If you knew anything about Texas, which none of y’all clearly do, you’d know that the governor cannot pardon. Pardons are controlled by the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
unborn babies haven’t had a chance to live yet. Criminals ruined their right to live. It’s not a double standard, it’s believing in an equal pursuit of life.
So we should waste our tax money on people who rape, kill, steal, or all of the above?! I would rather spend less money on killing them, than spending more on keeping them alive in a prison that may let them out on parole in the future. Criminals lost their sanctity when they decided to defile the law. Unborn babies do not have a choice. Their lives are decided for them. Criminals make a choice. That choice has consequences.
I personally think that we should kill them in such a way that we can give their organs to someone who needs them. I don’t think you can after lethal injection, but if you put their feet in a pan of water and shoot 100 volts of electricity through them you would be able to save a few other lives with the organs that were able to stand the shock.
And I’m sure there are medical flaws in that argument, it’s just an idea.
RonFrat, just gonna be that guy and say 100V isn’t enough to kill you, considering many people can recount sticking their finger in a 120V electrical socket.
The voltage isn’t what kill you, it’s the amps. Tasers usually have something like 50,000 volts, but they won’t kill you because the amps are so low.
Also, about the organ donating. They had an episode of The Simpsons on this very issue. Basically, it’s never a good idea to use organs of criminals on civilians.
Depending on which state you are in, it is actually more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for decades. There are capital punishment panels, mandatory appeals, discretionary appeals, evidence reviews based on new technology. It is truly, a motherfucker. Laws written by lawyers to benefit lawyers, TFM.
All you need to look at is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. The man was innocent, and Rick Perry won’t even allow the investigation into the facts years after his death.
I think that is a better example as to why Rick Perry is a bad politician. Cool, fratty,but bad. And now que the “fuck you” comments and the “he creates jobs” comments. The guy supported fucking al gore. AL GORE. Against the Gov. from his own state. And now hes extremely conservative? ha
Rick Perry also said in the debate last night, when talking about mandating the HPV vaccine, that he “will always err on the side of saving lives.” Suuuuuure.
And this is the same guy who pushed for bailouts and stimulus funds, and also supports the idea of welfare for illegals. WHY do you all like him again? If you were true conservatives, you would know better.
CandC is actually more correct than not. In 2011, Reagan would have a hard time winning a Republican primary anywhere given his now-considered-moderate credentials. Also, he’s dead but I suppose that didn’t stop Mel Carnahan from beating John Ashcroft.
Reagan increased military spending, cut taxes, cut welfare, was pro-life, death penalty, and business. He helped bring down the Berlin Wall and defeat communism, and pissed off liberals as a hobby because well, fuck liberals. So what part of Ronald Fucking Reagan was “moderate”
It seems to me that giving the government the power to execute its citizenry flies in the face of everything conservatives stand for. How can one be against an “overreaching” government while also supporting them in policies that ultimately give them control over whether someone lives or dies?
Because the GOP as we know it today is lacking morality and common logic….a new conservative movement is forming. You can’t preach the sanctity of life while praising the death penalty. You can’t call for a decrease in federal gov’t while waging new wars and denying tax increases. Sorry if this upsets your father’s way of thinking, but it just doesn’t work (not talking to you southeastfrat). We cannot just continue our aggressive nature and not expect taxes to be raised. You guys pick one: taxes or defense.
So what you’re saying is that if someone kills a bunch of people, it would be in America’s best interest to let them live? Giving the government that power is in line with conservative belief because we believe in punishing those who have done wrong to society. If our society is to remain free, safe, and secure, those people who threaten that must be removed from society.
Fratlunteer: all that I am saying is that if we are serious about getting the libs out of power then we need to be consistent in our beliefs. Fact of the matter is that the general view of the “conservative party” is that we are pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, pro-national defense (re: war), yet anti-tax. This will simply not work. If we want to war with other countries, we need higher taxes to pay for it. If we want lower taxes, we need to stop spending (obviously along with cutting rediculous entitlement spending, which nobody but democrats and homeless people think is right). The hardline “no tax, more war” approach et cetera can’t last….
^I would say we are VERY serious about getting the libs out of power considering members of Congress were willing to let the country default just to spite the President.
