predominance over all.

The Westminster Confession of Faith - and many others - stress in the FIRST part the primacy of scripture over all.

And there's really not much in the early creeds which contradict scripture, more of a clarification of a point which was being debated at the time (like the Arian heresy).

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:55PM

The Bible is the creed of Christians.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:14PM

The bible is what a few self-interested priests decided it would be. There were hundreds of "Gospels" and other writings to choose from. What is in the bible is cherry-picked (how in heck do you explain Revelations-- what nonsensical trash-- like something out of a Hollywood sci-fi big budget and giant bust). Try taking a look at what was left out. Most interesting.

Cheers!

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:35AM

Try studying how the canon was determined. There ARE standards for how it was determined. It's not like it was pulled out of a hat, and many of the other "gospels" have some SERIOUS historical and extreme theological issues.

And, btw, you're taking Revelation at WAY too much surface reading.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:30PM

"They are all straight to him who understands and right to those who find knowledge." Prov. 8:9.

David| 5.14.12 @ 12:46PM

Somnolence, that is BS.

The Bible defines what a Christian is. You and I don't get to define it.

As with homos who insist that we call them gay simply because that is what they want to be called, it does not make them gay. In fact, they are miserable people by and large. They are homosexuals and lesbians - period.

If a pedophile wants to be called a "children's physical therapist" do we oblige him? No. I know this is a little off, but why do we call homos gays to please them? Why do we call supporters of abortion pro-choice when they are pro-abortion.

As to Morons, they are not Christians in the true sense. Although I would prefer to vote for a Christian, we are not choosing a pastor for our church, but are choosing a president to lead this nation.

Romney was about my third or fourth choice in this primary, BUT I do believe that he has the character to lead America into better days.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:29PM

"The Bible defines what a Christian is. You and I don't get to define it."

Which passages of the Bible are you working from? Not the Old Testament, obviously (pre-Christian (Jewish, actually).

Like the Koran, or any other religious text -- or for that matter, many great works of lieterature -- the text is open to many different interpretation. If you had an open mind you would be well aware of the many different interpretations there are of biblical passages.

There are a great many self-professed "Christians", believed by many to be devout and the object of admiration, who have proven themselves to be complete frauds ("Lord forgive me, for I have sinned", etc BS).

We call homos "gays" to "please them". Good grief. You really have no connection with the real world, do you? I will just call you stupid. You obviously won't get why. But it is a compliment.

Why do we call anti-abortionists (sorry, pro-lifers)that (when they are often also supporters of the death penalty), rather than followers of false prophets (see above re: frauds) and propagators of religious extremism who wish to use the state to assault our fundamental liberties under the Constitution?

Potatoe Potato

But you did have it right with your typo (of course, I assume "Moron" was a typo, no doubt reflecting a Freudian slip).

Read a book. Any book.

Your preferred candidate ...oh never mind. Hypocrisy and pandering. It's disgraceful.

Cheers!

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:36AM

Some things ARE sort of open to interpretation, but others are RADICALLY clear.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:34PM

"the text is open to many different interpretation. If you had an open mind you would be well aware of the many different interpretations there are of biblical passages."

Wrong. The Bible is NOT subject to interpretation because it isn't a matter of same.

"First of all you must understand this, that no Prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no Prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:20 & 21.

You really ought to speak about the things that you actually KNOW about.

David| 5.14.12 @ 12:48PM

Somnolence, that is BS.

The Bible defines what a Christian is. You and I don't get to define it.

As with homos who insist that we call them gay simply because that is what they want to be called, it does not make them gay. In fact, they are miserable people by and large. They are homosexuals and lesbians - period.

If a pedophile wants to be called a "children's physical therapist" do we oblige him? No. I know this is a little off, but why do we call homos gays to please them? Why do we call supporters of abortion pro-choice when they are pro-abortion.

As to Morons, they are not Christians in the true sense. Although I would prefer to vote for a Christian, we are not choosing a pastor for our church, but are choosing a president to lead this nation.

Romney was about my third or fourth choice in this primary, BUT I do believe that he has the character to lead America into better days.

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 1:04PM

So if I say I am an NBA Superstar, does that make me Michael Jordan?

