DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:50 am**

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ~ Benjamin Franklin

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:07 am**

Ben Franklin was a wise man, but far from perfect in his vision. It would be interesting to see what remedies he offered for the poor, once the Industrial Age got started in earnest......

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:26 am**

First off don't get your feathers ruffled there rooster, I'm far from your son. I could go through that statement right there and maybe point out some transgressions against our creeds as Americans but I won't

What is so different about your scenario from the course of human history?

Because, our foundations were supposedly set to be different, but at one point in time deviated. Yet, all I hear is how the next President is gonna save us all, and you saying it's impossible, that our political leaders are really impotent to do anything in a world where cash is king. Who's responsible for the misinformation?

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:46 am**

I don't think people are stupid or uneducated at all. I think they were duped.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:59 pm**

flip wrote:Because, our foundations were supposedly set to be different, but at one point in time deviated.

what are you talking about? Our foundations were established by and large by rather wealthy landowners.
Our original election laws enabled only white, male property owners to vote. This thing has been set up from the get-go by and for the well off, with a passing nod to a higher degree of 'fairness' for all, but hardly to grant equal power to every man and woman.

Yet, all I hear is how the next President is gonna save us all, and you saying it's impossible, that our political leaders are really impotent to do anything in a world where cash is king. Who's responsible for the misinformation?

don't know if it so much misinformation as lack of comprehension of stark realities.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:12 pm**

Top Gun wrote:
woodchip wrote:I'm just wonder how 40 years of welfare trained a certain portion of the masses to be good little repeat voters for the liberal agenda. What is a direct reflection today is no where what it was in the 50 after my parents generation came out of the Great Depression and WW2. So I'll refute you and say it is politicians with seemingly good intentions but who are ever only into being re-elected, that have trained a large enough portion of the population to be dependent on and vote for the democrats. These dependent voters contribute nothing and steal from our over-all economic security yet their vote counts equally as a hard working person, who does contribute. Democratic shape shifters such as yourself see nothing wrong with this and in fact keep promoting it with the amnesty for illegal aliens being just one example.
...do you know anything at all about people who may happen to find themselves on welfare at some point, or are you just pulling Glenn Beck ranting points out of your ass?

I'm not talking about "at some point". I'm talking about people who make it a way of life. This includes both Blacks and Whites who do this. Women getting knocked up just so they can get more ADC money is a case in point.

And if you want to start denigrating my posts I can return the favor.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:23 pm**

flip wrote:Because, our foundations were supposedly set to be different, but at one point in time deviated.

Not so much as you'd think. The Founding Fathers were comprised of the upper-class minority themselves, and there are writings from several of them expressing apprehension over how the "teeming masses" would exert their will. This apprehension was reflected in the checks and balances written into the three branches of government, so that one currently-powerful group couldn't completely dominate, and perhaps even more so in the fact that the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures instead of popular vote. Many of them wrote at length about the ideals of self-governance, but I'm sure they were thinking more in terms of people like themselves than of, say, rural farmers.

Aaaaand slick beat me.

woodchip wrote:I'm not talking about "at some point". I'm talking about people who make it a way of life. This includes both Blacks and Whites who do this. Women getting knocked up just so they can get more ADC money is a case in point.

And if you want to start denigrating my posts I can return the favor.

And what percentage of people on welfare at any given time are milking the system in that matter? Do you have any hard evidence whatsoever to prove that it's a major problem, or are you just basing that on anecdotal talking points?

And I don't see how I'm denigrating everything...I'm calling you out for making weighted statements without backing them up. If you start backing them up, then I'll gladly stop.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:28 pm**

what are you talking about? Our foundations were established by and large by rather wealthy landowners.
Our original election laws enabled only white, male property owners to vote. This thing has been set up from the get-go by and for the well off, with a passing nod to a higher degree of 'fairness' for all, but hardly to grant equal power to every man and woman.

Well, they better hope the masses don't figure that out because it is definitely not the ★■◆● they spout. I was force fed some bull★■◆● all the way through school is what happened.

don't know if it so much misinformation as lack of comprehension of stark realities.

Let's see what we can do about that, because I have a feeling the social political environment is fixing to change dramatically and I'm not adequately being represented.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:41 pm**

Top Gun wrote:And what percentage of people on welfare at any given time are milking the system in that matter? Do you have any hard evidence whatsoever to prove that it's a major problem, or are you just basing that on anecdotal talking points?