I respect that point CandC. Taking that big of a step was definitely a ballsy move. But that more than anything was a political power play. To have real, true respect conservatives need to start doing what we say, not just spouting what are “traditional values.” Saying that we value life above all else and then killing those (who admittedly commit heinous crimes) is hypocritical, and will hurt us (and Rick Perry, I believe) in the eyes of those who truly think about who they will vote for.
It is possible to preach a high value on life and still support the death penalty. I value the lives of other Americans. I desire a healthy, prosperous, and happy society. There are criminals (murderers, rapists, and child molesters) who do not value the lives of their fellow Americans. When they commit those acts and proven guilty in a court of law, in my opinion they have forgone their rights as valuable member of society. Ending the life of another should have the consequences of one’s own life being taken.
Yes, it is more expensive to execute a death row inmate, but there ARE occasions when money must be spent to make our society safe and secure.
You are right about the pro-war vs lower taxes conflict. To some extent, I think Perry and Huntsman were moving towards resolution of that problem in belief. Huntsman said we need to focus on nation-building HERE and not overseas, and Perry said the American people want a clear definition of American interests in foreign conflicts.
That’s a (admittedly small) step towards saying, “look, it would be great if everyone was a Democracy, but that doesn’t do us any good if ours fails.” We need to take money out of foreign “interests” (especially Libya) and focus on fixing our own problems. Stop sending foreign aid to Africa and help our homeless veterans first.
But those are my beliefs, and I do agree that the GOP needs to work on that to appease the on-the-fence and independent voters.
That being said, the death penalty will likely be a very small issue in the grand scheme of things in the election. A candidates stance on that will not be a deciding factor for more than a very small percentage of voters.
I have a question. Since when did the government decide to hand out the death penalty? Last time I checked all they decided was when to have it as an option.
Frat O’Clock: one could argue that the government is condoning the death penalty because of the laws in place that allow it to happen, or deciding when to have it as an option. Aside from that, many states, like Alabama (google judicial override), allow judges to decide the penalty or override the decisions of the jury. In the case of Alabama, over 90% of overrides have resulted in judges overriding the verdict of life decided by the jury in favor of the death penalty. As judges are part of the government, this is the government essentially deciding whether one lives or dies.
Conservatives support the right to pursue life. Once someone commits a crime worthy of the death penalty based on the penalties of that state, they forfeit the right to continue to pursue life. The reason conservatives are against abortion is because the child has no ability to pursue life. Those on death row had their chance to live and forfeited that chance, unborn children never had that chance.
^exactly. That’s what drives me nuts about these fucking PETA hippies. Anti-killing animals and convicted murderers, but if you’ve got an innocent fetus growing in your uterus, by all means, kill it.
^^ But see, that’s the whole argument people are making. Some people feel that if people say they value life, then someone’s life shouldn’t be forfeited from his acts. We’re not talking about existing laws, but rather the philosophy of the whole issue.
So what if a 16-year-old girl gets raped and become pregnant? Her “right to pursue life” then becomes jeopardized, but if abortions are illegal, what can she do about it? The “right to pursue life” bullshit is a terrible argument. It is possible to be pro-life in your personal beliefs, but pro-choice at the same time — for example, I don’t like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea of the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body even more. Real supporters of LIBERTY should support a person’s right to choose.
It’s not HER body you fuck. It’s her fucking child’s. And how is this 16-year old girl’s life going to end because she’s having a baby? She can’t give it up for adoption to an infertile couple or angelina jolie?
Agreed Fratabama. Liberals love to use the rape case argument but that is such a small percentage of abortions it really doesn”t hold too much weight, especially when, as you said, she can give it up for adoption.
Woman’s choice. Let her have it. You’re not the one who has to carry it around for 9 months. Honestly that’s what sickens me about the abortion debate, is most participants for pro-life are men. There’s a reason that the majority of the women involved in the debate at all want to be able to choose–it’s their body.
Seriously? The “rape case” argument isn’t even the point, so call it a liberal copout that “doesn’t hold much weight” all you want. Rape or no rape, the issue I hold is with the federal government having power over a human being’s personal choice. You don’t want the government telling you what do with your guns or your money, but you’re fine with them telling a woman what to do with her BODY and her very livelihood? I want the government not only out of my pockets, but out of my personal life in general. True supporters of the Constitution should realize that America is about personal liberty and freedom in ALL regards — not just the ones that are convenient to your holier-than-thou agenda.