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:24PM

Maybe you ARE Michael Jordan...

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:35PM

Ha ha ha. No, appleby's a Catholic. He or she believes in the Pope.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 9:35AM

BTW charges of blasphemy or heresy don't faze me either, so don't waste your breath. Love the opportunity to be a professional provocateur.

Vicky Bennett | 5.14.12 @ 9:58AM

Romney should not have to reach out to any Christian. Christians should be voting against infanticide, abortion, gay marriage anyway.

If a Christian votes for these things he has to ask himself... WWJD

9thID| 5.14.12 @ 11:03AM

Last I heard, abortionist Romney is still the only GOP candidate who refuses to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. Even Ron Paul signed it after much goading, but with a list of "exceptions". Romney also supports gay adoptions, civil unions. He also supports the continued overturning of over 200 years of effective UCMJ precedent in forcing homosexuality upon the military, which led to the gay WikiLeaks traitor Bradley Manning debacle. Yes, Ron Paul voted with Barney Frank for that one too...

David| 5.14.12 @ 12:37PM

9th ID, as I have said here before. We have been duped by every repub prez candidate since Reagan. We demand that "he promise to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion".

Everyone has done so. Then what? Nothing!!! Not a f_cking thing to get the ball rolling toward the amendment. What do we do? Nothing as citizens to get the ball rolling. What do our elected reps and senators do? Nothing to get the ball rolling toward the amendment.

It is meaningless to make such a promise, and I do not fault Romney for not signing it.

Now, if we want to demand that they make such a promise, then we should also demand that they lay out a plan as to how we can move toward the amendment. Otherwise, leave it alone. I am tired of 30 years of promises and we have not moved one inch closer to banning abortion.

9thID| 5.14.12 @ 2:54PM

David - As the tide continues to turn towards Life, even among the youth, so too will an amendment to the Constitution. Remember that Dred Scott was eventually overturned as Truth prevailed, and God willing, so too will Roe v. Wade. As of yet, we have not reached critical mass, and will not until the GOP is reformed into what Reagan called "3-Legged Conservatism", or is replaced as was the Whig Party.

If Mitt Romney's neo-Marxist tenure as governor could be translated to a national level, he would make Obama look like a piker. This election cycle may be the GOP's last no matter if "to the Left of McCain" Mitt RomneyCare could win - - especially with Romney doubling down on RomneyCare/ObamaCare & GOP fiscal Socialism...

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:32PM

Jesus would love thy neighbour, treat others as they, themselves, wish to be treated, and not throw stones when they live in glass houses.

Look at yourself. Hypocrite.

Cheers!

9thID| 5.15.12 @ 10:47AM

We don't take preaching on morality, and Christianity from secular humanist reprobates who murder babies. As Jesus said to the sinners, go and sin no more...

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 10:11AM

Romney wasn't reaching out. He was merely invited to speak there and spoke his mind out. Jesus tells me a lot of things, as He does with Mitt and many of us here, and I'm pretty sure we won't divulge everything He confides in those special moments. Frankly, I'm not sure any of us are qualified to deduce what Jesus would do. We can only guess.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:34PM

I guess that Jesus would not like the GOP (Greedy Old Pigs).

Cheers!

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:39PM

Jesus speaks in the Bible and in Scriptures, He doesn't talk to people. Anything you may be "hearing" apart from Scripture may be a product of your own imagination.

Jalsis | 5.14.12 @ 11:20AM

Mit Romney is a despicable hippocrite like Angelo Mozillo, Rajat Gupta,Charles Prince,Jaime Dimon, Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton and George Bush who are hell bent on destroying the American Middle Class to personally enrich themselves.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 11:27AM

Learn how to spell "hypocrite" before you go into your holier-than-thou rants.

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 12:01PM

Whew, And here I was trying to figure out how a Hippos became a member of the Center For Research IT (CRITE).