And I don't see how I'm denigrating everything...I'm calling you out for making weighted statements without backing them up. If you start backing them up, then I'll gladly stop.

sort of what I was asking him to clarify, and so far, the backup hasn't been forthcoming. Sounds like yet another finger-pointing episode, setting up strawmen who don't really exist in substantial numbers.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:42 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:I'm just wonder how 40 years of welfare trained a certain portion of the masses to be good little repeat voters for the liberal agenda. What is a direct reflection today is no where what it was in the 50 after my parents generation came out of the Great Depression and WW2.
and yet, theirs was the first generation born and raised under Socialist principles within the American system(graduated income tax, Social Security, etc).

Social security, if put in a seperate investment fund (no not necessarily stocks), would not be a socialist program as the money comes directly from worker/employer contributions

callmeslick wrote:
So I'll refute you and say it is politicians with seemingly good intentions but who are ever only into being re-elected, that have trained a large enough portion of the population to be dependent on and vote for the democrats.
I suppose you can also demonstrate how these insidious forces have 'trained' the public to:
1. Not value education anywhere near enough.
2. Become a pool of drooling morons who can name American Idol contestants, yet not be able to
name their own Congresspersons, focus on the every move of Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton, yet not
be able to name any recent Supreme Court appointee.

No argument there

callmeslick wrote:
These dependent voters contribute nothing and steal from our over-all economic security yet their vote counts equally as a hard working person, who does contribute.
And who, by way of description, would you place in this supposedly huge group of 'non-contributing' members of society? Sure, there is a small percentage who can always be found to be taking unfair advantage of Social Safety nets, but wouldn't you agree that the vast percentage of your fellow citizens work fairly hard to provide for their family, and that most people contribute back to the society to about the same degree(essentially nothing, IMHO, but that's another thread topic for later)?

Well lets see:
Drug abusers
Women on ADC (life long)
More to the point tho, over 40% do not pay anything in the way of taxes even tho they work.
And yes I agree most people work

Democratic shape shifters such as yourself see nothing wrong with this and in fact keep promoting it with the amnesty for illegal aliens being just one example.

callmeslick wrote:ooh, the scary, scary aliens! Once again, another topic for another day.

nothing scary, they just have to be treated like the law breakers they are.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 1:57 pm**

Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'm not talking about "at some point". I'm talking about people who make it a way of life. This includes both Blacks and Whites who do this. Women getting knocked up just so they can get more ADC money is a case in point.

And if you want to start denigrating my posts I can return the favor.
And what percentage of people on welfare at any given time are milking the system in that matter? Do you have any hard evidence whatsoever to prove that it's a major problem, or are you just basing that on anecdotal talking points?.

I guess you are just to lazy or too dumb to look it up yourself:

"The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percenta ... on_welfare

Top Gun wrote:And I don't see how I'm denigrating everything...I'm calling you out for making weighted statements without backing them up. If you start backing them up, then I'll gladly stop.

If you can't see then I suggest you get some glasses. Slick can make a reply and make his point without name calling. To bad you don't seem to have the control he has.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:04 pm**

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 2:34 pm**

woodchip wrote:
Top Gun wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'm not talking about "at some point". I'm talking about people who make it a way of life. This includes both Blacks and Whites who do this. Women getting knocked up just so they can get more ADC money is a case in point.

And if you want to start denigrating my posts I can return the favor.
And what percentage of people on welfare at any given time are milking the system in that matter? Do you have any hard evidence whatsoever to prove that it's a major problem, or are you just basing that on anecdotal talking points?.
I guess you are just to lazy or too dumb to look it up yourself:

"The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percenta ... on_welfare

That's...the total number of people on welfare. Not the number of people abusing the system in some way. Still waiting.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:10 pm**

It’s hard to say just how many people abuse the welfare system, but as someone that has actually seen the evidence of large numbers of people doing just that…I would bet numbers are larger than you would be willing to admit, or than a society should tolerate.

When I lived in North Philly “working the system” was common knowledge and even bragging rights. And anyone who wanted to witness this, could just go watch the line form outside the house where the lady lived, who used to exchange cash for food stamps, so people could buy things like booze and drugs, every month on “check day”.

The other big abuse was present everywhere, that being where the father works, but doesn’t officially live with the mother…that was the case with my next door neighbor, and many other families as well. He was never around when the social worker came to visit…wink.