Yes, I believe that in the cases of a rape or a fallopian pregnancy in which the mother will most likely die giving birth, are the only exceptions to the rule. In any other case, you made the decision to have sex knowing you could get pregnant, so you need to lie in the bed that you’ve made. But a rape pregnancy is not the woman’s fault and a dangerous pregnancy does no good for the baby considering if the mother dies during childbirth, then that’s just no good.
Lonestar: if we as conservatives truly supported the right to pursue life, then we should be outraged at the possibility that an innocent person could be put to death at the hands of the state, not dismiss this fact and chalk it up to collateral damage. If innocent people are put to death as a result of the system, then it is inherently flawed and must be repaired or replaced.
As far as the “it is her body argument,” a woman may have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, that is not a good enough reason to give up a child that will live for 70 years. If she is not prepared to have a child, she should either consider that before getting pregnant or give it up after its birth.
Perry may be a TFM but he is definitely not a good candidate. I acknowledge that I will vote for him over Barack Obama if he gets the nomination, but not only would I be a little nervous about his abilities I would be more nervous about his chances of winning. I know all of you are probably TFTC or some gay shit but read Mitt Romney’s plan. I really liked it compared to other economic policies I have studied and that is what I am currently getting my Master’s in. I think we all need to realize we need to pick someone who can win and a Romney/Rubio ticket can do that by playing to conservatives that will want Obama out, independents that are dissatisfied with the job he is doing, and latinos which make up a large voting bloc, not to mention Marco Rubio showed he can dominate a campaign in Florida which is a huge swing state.
Several of them were innocent and he refused to pardon them. Oh well?
13 years ago at 9:11 pmseveral = 2…meaning 99% Deserved it. TFTC.
13 years ago at 9:18 pmKilling innocent people. NF.
13 years ago at 10:05 pm^ thank you.
13 years ago at 10:55 pmEveryone in jail is innocent.
13 years ago at 11:03 pmIf you knew anything about Texas, which none of y’all clearly do, you’d know that the governor cannot pardon. Pardons are controlled by the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
13 years ago at 12:12 am^Frat OClock, good call. They must be ‘innocent’!
13 years ago at 12:24 amI never said I knew anything about Texas’ prison system, but letting an innocent man die via the death penalty is fucking terrible.
13 years ago at 7:55 amLocking up all of those innocent people in prison is fucking terrible.
13 years ago at 10:39 amWhen did this site become so fucking liberal? You sound like a bunch of pussies!
13 years ago at 3:39 pm^Since when is fucking killing people conservative, asshole.
13 years ago at 4:30 pm^Seriously. I wasn’t aware that killing innocent people was FaF. My bad.
13 years ago at 6:05 pmthat was 1hr 45min of political suicide. he’s done.
13 years ago at 9:24 pm“Other states are tryin to abolish the death penalty… Mines putting in an express lane.”
13 years ago at 9:24 pm“you caught me, you caught the tater”
13 years ago at 9:32 pmclassis ron white
13 years ago at 9:55 pm“They were profiling, they pulled over everyone who was driving on… that sidewalk.”
13 years ago at 10:40 pm“I was drunk in a bar. They threw me into public.”
13 years ago at 8:58 amWhile I can see how it is justified, don’t you think it is hypocritical to talk about the “sanctity” of all human life and support the death penalty?
13 years ago at 9:29 pmunborn babies haven’t had a chance to live yet. Criminals ruined their right to live. It’s not a double standard, it’s believing in an equal pursuit of life.
13 years ago at 9:32 pm^this
13 years ago at 9:33 pmCorrect. His misunderstanding of “justice” and disregard for liberty is about as NF as it gets.
13 years ago at 9:33 pmSo we should waste our tax money on people who rape, kill, steal, or all of the above?! I would rather spend less money on killing them, than spending more on keeping them alive in a prison that may let them out on parole in the future. Criminals lost their sanctity when they decided to defile the law. Unborn babies do not have a choice. Their lives are decided for them. Criminals make a choice. That choice has consequences.
13 years ago at 9:46 pmIsn’t even more hypocritical to be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty?
13 years ago at 9:55 pmcapital punishment should be left to the discretion of individual states. No federal mandates.