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 11:35AM

Jesus didn't really differentiate between "informed" Christians and "uninformed", although I'm sure I will soon hear "that's not the way I interpret it", or "that's not biblical interpretation". That said, I do believe in the first 6 ecumenical creeds, but that takes a back seat to true Christian piety, or allegiance to the Savior. In my middle age I'm becoming more and more wary of organized religion as THE way to the Kingdom. Too many false prophets out there who once again, know it all. Romney and I are both Christians, and that is all I need to know, but that isn't a prerequisite for my supporting him for President.

Vern Crisler| 5.14.12 @ 1:00PM

Believing in the first 6 ecumenical creeds is true Christian piety and allegiance to the Savior. That you could say Romney (who believes in Mormonism, a denial of all six creeds) and you (who believes in all six creeds) are both Christians shows a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance (like atheists who wear crosses).

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:40PM

Romney is NOT a Christian. He's a Mormon.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 11:50AM

Those who do profess belief in Christ are indeed following Biblical direction by the "stretch" of miles and miles, with no other mortal's insistence of strings attached. Sorry to burst your bubble, but in the best Christian sense, may true salvation be yours, in the best manner of your choosing.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:42PM

"may true salvation be yours, in the best manner of your choosing."

"And there is Salvation in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12.

And that excludes Mary, the Pope, as well as Joseph Smith or any other human being.

Bill| 5.14.12 @ 11:58AM

Three stikes, you're out! Mr. Obama!
First strike, the economy, second strike, war on religion, and the third strike, supporting the same sex marriage.
Obama ain't gonna go back to the dugout, may be "mobtown" Chicago.

David| 5.14.12 @ 12:37PM

9th ID, as I have said here before. We have been duped by every repub prez candidate since Reagan. We demand that "he promise to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion".

Everyone has done so. Then what? Nothing!!! Not a f_cking thing to get the ball rolling toward the amendment. What do we do? Nothing as citizens to get the ball rolling. What do our elected reps and senators do? Nothing to get the ball rolling toward the amendment.

It is meaningless to make such a promise, and I do not fault Romney for not signing it.

Now, if we want to demand that they make such a promise, then we should also demand that they lay out a plan as to how we can move toward the amendment. Otherwise, leave it alone. I am tired of 30 years of promises and we have not moved one inch closer to banning abortion.

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:30PM

What difference does it make if a Presidential supports "a constitutional amendment to ban abortion"????

Even if he/she does, it's irrelevant. Amending the Constitution is a long, laborious process. It doesn't happen overnight. It can take literally years, far longer than any Presidential term, and longer than the shelf-life of any Congress.

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate must approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. (Do you think that's LIKELY to happen?? EVER???)

Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used ONLY ONCE -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

Of the THOUSANDS of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

If you want to rid this nation of the scourge of abortion, the best way to do it is to change the hearts and minds of the citizens. The Amendment process is NOT going to happen.

David| 5.14.12 @ 12:46PM

Somnolence, that is BS.

The Bible defines what a Christian is. You and I don't get to define it.

As with homos who insist that we call them gay simply because that is what they want to be called, it does not make them gay. In fact, they are miserable people by and large. They are homosexuals and lesbians - period.

If a pedophile wants to be called a "children's physical therapist" do we oblige him? No. I know this is a little off, but why do we call homos gays to please them? Why do we call supporters of abortion pro-choice when they are pro-abortion.

As to Morons, they are not Christians in the true sense. Although I would prefer to vote for a Christian, we are not choosing a pastor for our church, but are choosing a president to lead this nation.

Romney was about my third or fourth choice in this primary, BUT I do believe that he has the character to lead America into better days.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:38PM

"The Bible defines what a Christian is. You and I don't get to define it."

Which passages of the Bible are you working from? Not the Old Testament, obviously (pre-Christian (Jewish, actually).

Like the Koran, or any other religious text -- or for that matter, many great works of lieterature -- the text is open to many different interpretation. If you had an open mind you would be well aware of the many different interpretations there are of biblical passages.

There are a great many self-professed "Christians", believed by many to be devout and the object of admiration, who have proven themselves to be complete frauds ("Lord forgive me, for I have sinned", etc BS).

We call homos "gays" to "please them". Good grief. You really have no connection with the real world, do you? I will just call you stupid. You obviously won't get why. But it is a compliment.

