John Stossel for President

BAMF wrote: ...The Michelle Bachmans of the world need to stop trying to use government to push their flavor of religion on everyone else. Rick Perry seems to be the same, but just a little less...

It's pretty crazy when you consider some of the right wing hacks have screamed bloody murder about the (basically impossible) danger of Sharia law (yes I know it it pretty extreme) being implemented in the US but they seem to be fine with THEIR religious laws being implemented. Also funny when you consider they seem to run on a platform of "getting the government out of your lives", well except...

Also of note: All of the Reps will likely pander to the religious right to get elected (kind of a proven tactic, started with Reagan I believe) but will be unlikely to actually implement anything when in office (well, maybe not Bachman). Remember how Bush was so against gay marriage during the debates? Never did anything about it as far as I know.

Bachmann / Palin 2012 (for pure entertainment purposes)

In reply to aircooled:

If Bachmann/ Palin somehow ended up running together, SNL will have a field day.

Bachmann / Palin 2012 (for pure entertainment purposes)

"Sickening" is not entertaining to me.

aircooled wrote: Also of note: All of the Reps will likely pander to the religious right to get elected (kind of a proven tactic, started with Reagan I believe) but will be unlikely to actually implement anything when in office (well, maybe not Bachman). Remember how Bush was so against gay marriage during the debates? Never did anything about it as far as I know.

This is an observation (of yours) I can actually agree with.

Campaigning politicians always take positions that appeal to their bases, fully realizing that the "base" doesn't comprise the majority needed to actually get elected. Smart politicians (once elected) will figure-out a way to appease his base AND those who voted for him/her in spite of some "extreme" views.

Such tactics are hardly exclusive to Republicans. One only has to look at the rhetoric currently emanating from prominent Democrats to see the commonality.

oldsaw wrote:

aircooled wrote: Also of note: All of the Reps will likely pander to the religious right to get elected (kind of a proven tactic, started with Reagan I believe) but will be unlikely to actually implement anything when in office (well, maybe not Bachman). Remember how Bush was so against gay marriage during the debates? Never did anything about it as far as I know.

This is an observation (of yours) I can actually agree with. Campaigning politicians always take positions that appeal to their bases, fully realizing that the "base" doesn't comprise the majority needed to actually get elected. Smart politicians (once elected) will figure-out a way to appease his base AND those who voted for him/her in spite of some "extreme" views. Such tactics are hardly exclusive to Republicans. One only has to look at the rhetoric currently emanating from prominent Democrats to see the commonality.

I dunno man. The one thing I'll give thee Obama is that mother berkeleyer did a LOT of the radical E36 M3 he said he was going to do. Think about it. I never for a minute thought the healthcare bill would actually pass, or that even a democrat would be stupid enough to think that throwing a trillion berkeleying dollars at a handful of contractors was going to "fix" the economy, yet here we are.

That said, yeah, I've actually argued the point that Rowe Vs. Wade would NEVER be overturned to a friend of ours who said that the only reason she voted Democrat was because of the abortion issue. With whack-jobs like Bachman on the scene though, it makes one wonder. Any time someone talks about re-writing the constitution, be afraid.

poopshovel wrote: ..That said, yeah, I've actually argued the point that Rowe Vs. Wade would NEVER be overturned to a friend of ours who said that the only reason she voted Democrat was because of the abortion issue...

The sad thing is, especially now, if the stupid Reps would just drop the whole "religious / moral high ground" social agenda crap, they could easily get a LOT of independents and probably a good number of liberals to vote for them.

Think about it. If they dropped that, who are the religious right going to vote for, a Dem? I don't think so. And even if the RR dropped out and didn't vote (which is what they used to do apparently) I don't think that would be an issue (at least not for this election).

poopshovel wrote: The one thing I'll give thee Obama is that mother berkeleyer did a LOT of the radical E36 M3 he said he was going to do. Think about it. I never for a minute thought the healthcare bill would actually pass, or that even a democrat would be stupid enough to think that throwing a trillion berkeleying dollars at a handful of contractors was going to "fix" the economy, yet here we are. That said, yeah, I've actually argued the point that Rowe Vs. Wade would NEVER be overturned to a friend of ours who said that the only reason she voted Democrat was because of the abortion issue. With whack-jobs like Bachman on the scene though, it makes one wonder. Any time someone talks about re-writing the constitution, be afraid.

Obama achieved many of his stated goals and they are the very reasons he's looking at a one-term presidency. I won't totally dismiss Bachman as a possible candidate, but I also think you give too much credence to the thought that she will be THE candidate.

As far as re-writing the Constitution, there's a proper way to make that happen. Ignoring that process would label any Republican successor (to Obama) as his equivalent; zero + zero always equals zero.

Were that to happen, the E36M3 hits the fan.

z31maniac wrote: Is the US really going to elect another cowboy from TX? Ugh.