13 years ago at 9:57 pmSir Fratling,
there have been several conclusive studies proving that the death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life.
The cost is because death row inmates are given unlimited appeals, which adds up really fast.
13 years ago at 9:59 pm^Studying the French Revolution this semester. They had some really cheap ways to enforce the death penalty.
13 years ago at 10:28 pm^I didn’t know that last part.
I personally think that we should kill them in such a way that we can give their organs to someone who needs them. I don’t think you can after lethal injection, but if you put their feet in a pan of water and shoot 100 volts of electricity through them you would be able to save a few other lives with the organs that were able to stand the shock.
And I’m sure there are medical flaws in that argument, it’s just an idea.
13 years ago at 10:58 pmDirected at scbro*
13 years ago at 11:00 pmRonFrat, just gonna be that guy and say 100V isn’t enough to kill you, considering many people can recount sticking their finger in a 120V electrical socket.
13 years ago at 11:35 pmYou’re right. But you get my drift.
13 years ago at 11:53 pmThe voltage isn’t what kill you, it’s the amps. Tasers usually have something like 50,000 volts, but they won’t kill you because the amps are so low.
Also, about the organ donating. They had an episode of The Simpsons on this very issue. Basically, it’s never a good idea to use organs of criminals on civilians.
13 years ago at 11:55 pm*Pro-abortion rights not pro-abortion piphinest. You would have to be a little messed up in the head to be pro-abortion…
13 years ago at 7:13 amI agree with Keynes on this one. Both the death penalty and abortion laws should be regulated by states rather than the federal government.
13 years ago at 7:55 amDepending on which state you are in, it is actually more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in prison for decades. There are capital punishment panels, mandatory appeals, discretionary appeals, evidence reviews based on new technology. It is truly, a motherfucker. Laws written by lawyers to benefit lawyers, TFM.
13 years ago at 11:46 amA box of bullets seems like a cost effective way.
13 years ago at 10:41 pmSorry. When I said this it was directed towards the original statement not year round douche’s comment.
13 years ago at 9:35 pmgood correction. And tonight made me even more pleased that I don’t live in the “lonestar state”
13 years ago at 9:37 pmWell Year Around ‘douche’ says take a lap for missing the reply button fuck wad.
13 years ago at 7:43 amAll you need to look at is the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. The man was innocent, and Rick Perry won’t even allow the investigation into the facts years after his death.
13 years ago at 10:19 pmding ding ding
13 years ago at 11:35 pmI think that is a better example as to why Rick Perry is a bad politician. Cool, fratty,but bad. And now que the “fuck you” comments and the “he creates jobs” comments. The guy supported fucking al gore. AL GORE. Against the Gov. from his own state. And now hes extremely conservative? ha
13 years ago at 11:55 pmeven Reagan was once a democrat.
13 years ago at 12:21 amIt’s not like Reagan was a bastion of conservative principles anyway so what’s your point?
13 years ago at 8:53 amRick Perry also said in the debate last night, when talking about mandating the HPV vaccine, that he “will always err on the side of saving lives.” Suuuuuure.
And this is the same guy who pushed for bailouts and stimulus funds, and also supports the idea of welfare for illegals. WHY do you all like him again? If you were true conservatives, you would know better.
13 years ago at 9:16 am^He dealt with a Democratiically dominated Congress for 8 years. He did what he could to advance conservative principles. Now fuck off, child.
13 years ago at 10:29 amCandC is actually more correct than not. In 2011, Reagan would have a hard time winning a Republican primary anywhere given his now-considered-moderate credentials. Also, he’s dead but I suppose that didn’t stop Mel Carnahan from beating John Ashcroft.
13 years ago at 11:50 am^ Thanks for the nod, sometimes I feel like I’m talking to mouth-breathers on this site.
13 years ago at 11:53 amReagan increased military spending, cut taxes, cut welfare, was pro-life, death penalty, and business. He helped bring down the Berlin Wall and defeat communism, and pissed off liberals as a hobby because well, fuck liberals. So what part of Ronald Fucking Reagan was “moderate”
13 years ago at 4:09 pmIt seems to me that giving the government the power to execute its citizenry flies in the face of everything conservatives stand for. How can one be against an “overreaching” government while also supporting them in policies that ultimately give them control over whether someone lives or dies?