Why do we call anti-abortionists (sorry, pro-lifers)that (when they are often also supporters of the death penalty), rather than followers of false prophets (see above re: frauds) and propagators of religious extremism who wish to use the state to assault our fundamental liberties under the Constitution?

Potatoe Potato

But you did have it right with your typo (of course, I assume "Moron" was a typo, no doubt reflecting a Freudian slip).

Read a book. Any book.

Your preferred candidate ...oh never mind. Hypocrisy and pandering. It's disgraceful.

Cheers!

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:47PM

"Which passages of the Bible are you working from? Not the Old Testament, obviously (pre-Christian (Jewish, actually)."

Once again you should really stick to what you actually know.

"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."
So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith." Gal. 3:8 & 9.

The Holy One of Israel is Jesus Christ, the I Am.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 1:04PM

I and my Lord define what a Christian is. That is final.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 1:12PM

By what authority can you claim what a Christian is?

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:43PM

By what authority can anyone claim who a Christian is?

As with all religions, it is "invented" by those who "created" it. Hint: That was not Jesus. What passes for his teachings (the New Testament) is nothing more than the results of a power struggle to define what the "true" Christianity is. Seems to have been a few disputes (even within the orthodox clerisy) over how to properly interpret what was an interpretion (translation) of often interpretaions of cherry picked documents that were favoured by those who were favoured.

Cheers!

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 9:56PM

"As with all religions, it is "invented" by those who "created" it."

Jesus invented Christianity, as He was the First Fruits of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor. 15:20), the only One whom God raised from the dead, as He overcame Sin and Death for our sakes. And therefore He is the only One with the Power to forgive the sin of any, despite what the Catholics say.

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

And Christianity isn't a Religion created by Man. It's a way of Life.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 1:06PM

The word "gay" means happy, so I do agree with your opinion there. But even though I consider the Bible as the word of God, even the most illiterate person on Earth has a chance to become a Christian without ever knowing passages of scripture. So, no, it is not B.S.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 1:10PM

As you could guess, one of my favorite John Lennon songs is entitled "God". None of us are "experts" here, rather, we tend to be "professional provocateurs", as I tried to point out earlier.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:45PM

Just "Imagine" what the world could be if:

The Love of Power was
replaced by the Power of Love.

Cheers!

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:37PM

Since God IS Love, you are correct. But since the World sees fit to reject Him, it can never be this imagined World.

Until those of us who believe in Him get to share Heaven with Him for eternity, that is.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 1:21PM

Ryan, that is simple. I have a personal communication with Jesus Christ. He has been a reliable source of comfort many times. I don't have to enter any church to have that experience either, nor do I have to be a Biblical scholar. Those ARE NOT requirements.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 3:47PM

"Forsake not the gathering together, as is the habit of some..."

Sorry, pretty good Biblical clarity that we should be involved in a community of believers.

Ryan| 5.14.12 @ 3:47PM

So Jesus speaks to you audibly?

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:46PM

If you didn' t claim divine inspiration, you would otherwise be considered a lunatic.

Cheers!

Stephen Klingensmith | 5.14.12 @ 1:24PM

No matter from where my blood line flowed, I am an American. The spirit of those who have gone before lives in me. I will stand with my brethren against tyranny and injustice regardless of the source. Those who love this country shall find sanctuary with me. To my family, my associates and my country I pledge my just and honorable diligence in retaining the blessings of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 1:33PM

Why don't YOU ask Romney if he believes in the first 6 ecumenical creeds, if you are so sure he doesn't follow them? No, because you have already made up your mind. Not all Mormons think alike, but since you seem to believe they do, it is you who is so sorely lacking in cognitive reasoning. I had an uncle who was Mormon and he enjoyed several cups of coffee a day, contrary to the frowning upon the habit by LDS doctrine. So to think that all Mormons think alike or think this and that displays your ignorance.