I could show you cases in where the system is being abused in the place where I live now…but this kind of thing is off my radar now, because my health and other concerns take up more priority.

Asking someone to provide numbers on how much abuse is out there, is pretty much a non sequitur, as the government does not have these numbers…doh!

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 7:32 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
CUDA wrote:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. ~ Benjamin Franklin
I'll bet Benjamin Franklin never thought that American companies would be sending a majority of american ideas overseas to be manufactured by non-american workers. Almost everyone has either a cell phone, iphone, ipad, itouch, dvr player, or all of the above but how many are built in factories located in the United States? Where are those HD televisions being built? Why are machinists and production people out of work.

Job are sent over seas mainly for Cheap labor. it costs too much to manufacture in the US, (ahem Unions for starters). try to manufacture all those products in the US and see how much those cell phone, iphone, ipad, itouch, and dvr players, start costing you

Bee[/quote]

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:15 pm**

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:59 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:....
So tell me, why were republicans so bent out of shape when Obama wanted to regulate Wall St, and big corporations......knowing what I just said. This is what I don't understand.

Bee

What regulation of Wall Street that Obama proposed would have done anything about jobs sent overseas?

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:33 pm**

I love how the consumer is always left out of the formula.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:56 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:So tell me, why were republicans so bent out of shape when Obama wanted to regulate Wall St, and big corporations......knowing what I just said. This is what I don't understand.

Bee

Because it was Obama's idea. We can't have any secret muslim Kenyan socialicommuninazifascist ideas in this country.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:03 am**

It's because he is after something different, Bee. Not just a necessary solution to a real problem. For a good answer one would need to look at the differences in social and political doctrine between the ultra-liberal community organizer and the conservative who recognizes the need for checks or common-sense restrictions on business to keep it from infringing on the rights of the individual.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:57 am**

Spidey wrote:It’s hard to say just how many people abuse the welfare system, but as someone that has actually seen the evidence of large numbers of people doing just that…I would bet numbers are larger than you would be willing to admit, or than a society should tolerate.

From my experience, the percentage who legitimately use/need welfare/unemployment outweigh the percentage who abuse it.

I've seen and known people in both camps, and most folks just used it to survive during hard times. This was just as true for the destitute families as the middle-class folks I've known. Ethics don't differ significantly by income class.

Honestly, I'd put the percentage who abuse welfare/unemployment at roughly the percentage of those who cheat on their taxes or who fudge insurance claims. It's the same mindset.

If I were to make a guess... perhaps 30% (roughly the same as the percentage who fudge/cheat on insurance claims). Note that this includes everything from minor fudging to full-blown fraud.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:58 pm**

Top Gun wrote:
woodchip wrote: stuff
That's...the total number of people on welfare. Not the number of people abusing the system in some way. Still waiting.

And just how would one comprise those statistics? Lets see, we could send out a questionnaire with the question:

Do you abuse your welfare benefits:

A) Very rarely
B) Sometimes
C) All the time
D) Not at all.

I bet we would get a real accurate accounting...........................

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:56 pm**

Question Foil, just out of curiosity…Have you ever lived in the slums, and for how long?

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:10 pm**

woodchip wrote: And just how would one comprise those statistics? Lets see, we could send out a questionnaire with the question:

Do you abuse your welfare benefits:

A) Very rarely
B) Sometimes
C) All the time
D) Not at all.

I bet we would get a real accurate accounting...........................

Well, one could, y'know, perform something called "investigation" and, like, check up on these people to see what their situation really is. Just a little something called "research" you may have heard of. But because no such research apparently exists, or at the very least you yourself have never seen any, you're essentially declaring that you really were coming up with those statements out of nowhere. Good to know.

And as the contrasting experiences of Spidey and Foil demonstrated, while anecdotal experience works on a personal level, it doesn't necessarily hold up on a systemic level, and thus it can't be considered proper evidence. "I know a guy who..." can't be extended to a national trend.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:14 pm**

Believe me my experiences were/are not “anecdotal”.

Did you miss where I pointed out the “witnessing” or “actually seen” part?