13 years ago at 10:20 pmBecause the GOP as we know it today is lacking morality and common logic….a new conservative movement is forming. You can’t preach the sanctity of life while praising the death penalty. You can’t call for a decrease in federal gov’t while waging new wars and denying tax increases. Sorry if this upsets your father’s way of thinking, but it just doesn’t work (not talking to you southeastfrat). We cannot just continue our aggressive nature and not expect taxes to be raised. You guys pick one: taxes or defense.
13 years ago at 10:53 pmSo what you’re saying is that if someone kills a bunch of people, it would be in America’s best interest to let them live? Giving the government that power is in line with conservative belief because we believe in punishing those who have done wrong to society. If our society is to remain free, safe, and secure, those people who threaten that must be removed from society.
13 years ago at 11:01 pm^this. blindly following the GOP and outdated economic theories. NF
13 years ago at 11:02 pmFratlunteer: all that I am saying is that if we are serious about getting the libs out of power then we need to be consistent in our beliefs. Fact of the matter is that the general view of the “conservative party” is that we are pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, pro-national defense (re: war), yet anti-tax. This will simply not work. If we want to war with other countries, we need higher taxes to pay for it. If we want lower taxes, we need to stop spending (obviously along with cutting rediculous entitlement spending, which nobody but democrats and homeless people think is right). The hardline “no tax, more war” approach et cetera can’t last….
13 years ago at 11:32 pm^I would say we are VERY serious about getting the libs out of power considering members of Congress were willing to let the country default just to spite the President.
13 years ago at 11:39 pmI respect that point CandC. Taking that big of a step was definitely a ballsy move. But that more than anything was a political power play. To have real, true respect conservatives need to start doing what we say, not just spouting what are “traditional values.” Saying that we value life above all else and then killing those (who admittedly commit heinous crimes) is hypocritical, and will hurt us (and Rick Perry, I believe) in the eyes of those who truly think about who they will vote for.
13 years ago at 12:07 amIt is possible to preach a high value on life and still support the death penalty. I value the lives of other Americans. I desire a healthy, prosperous, and happy society. There are criminals (murderers, rapists, and child molesters) who do not value the lives of their fellow Americans. When they commit those acts and proven guilty in a court of law, in my opinion they have forgone their rights as valuable member of society. Ending the life of another should have the consequences of one’s own life being taken.
Yes, it is more expensive to execute a death row inmate, but there ARE occasions when money must be spent to make our society safe and secure.
You are right about the pro-war vs lower taxes conflict. To some extent, I think Perry and Huntsman were moving towards resolution of that problem in belief. Huntsman said we need to focus on nation-building HERE and not overseas, and Perry said the American people want a clear definition of American interests in foreign conflicts.
That’s a (admittedly small) step towards saying, “look, it would be great if everyone was a Democracy, but that doesn’t do us any good if ours fails.” We need to take money out of foreign “interests” (especially Libya) and focus on fixing our own problems. Stop sending foreign aid to Africa and help our homeless veterans first.
But those are my beliefs, and I do agree that the GOP needs to work on that to appease the on-the-fence and independent voters.
That being said, the death penalty will likely be a very small issue in the grand scheme of things in the election. A candidates stance on that will not be a deciding factor for more than a very small percentage of voters.
13 years ago at 12:40 am… just realized how long that was. Should have put it in the addy topic in discussions I suppose. Oh well.
13 years ago at 12:42 amI have a question. Since when did the government decide to hand out the death penalty? Last time I checked all they decided was when to have it as an option.
13 years ago at 1:36 amFrat O’Clock: one could argue that the government is condoning the death penalty because of the laws in place that allow it to happen, or deciding when to have it as an option. Aside from that, many states, like Alabama (google judicial override), allow judges to decide the penalty or override the decisions of the jury. In the case of Alabama, over 90% of overrides have resulted in judges overriding the verdict of life decided by the jury in favor of the death penalty. As judges are part of the government, this is the government essentially deciding whether one lives or dies.
Also Sewanee: couldn’t have put it better myself.
13 years ago at 7:51 pmConservatives support the right to pursue life. Once someone commits a crime worthy of the death penalty based on the penalties of that state, they forfeit the right to continue to pursue life. The reason conservatives are against abortion is because the child has no ability to pursue life. Those on death row had their chance to live and forfeited that chance, unborn children never had that chance.