Jeamar| 5.14.12 @ 1:52PM

Let me be clear. Romney is running for president of the US. He is not running as a Mormon missionary seeking to convert anyone else to his religion. I listened to his entire Liberty University speech and agree with the article's assessment. It is outrageous for evangelicals or any other Christian to be arbiters of who is the "real" Christian or who believes in the "real" Jesus. People seeking public office in this country have never (Thank whomever or whatever you believe or don't believe in.)had to submit to political tests of their religious purity as judged by evangelicals or others. As Americans we need to concentrate on the political policies of candidates and leave the determination of religious purity or personal piety to the judgement of a Higher Power.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:49PM

"He is not running as a Mormon missionary seeking to convert anyone else to his religion."

But he did that regularly. Indeed, his faith required him to do so.

"People seeking public office in this country have never (Thank whomever or whatever you believe or don't believe in.)had to submit to political tests of their religious purity as judged by evangelicals or others. "

You really don't know much history, do you?

Cheers!

Jeamar| 5.14.12 @ 8:59PM

weaver...You may be correct in how much history I know. Please enlighten me. Before the Declaration of Independence there were colonies (later states) that did have religious tests for public positions. At that time "Americans" were still subjects of the King of England. And after that there were some individual states that under States Rights had their own requirements for public offices. I am always ready to engage in a teachable moment as I make no claim to be an expert in American history or anything else. When did the United States, as a country, have a religious requirement for one to hold a public office or run for an election?

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:34PM

"It is outrageous for evangelicals or any other Christian to be arbiters of who is the "real" Christian or who believes in the "real" Jesus."

No, it isn't. God requires that we do so, according to His Word.

But what you are saying as far as Romney isn't running as a Religious leader or to be elected as such is so very right.

And it is because of the way our country was founded, based on those Christian principles, that there is no state Religion but rather the freedom to be whatever you choose, that anyone can run for President.

The Colonists' "test" that you speak of was among Christians, amongst themselves, who had biblical standards, and it was for them as they elected or chose different leaders or governors.

At that time, there was no President or Presidency, it was for who was over the Colonists, who were themselves, believers.

And genuine Christians to this very day KNOW and understand that choosing a President has not to do with what Religion they may be, but with what principles they possess.

In fact, there was an article the other day that said that Evangelicals (and if you're not evangelical, you're not Christian), will indeed vote for Romney.

I will, too. My conscience will not permit me to NOT vote for him if he becomes the nominee, just as it will not permit me to either stay home, or vote for anyone BUT the Republican nominee.

David| 5.14.12 @ 2:38PM

Somnolence,

What is the only way to spend eternity with Jesus?

What does being born-again, or converted mean?

Do you know you will spend eternity with Jesus when you die?

Is the Bible the Word of God?

Did Jesus die for our sins and rise from the dead?

Was Jesus born of a virgin?

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:14PM

Well done, David. The Bible tells us to test the spirits, to see whether they are of God, just as you are doing. Good for you.

There are not so many true servants of Christ these days who are willing to do that, and yet it is those who call themselves Christian who get so bent out of shape at someone only doing what God requires!

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 2:42PM

"Daily walking close to Thee, Dear Lord, let it be..." You might find my secret in than tune, David.

David| 5.14.12 @ 3:13PM

Those are very simple questions for a Christian to answer. So, call yourself what you want, Somnolence, but if you can't give a one sentence answer to the first two questions, and a definite YES to the next four................then................. .

David| 5.14.12 @ 3:16PM

Jeamar, I hope you are not saying that character doesn't count? Or to put it another way RINO's like to phrase it, "don't worry about the social issues".
I hope that is not what you are suggesting. I agree with all else you said.

Jeamar| 5.14.12 @ 4:44PM

David: You are correct. I am not saying character doesn't count. My own personal opinion that integrity is of paramount importance in anyone including myself. Social issues, along with political issues, are very important and I am not sure that they can be finely separated in elections. I also think they are important to candidate Romney. Thank you for your response.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 3:20PM

David, since you are so judgemental you definitely don't fit the pattern of the ideal Christian. As long as I, I, I.......know where I'm going, I could care less, bud, what you or other charlatans think. May your journey turn out to be smooth, as I KNOW mine will(contrary to what you or the pastor or priest down the road think).

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 3:22PM

Cognitive development is also important, David. "Daily walking with Jesus" answers any of those questions. I seriously doubt if I would attend your house of worship even if you invited me, since I already have a hint of what it may be like.