GWB wasn't born in Texas, never owned cattle and supposedly wasn't really comfortable around horses. Rick Perry was born in West Texas and studied Animal Husbandry at Texas A&M. I guess you could consider him a cowboy.

Reagan actually owned and rode horses and appeared in a lot of Cowboy movies but he was an Illinois born Cowboy who spent most of his life in California.

In reply to oldsaw:

You assume Obama is going to lose but have you looked at the Republican candidates.

oldsaw wrote: Obama achieved many of his stated goals and they are the very reasons he's looking at a one-term presidency.

He ended the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he closed Guantanamo, he stopped torturing prisoners in secret prisons, he stopped assignating folks with illegal drone attacks all over the globe, he turned around the economy, he gave us all tax cuts, he wielded a scalpel to go through the budget line by line to cut out the things that weren't working....oh wait, he didn't do any of those things.

That's the one redeeming thing about Obama for me - I find that he has been especially ineffective at getting any real change accomplished....that somewhat has limited the damage he has been able to inflict on the country. All of this talk about Obamacare, but how much of it actually is in effect? Anyone really see any change whatsoever because of it in how their healthcare works? Bush's medicare drug plan was a bigger change as far as I know than anything that Obamacare has put in place. I think the mandate to purchase insurance is terrible and goes against what our country is all about, but that hasn't actually happened yet.

In reply to T.J.:

Please do not take this as a personal affront; it is truly not:

"It's the economy, stupid."

T.J. wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Obama achieved many of his stated goals and they are the very reasons he's looking at a one-term presidency.

He ended the undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he closed Guantanamo, he stopped torturing prisoners in secret prisons, he stopped assignating folks with illegal drone attacks all over the globe, he turned around the economy, he gave us all tax cuts, he wielded a scalpel to go through the budget line by line to cut out the things that weren't working....oh wait, he didn't do any of those things. That's the one redeeming thing about Obama for me - I find that he has been especially ineffective at getting any real change accomplished....that somewhat has limited the damage he has been able to inflict on the country. All of this talk about Obamacare, but how much of it actually is in effect? Anyone really see any change whatsoever because of it in how their healthcare works? Bush's medicare drug plan was a bigger change as far as I know than anything that Obamacare has put in place. I think the mandate to purchase insurance is terrible and goes against what our country is all about, but that hasn't actually happened yet.

Pt. 1. made me lawl. Pt. 2. made me say "OF COURSE we haven't seen any 'changes' yet." That's how it was designed, dude! You know that, right? Not that it hasn't been done before. "I'll sign off on this E36 M3, but I sure as berkeley don't want to be in office when the changes start taking place!" Want to confuse someone who voted for Obama, but doesn't really pay attention to politics until Kanye or P-deezy tells them to? Ask them where to go to get your "Free heff-care."

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to oldsaw: You assume Obama is going to lose but have you looked at the Republican candidates.

Unlike yourself, I do not assume anything.

President Obama is in the proverbial fight-of-his-political-life; that in no way means he won't win. It is way too soon to gauge any potential Republican candidate against the successes/failures of the current administration.

You're paying too much attention to nothing of consequence and too little to things that have.

you give too much credence to the thought that she will be THE candidate.

Not at all. I don't think she's got a snowball's chance...then again, I said the same thing about GWB. "Who would vote for this retard?" Oh wait. Lush Rimjob supports him. Therefore, he gets the nomination. Aye mi culo.

In reply to oldsaw:

Not sure how I could take it personally when you are essentially saying the same thing I said in an earlier post. It is the economy. I agree with that, but unless we radically change our debt-based monetary system the economy is just going to keep getting worse and worse. That's what I meant when I said that whomever is the next President will have an even harder time than Obama has had so far. I base my opinion not on politics, but on the mathematics of exponential growth.

I was just poking fun at all the stated (and unmet) goals of the current administration.

T.J. wrote: All of this talk about Obamacare, but how much of it actually is in effect? Anyone really see any change whatsoever because of it in how their healthcare works?

Well, my health insurance cost was going up 10% a year, and now it's going up 25% a year, so there is that...

DILYSI Dave wrote:

T.J. wrote: All of this talk about Obamacare, but how much of it actually is in effect? Anyone really see any change whatsoever because of it in how their healthcare works?

Well, my health insurance cost was going up 10% a year, and now it's going up 25% a year, so there is that...

My girlfriends dad, who's company is an "Employee Benefit Brokerage and Consulting Firm specializing in assisting employers of all sizes. We have a full staff of experts in the current creative benefit funding arrangements including Health Savings Accounts and Health Reimbursement Arrangements." is on the verge of going out of business because of the bill.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

T.J. wrote: All of this talk about Obamacare, but how much of it actually is in effect? Anyone really see any change whatsoever because of it in how their healthcare works?

Well, my health insurance cost was going up 10% a year, and now it's going up 25% a year, so there is that...

Yep my last job between Oct '08 and Aug '11, saw my healthcare cost increased something like 60%.

Glad I moved to a company with better options that picks up more of the tab.