Don’t talk Bullcrap hearsay, never did never will. And if I ever did I would state is as such. Foil’s numbers are based on analogies, parallels and assumptions…I never tried to place a number.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:55 pm**

There are families that are generations deep into living off of welfare, foodstamps, etc. There are also countless studies done all the time about welfare perpetuating itself and the many facets of the welfare-to-work programs and how they are more effective with slightly disadvantaged ie; high school diploma versus grade school drop outs etc. Those studies show the 'lifers' (lazy ignorant fucker escaping reality) certainly exist and it is usually in the inner cities that this happens. They have their own culture that becomes a support group for lifers.
I have no clue what the percentage is or how to stop it without removing the children and enlisting them in some kind of civil service/education camp that would break the cycle and remove them from that despicable 'lifer support group' environment.
Not a bad idea really... we could call it Camp Bootstrap.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:48 pm**

Spidey wrote:Believe me my experiences were/are not “anecdotal”.

Did you miss where I pointed out the “witnessing” or “actually seen” part?

Don’t talk Bullcrap hearsay, never did never will. And if I ever did I would state is as such. Foil’s numbers are based on analogies, parallels and assumptions…I never tried to place a number.

I meant that term as anecdotes of your personal experience, not things that you happened to hear about yourself.

Will Robinson wrote:There are families that are generations deep into living off of welfare, foodstamps, etc. There are also countless studies done all the time about welfare perpetuating itself and the many facets of the welfare-to-work programs and how they are more effective with slightly disadvantaged ie; high school diploma versus grade school drop outs etc. Those studies show the 'lifers' (lazy ignorant fucker escaping reality) certainly exist and it is usually in the inner cities that this happens. They have their own culture that becomes a support group for lifers.
I have no clue what the percentage is or how to stop it without removing the children and enlisting them in some kind of civil service/education camp that would break the cycle and remove them from that despicable 'lifer support group' environment.
Not a bad idea really... we could call it Camp Bootstrap.

But again, Will, not really knowing how many people are abusing the system as opposed to legitimately relying on it means that statements generalizing "most" welfare recipients as being in that former class are fairly meaningless. (If you happen to have links to any of the studies you've seen, I'd be interested in reading them.) For instance, it doesn't surprise me at all that people with a high school diploma would be much more likely to get off of welfare than those who dropped out during grade school, simply because their greater education level leaves many more options open to them. I'm sure one could glean all sorts of other interesting comparisons like that too, if one had enough data to go through. In the end, though, I guess the part of the argument that stumps me is the suggestion that welfare as whole isn't something worthwhile just because certain people may be able to take advantage of it in a negative manner.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:30 pm**

Considering the state of things, I'd go on food stamps, welfare and medicaid if I could. I'd see it as recouping some of my losses.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:35 pm**

Well someone might just consider the welfare system as it exists today as not being worthwhile, because not only do people abuse the system…the welfare system abuses society.

I’ll give you an example…(there are more)

Why should I migrate to where the low paying jobs are, when I can stay at home, and get my rent, healthcare and food subsidized by the taxpayer…and not even have to work. This country actually produces the types of jobs people at the lower end of the ladder should have to take, but everyone is convinced we need the immigrants to do those, and hell…why not…you would have to be crazy to take those. Right?

It’s really a crazy state of affairs if you think about it. Unless you have a political slant, of course.

Welfare is a great idea in concept, but in practice…just a big fail.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:09 pm**

Your exactly right Spidey. Makes me mad enough I hardly speak of it. I remember initially, early 1990's, the argument was let the illegals have the manual labor jobs that no one else wanted. That job ended up being mine. Fact was though, that construction work was a great job. Sure it was hard work, like being paid to go to the gym, and you had to deal with the elements. Besides that, it was great money. I could start at 7 or 8 a.m if I decided. Take a break whenever and however many times I liked. Went to lunch exactly when I decided to and left when I was tired. I never made less than $1500.00 a week doing it and loved ever damn minute of it. I guess I'm no fortunate one.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:28 pm**

No posts were found because the word american is not contained in any post.

Someone should really fix the search function.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:50 pm**

flip wrote:Considering the state of things, I'd go on food stamps, welfare and medicaid if I could. I'd see it as recouping some of my losses.

I've had people say that to me. I feel like that course of action could compromise your ability to stand/argue against it, in more than one way. Its also a weak justification for the hypocrisy of doing the very thing we bemoan. Better to get rid of the problem, than convince ourselves that we might at least benefit from a problem that we in essence concede will not be solved.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:09 pm**

True enough Thorne.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:09 pm**

Top Gun wrote:...
I'm sure one could glean all sorts of other interesting comparisons like that too, if one had enough data to go through.

Here is more than anyone should ever have to know about it...clickyclicky

Top Gun wrote:In the end, though, I guess the part of the argument that stumps me is the suggestion that welfare as whole isn't something worthwhile just because certain people may be able to take advantage of it in a negative manner.