David| 5.14.12 @ 4:34PM

Maybe I didn't get the full sense of what was going on between you and others, but I definitely understand that you believe YOU get to define what a Christian is. "I am one because I say I am one".

Daily walking with Jesus, as you said, fits what a Christian is.

I am a Christian, and I don't hesitate to say the Bible is the Word of God, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that God created the world as described in the Bible; OR in fulfillment of Jesus's command to go and tell the whole world the good news, I have no problem saying that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead.

So please understand that anyone who claims to be a Christian, yet won't answer those questions, makes a born-again believer question whether he is talking to a true Christian or not.

Perfect example is the guy I debated for 3 years who said he was Christian. Then under the right circumstances he let something slip and as it turned out he was a Christian.........and a Muslim.......and a Buddhist.......and a Hindu. In other words, he believed in everything, and therefore, he didn't believe in anything.

Get it. So no more preaching from your silly self Mr. Self-Proclaimed Christian.

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 4:48PM

David,

I could be wrong but I think Somnolence is simpy yanking your chain to hear you bark.

Don't you see his argument of "I'm a Christian because I say I am one" is the same argument you are making but with less modifiers/qualifiers?

Let me put it this way, just because he won't anwer anyones "Christian" questions doesn't give them the right to question him. It is not for us to judge, even if we don't believe it. That is between him and the Lord.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:01PM

Wrong. David is doing what's right. You just don't like it.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:53PM

"I am a Christian, and I don't hesitate to say the Bible is the Word of God, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that God created the world as described in the Bible; OR in fulfillment of Jesus's command to go and tell the whole world the good news, I have no problem saying that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead."

You can say whatever you like. The question is, do you walk the walk? Seems to me that a lot of people who "say" something don't do what they preach.

There are words for that. Politicians :=

And hypocrites.

Cheers!

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:03PM

Since you know nothing, are unenlightened and yet see fit to tell us who are, according to Scripture, Christian, that would make you the hypocrite.
Sorry.

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 4:48PM

I'll preach all I want as long as this society is free, buster, whether you or any other clergyman likes it or not. Preaching is not always synonymous to religion, and you are not my ideal of the perfect Christian, as you pass judgement freely. But you have a right, like I do, to think you are. So no, you don't get a truce or acknowledgement from me. I don't fit your idea of a Christian, and you don't fit mine------so what?

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:55PM

So you are both full of bulls**t.

Cheers!

David| 5.14.12 @ 4:57PM

Whatever. Yep, you are a lot like Patrick, the dude I just told you about. Can't answer a simple question.

I am not clergy. In fact, I don't belong to any church, so no church to invite you. JudgEment does not have an "E" there. Has nothing to do with passing judgment. Has to do with forming an opinion with regard to a confuser, a deceiver, and someone who obfuscates every issue.

Judging.........no............do I have an opinion about people like you............absolutely!!!

somnolence| 5.14.12 @ 5:28PM

I believe Jesus is the Son Of God, that he was born of the Virgin Mary, etc. etc. I am a member of the Methodist Church, of which I haven't attended in at least five years, or any other service. I don't care if you have an opinion of me, as I have one of you also. As far as being a deceiver speak for yourself or look at your own image in the mirror. I don't play the categorized questions game unless it is Jeopardy or something similar for which I might be compensated.

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 8:38AM

What Biblical reasoning allows you to not be involved in a community of believers?

Bill| 5.14.12 @ 5:59PM

FL has a constitutional amendmend banning gay marriage (I'm a proud Floridian). Why cannot we have one in the federal level? Gay marriage is anepidemic and must be stopped.

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 7:59PM

An epidemic? Really? Is it contagious?? Can I catch it (been married 24 years with three boys -- maybe I'm not allowed in the exclusive club).

I could explain the difficulties of a ("federal") Constitutional Amendment to you, but I really should wait until you have been sober for a few hours.

Cheers!

