<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Republican Debate in California</title>
	<atom:link href="http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439</link>
	<description>two kingdoms, hundreds of thousands of miles</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:24:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Starfox</title>
		<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14157</link>
		<dc:creator>Starfox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14157</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;I don’t care about Republican purity. Cain stands for some very good things about America: service to the country. I think that he has a sense of history and knows that things are not as simple as the headliners propose.&lt;/i&gt;

He stands for some very good things, but you can only name one?  

&lt;i&gt;Running against the Supreme Court is a futile thing. Leave the constitutional interpretation stuff out of the election equation.&lt;/i&gt;

Ok, the whole appointing judges thing is silly, but constitutional interpretation is THE fundamental question of the election.  It is the highest law of the land, and McCain has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution twice; once as a soldier, and once as a Senator/Congressman.  His record at taking that oath seriously in the later is sorely lacking and as such he is unfit to be President.

Ron Paul is the only one up on that stage who says what he believes, and has the consistent record to back it up.  And he is the only up there with virtually unimpeachable moral character.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>I don’t care about Republican purity. Cain stands for some very good things about America: service to the country. I think that he has a sense of history and knows that things are not as simple as the headliners propose.</i></p>
<p>He stands for some very good things, but you can only name one?  </p>
<p><i>Running against the Supreme Court is a futile thing. Leave the constitutional interpretation stuff out of the election equation.</i></p>
<p>Ok, the whole appointing judges thing is silly, but constitutional interpretation is THE fundamental question of the election.  It is the highest law of the land, and McCain has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution twice; once as a soldier, and once as a Senator/Congressman.  His record at taking that oath seriously in the later is sorely lacking and as such he is unfit to be President.</p>
<p>Ron Paul is the only one up on that stage who says what he believes, and has the consistent record to back it up.  And he is the only up there with virtually unimpeachable moral character.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay D</title>
		<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14156</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14156</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Paul, I like his positions on strict constitutional interpretation, but I also thing he is half-nutty on other stuff.
Lawrence&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Strict constitutional interpretation stuff is Paul's whole shtick. I honestly don't know what you mean by "other stuff."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Paul, I like his positions on strict constitutional interpretation, but I also thing he is half-nutty on other stuff.<br />
Lawrence</p></blockquote>
<p>Strict constitutional interpretation stuff is Paul&#8217;s whole shtick. I honestly don&#8217;t know what you mean by &#8220;other stuff.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norman Teigen</title>
		<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14155</link>
		<dc:creator>Norman Teigen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14155</guid>
		<description>I am becoming a McCain guy.  I was never far away but I'm in his camp for sure.   I think that the electorate is tired of recycling Bush-Clinton-Bush.  I think that Obama has much more electorate appeal than Clinton at this point.   Obama's endorsement by the Kennedys doesn't mean a thing to me.   That new frontier garbage sent me and a lot of others off to Viet-Nam which was a much nastier war than this one is.

I don't care about Republican purity.  Cain stands for some very good things about America:   service to the country.  I think that he has a sense of history and knows that things are not as simple as the headliners propose.

Mitt Romney is the subject of endless jokes on Letterman about how he appears:  as the closer at a car dealership, as the funeral director, as the guy who . . . . and on and on.

Running against the Supreme Court is a futile thing. Leave the constitutional interpretation stuff out of the election equation.

 Vote for McCain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am becoming a McCain guy.  I was never far away but I&#8217;m in his camp for sure.   I think that the electorate is tired of recycling Bush-Clinton-Bush.  I think that Obama has much more electorate appeal than Clinton at this point.   Obama&#8217;s endorsement by the Kennedys doesn&#8217;t mean a thing to me.   That new frontier garbage sent me and a lot of others off to Viet-Nam which was a much nastier war than this one is.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t care about Republican purity.  Cain stands for some very good things about America:   service to the country.  I think that he has a sense of history and knows that things are not as simple as the headliners propose.</p>
<p>Mitt Romney is the subject of endless jokes on Letterman about how he appears:  as the closer at a car dealership, as the funeral director, as the guy who . . . . and on and on.</p>
<p>Running against the Supreme Court is a futile thing. Leave the constitutional interpretation stuff out of the election equation.</p>
<p> Vote for McCain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lawrence</title>
		<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14154</link>
		<dc:creator>Lawrence</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14154</guid>
		<description>Hmmm... 

McCain, I find absolutely gratting.  I read somewhere that his platform is only about 4% different from Hillary Clinton's.  And I find that not a little unnerving.

Paul, I like his positions on strict constitutional interpretation, but I also thing he is half-nutty on other stuff.

Huckabee, I just can't decide if I like him or not.  I want to like the openly Christian side of him, but his political history leaves me somewhat underwhelmed.

Romney, looks really good to me right now.  Good, as in the lesser of the evils.  I really never thought I would come to the point of seeing him as my candidate of choice.  But there is still a long time between now and the final election.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230; </p>
<p>McCain, I find absolutely gratting.  I read somewhere that his platform is only about 4% different from Hillary Clinton&#8217;s.  And I find that not a little unnerving.</p>
<p>Paul, I like his positions on strict constitutional interpretation, but I also thing he is half-nutty on other stuff.</p>
<p>Huckabee, I just can&#8217;t decide if I like him or not.  I want to like the openly Christian side of him, but his political history leaves me somewhat underwhelmed.</p>
<p>Romney, looks really good to me right now.  Good, as in the lesser of the evils.  I really never thought I would come to the point of seeing him as my candidate of choice.  But there is still a long time between now and the final election.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14153</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14153</guid>
		<description>oh yeah...  forgot this:
:-) 
&#62;!&#60;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh yeah&#8230;  forgot this:<br />
 <img src='http://necessaryroughness.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
&gt;!&lt;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14152</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:47:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://necessaryroughness.org/archives/1439#comment-14152</guid>
		<description>HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT JUSTICE O'CONNOR!!!  DON"T YOU REALIZE THAT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS ONLY NOMINATE UBER-CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ROBOTS TO THE COURT!?!?!?!

WOULD KERRY BEEN BETTER?????

Come on Dan, get in step....you're missing a few beats there...

[/sarcasm]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT JUSTICE O&#8217;CONNOR!!!  DON&#8221;T YOU REALIZE THAT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS ONLY NOMINATE UBER-CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ROBOTS TO THE COURT!?!?!?!</p>
<p>WOULD KERRY BEEN BETTER?????</p>
<p>Come on Dan, get in step&#8230;.you&#8217;re missing a few beats there&#8230;</p>
<p>[/sarcasm]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