I don't make that argument but I will make the argument that a certain party owes a large block of votes every cycle for creating the false premise that if not for them the welfare recipients would be left to starve and even more diabolical they pander to the sentiment that if someone wants to they and their children and their children, etc. can live on the redistribution of wealth forever because prosperity for some robs them of their opportunity.

Example of that was when Rep. Maxine Waters D L.A./Watts district suggested that young black men in her district shouldn't be incarcerated for selling crack cocaine because it was the only job white men had left for them to have.
When a U.S. Congressman/woman can make that statement in a public forum and not be ridiculed out of office by the media and public outcry we have a SERIOUS problem and it manifests itself into a perpetual class of welfare/democrat party dependents not because they can't make it but because they rationalize not trying to make it with that kind of pimping that Waters and others perpetrate on the unfortunate.
I don't know what percentage of the truly deserving welfare recipients they represent but no matter how many it is, it is that many too many...

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:14 pm**

Spidey wrote:Why should I migrate to where the low paying jobs are, when I can stay at home, and get my rent, healthcare and food subsidized by the taxpayer…and not even have to work.

How can you say something like this without knowing what it's like on the other side of the coin?

Welfare isn't exactly this cushy ride you're talking about. Dropping from what you make now to what the government thinks will get you by means you have to make a lot of sacrifices. You like your car? nope, that's gone because you can't pay for it. You like going out weekly? nope, gone too. Decent clothes? looks like you have to go to the thrift store to replace what tore when you got caught on something. Your internet? downsized to the minimum speeds. and that might mean dialup. Got pets? well, you're going to have to hope to all hell that they don't get sick, hit by a car or mauled by a dog. How about the place you live at? well if it's any more than 50% of your welfare cheque, then you incur moving costs. Dental costs? yeah right, that's not happening.

and in your neck of the woods where you have to pay for medical and you end up on welfare? you poor bastard...

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:50 pm**

Where the hell did you get the idea that I am painting a picture that being on welfare is some kind of cushy life? No, I never said or implied that…but it is easier than doing menial labor at a low paying job.

And if you think I’m talking out of my ass…I have talked to people who refuse to go off of welfare even for jobs that pay more than minimum wage…because they lose their medical, and other subsidies, and end up worse off.

Say what you will, but there is something wrong with that picture.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:41 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:
Top Gun wrote:...
I'm sure one could glean all sorts of other interesting comparisons like that too, if one had enough data to go through.
Here is more than anyone should ever have to know about it...clickyclicky

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I'll definitely sit down and read it at some point.

Spidey wrote:And if you think I’m talking out of my ass…I have talked to people who refuse to go off of welfare even for jobs that pay more than minimum wage…because they lose their medical, and other subsidies, and end up worse off.

Say what you will, but there is something wrong with that picture.

I agree with you there, but I think that the "wrong" part falls squarely on the employment side of things. I can't fault anyone who chooses to stay on welfare in that situation, as it would wind up being more harmful to their families to lose their medical coverage and other related subsidies. There's a lot about the low-income area of employment that's very much broken (hell, the current "minimum" wage is pretty laughable in terms of being able to cover basic needs), and that's a prime example...someone shouldn't have to choose between having a job and having some sort of base medical coverage. I know there are plenty of households out there that make a bit too much to qualify for welfare yet are still struggling to make ends meet each month. I think that's the realm that's truly broken, and if we could start to fix it, I think we'd see much-improved rates of getting off welfare.

Posted: **Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:04 pm**

Sliding scale welfare, anyone?

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:02 am**

Spidey wrote:Where the hell did you get the idea that I am painting a picture that being on welfare is some kind of cushy life? No, I never said or implied that…but it is easier than doing menial labor at a low paying job.

from this

because not only do people abuse the system…the welfare system abuses society.

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:23 am**

Ferno wrote:
Spidey wrote:Where the hell did you get the idea that I am painting a picture that being on welfare is some kind of cushy life? No, I never said or implied that…but it is easier than doing menial labor at a low paying job.
from this

because not only do people abuse the system…the welfare system abuses society.

Ferno did you forget to paste in the part that supports your assertion?!?

DescentBB

Welfare, and Need vs. Abuse (thread split)

Welfare, and Need vs. Abuse (thread split)

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates

Re: Republican 2012 primary candidates