Jeamar| 5.14.12 @ 10:08PM

weaver...I posted this comment earlier under the previous entries but since you probably don't look backward, here it is. You may be right I don't know much about history, but I am willing to learn, so please correct me. If I understand correctly, many colonies before the Declaration of Independence did have religious tests for public office. But at that time the citizens thereof were still subjects of the King of England. And after the Declaration many of these colonies, now states, under the principle of "state rights" did have religious tests for holding public office. Some also had poll taxes, owning property requirements, etc. But if they US at any time, as a country, generally had a requirement for religious conformity for public office, I surely missed that class in history. I'm will for you to correct me with an example or two.

sirbourbon| 5.14.12 @ 9:41PM

Romney cannot be trusted to keep true to the Constitution, to national sovereignty and for prpotecting the independence of the USA anymore than George W. Bush. Bush sucked up to the evangelical vote just to get their vote and then once in office he did everything in his power to undermine the sovereignty of the US. He pushed for the open borders NAU and kept those border wide open for 8 long years. Bush spend in the red like a madman and Romney will follow suit. Bush bankrupted us further by giving away money to dictators even ruthless alQaeda friendly dictators running the Palestinian Authority and Mitt will follow Bush's policies to do likewise helping prop up America's enemies. Paul will end all foreign aid.

Romney has learned by watching how Bush's lies and deceptions worked for Bush and Mitt is going to do likewise and say whatever it takes to get the evangelical vote. If they fall for that line twice shame on them.

Paul is the only choice based on principle for he is the epitome of principle.

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 10:25AM

Everyone has principles.

Kingofthenet| 5.14.12 @ 9:54PM

Some of these comments are like reading the writings of Confederate Soldiers in the Civil War, What side of history do you want to be on? Obama 2012...Forward....

POST American| 5.14.12 @ 10:52PM

BEWARE the large scale spiritual organizations!

At the TOP of ALLLLLLL the major religions
there are NO politics. Even putting aside the
now UNDENIABLE extent of decades upon
decades of Rockefeller corruption and Masonic
infiltration ----they are ALLLLL utterly 'on board'
with the Globalist agendas for world
'governance' ---further dignified and enlightened
degradation of mankind ----and the orderly
EUGENICS layout for MASS DEMOCIDE.

MAKE NO MISTAKE.

Stick to prayerful searches of the
King James or, better yet, Geneva Bibles
---and the commentaries of Bunyan and
John Gill.

IF you can's clean out your churches
---------------------------------CLEAR OUT!

This --IS-- the 11th hour.

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:07PM

Better yet, stick to Jesus, and He will keep you on HIS Path.

Tony | 5.14.12 @ 11:25PM

Frankly, apart from Ronald Reagan, i do not grasp what a "perfect Conservative" is, and neither does one, thus do not faux that you just do.Now on Mormons being non Christian. i think it to be a cult that uses the name of Jesus during a false method. What passes for Mormon theology cannot be referred to as Christian in any historical context. that ought to not bsr him from the Presidency. There are lots of non Christian Presidents. i'd say the bulk were nominal at best, if not outright heathens.

POST American| 5.15.12 @ 12:06AM

"Don't you understand how sick
the system is? ---How they MOCK YOU
with the very names they set before you!?"
-Informed Radio
(yesterday)

'SUB--Mitt ROME---KNEE!'

-------'DICK CHAIN---KNEE!'

-----------Gen 'BETRAY--US'

---------------'JAN--NET --NAP--POLI----TANO'

------------------'BAR---Rockefeller' O---BAMA!'

American

--------A ---MERRY---CAN!

-------------A---MERE----ICK---CAN!

That's ----------------A--MER---ICK-----A!!!

"You yuppies LOVE being shmucks!
----------YOU LOVE IT!
--------------YOU LOVE IT!
-------------------YOU LOVE IT!!!!"
-Alex Jones

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:08PM

Alex Jones isn't in his right mind, sorry. And you sound a bit unhinged as well.
Jesus is Lord, and Him only shall I serve.

somnolence| 5.15.12 @ 10:31AM

Perhaps I'm not so keen as to belong to a "community of believers", Ryan, because small talk about domestic squabbles, grandkids, etc. other than concentration on the religious topic of the day(Sunday) along with the message to be gained from that topic, seems to frequently take over. I much prefer to educate myself, and my wife complains about the rigid wooden pews hurting her back. So that is part of my answer.

somnolence| 5.15.12 @ 10:57AM

Oh, but I will start going back when I, I, I want to and not anyone else deciding for me. Maybe I will.....just maybe.