13 years ago at 1:06 am^exactly. That’s what drives me nuts about these fucking PETA hippies. Anti-killing animals and convicted murderers, but if you’ve got an innocent fetus growing in your uterus, by all means, kill it.
13 years ago at 5:53 am^^ But see, that’s the whole argument people are making. Some people feel that if people say they value life, then someone’s life shouldn’t be forfeited from his acts. We’re not talking about existing laws, but rather the philosophy of the whole issue.
13 years ago at 8:57 amSo what if a 16-year-old girl gets raped and become pregnant? Her “right to pursue life” then becomes jeopardized, but if abortions are illegal, what can she do about it? The “right to pursue life” bullshit is a terrible argument. It is possible to be pro-life in your personal beliefs, but pro-choice at the same time — for example, I don’t like the idea of abortion, but I dislike the idea of the government telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body even more. Real supporters of LIBERTY should support a person’s right to choose.
13 years ago at 9:20 amIt’s not HER body you fuck. It’s her fucking child’s. And how is this 16-year old girl’s life going to end because she’s having a baby? She can’t give it up for adoption to an infertile couple or angelina jolie?
13 years ago at 10:43 amAgreed Fratabama. Liberals love to use the rape case argument but that is such a small percentage of abortions it really doesn”t hold too much weight, especially when, as you said, she can give it up for adoption.
13 years ago at 11:50 amWoman’s choice. Let her have it. You’re not the one who has to carry it around for 9 months. Honestly that’s what sickens me about the abortion debate, is most participants for pro-life are men. There’s a reason that the majority of the women involved in the debate at all want to be able to choose–it’s their body.
13 years ago at 11:57 amSeriously? The “rape case” argument isn’t even the point, so call it a liberal copout that “doesn’t hold much weight” all you want. Rape or no rape, the issue I hold is with the federal government having power over a human being’s personal choice. You don’t want the government telling you what do with your guns or your money, but you’re fine with them telling a woman what to do with her BODY and her very livelihood? I want the government not only out of my pockets, but out of my personal life in general. True supporters of the Constitution should realize that America is about personal liberty and freedom in ALL regards — not just the ones that are convenient to your holier-than-thou agenda.
13 years ago at 2:05 pmYes, I believe that in the cases of a rape or a fallopian pregnancy in which the mother will most likely die giving birth, are the only exceptions to the rule. In any other case, you made the decision to have sex knowing you could get pregnant, so you need to lie in the bed that you’ve made. But a rape pregnancy is not the woman’s fault and a dangerous pregnancy does no good for the baby considering if the mother dies during childbirth, then that’s just no good.
13 years ago at 2:39 pmLonestar: if we as conservatives truly supported the right to pursue life, then we should be outraged at the possibility that an innocent person could be put to death at the hands of the state, not dismiss this fact and chalk it up to collateral damage. If innocent people are put to death as a result of the system, then it is inherently flawed and must be repaired or replaced.
13 years ago at 8:00 pmJust like the rape issue, the amount of innocent people put to death is a very small amount. You cannot legislate based on a huge minority.
13 years ago at 1:06 amAs far as the “it is her body argument,” a woman may have to suffer through 9 months of pregnancy, that is not a good enough reason to give up a child that will live for 70 years. If she is not prepared to have a child, she should either consider that before getting pregnant or give it up after its birth.
13 years ago at 1:08 amWaking up in between 4 naked girls. TFM
13 years ago at 8:18 amI’m taking my second lap already so fuck you
13 years ago at 8:18 amPerry may be a TFM but he is definitely not a good candidate. I acknowledge that I will vote for him over Barack Obama if he gets the nomination, but not only would I be a little nervous about his abilities I would be more nervous about his chances of winning. I know all of you are probably TFTC or some gay shit but read Mitt Romney’s plan. I really liked it compared to other economic policies I have studied and that is what I am currently getting my Master’s in. I think we all need to realize we need to pick someone who can win and a Romney/Rubio ticket can do that by playing to conservatives that will want Obama out, independents that are dissatisfied with the job he is doing, and latinos which make up a large voting bloc, not to mention Marco Rubio showed he can dominate a campaign in Florida which is a huge swing state.
13 years ago at 9:01 ammaking sense TFM
13 years ago at 12:25 pm