Ryan| 5.15.12 @ 12:47PM

Maybe, if you took scripture seriously, you might realize that the Christian life is not intended to be lived alone.

And PLEASE respond under the threads...

Bibliotech| 5.15.12 @ 10:10PM

Who are YOU, the Pope?
What authority do YOU have here? You don't take the Scripture seriously, yourself.

Ryan| 5.16.12 @ 8:28AM

Just letting scripture speak for itself here.

Hebrews 10: 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near."

Two points: Scripture is consistent that the life of the believer is to be lived in community. Also, there is no point in scripture where something good happens when someone tries to live it alone.

Bibliotech| 5.16.12 @ 6:41PM

I was responding to your odd demanding of somnolence to meet together with others when you yourself seem to be quite the contentious Christian.

After all, even if one meets together with other Christians physically, yet is not in agreement with Scripture, what good is it? Does physically meeting together equal Salvation? Is Salvation based on works?

POST American| 5.16.12 @ 5:08AM

-----'SUB--Mitt' of the 'Club of ROME---KNEE'!

TAKE HEED!

---------------The Republic has FALLEN!-------------

--------------------------BE NOT DECEIVED!

Bibliotech| 5.16.12 @ 6:37PM

The Bible tells us that Man is fallen since Adam. The Republic is only a reflection of that. To try and say that Mitt Romney is any worse than anyone else (or any better for that matter) is ridiculous, and conspiratorial.

Really, what is it that you are trying to say? Would you rather that Obama get re-elected? Then if that's how you think then YOU are the one who is deceiving himself.

There's good, better and best. Voting for Romney is better than voting for Obama. Do you want more freedom, or less? The choice is yours.

The American Spectator

Campaign Crawlers

Common Cause

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (283) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

The Empiricist| 5.14.12 @ 1:47AM

The Empiricist| 5.14.12 @ 2:09AM

Pseudo-Intellectual | 5.14.12 @ 6:30AM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 6:37AM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:03AM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 7:52AM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 8:23AM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 8:24AM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 8:54AM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 10:52AM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:11PM

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:39AM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 8:50AM

Oldefarte| 5.14.12 @ 3:44PM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:16PM

DRA2010| 5.15.12 @ 2:23AM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 12:32PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:07PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 1:36PM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 1:44PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 2:56PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 3:50PM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:23PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:17PM

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:39AM

chuck| 5.14.12 @ 6:46PM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 5:22PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 6:57PM

Barky K9 | 5.14.12 @ 6:27AM

Alan BRooks| 5.14.12 @ 7:05AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.14.12 @ 7:19AM

Logic| 5.14.12 @ 11:24AM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:08PM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:27PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:18PM

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:39AM

Vicky Bennett | 5.14.12 @ 9:59AM

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 6:28AM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 7:04AM

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 7:21AM

Steve| 5.14.12 @ 8:04AM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 12:38PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:08PM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 5:25PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 1:38PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 8:25AM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 8:59AM

Oldefarte| 5.14.12 @ 3:44PM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:29PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 6:59PM

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:47AM

Boar Hunter| 5.15.12 @ 12:40AM

Scorpio51| 5.14.12 @ 9:00AM

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 10:49AM

Occam's Tool| 5.14.12 @ 11:47AM

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:44PM

DRA2010| 5.15.12 @ 2:29AM

Appleby| 5.14.12 @ 1:01PM

Mickey| 5.14.12 @ 1:40PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 2:58PM

Bibliotech| 5.17.12 @ 6:31PM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 12:48PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 1:15PM

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 1:55PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 2:59PM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 1:57PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 3:01PM

Drunken Sailor| 5.14.12 @ 4:06PM

Clint| 5.14.12 @ 5:31PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 6:19PM

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:49AM

weaverofdreams_2000| 5.14.12 @ 6:48PM

Doctor Right| 5.14.12 @ 7:47PM

Oldefarte| 5.15.12 @ 10:51AM

aware| 5.14.12 @ 6:24PM