Tobias Fünke;861440 wrote:If there is a God, Bachmann will not win the nomination. I wish the first primary/caucus wasn't in Iowa, so the GOP didn't have to cater to rural Christians up in arms about unimportant issues.

Rural Christians? Really?

Ironically, blanket statements and stereotypical generalities about the beliefs of - um - "rural Christians" only serves to point out your own ignorance.

Gotta love how we live in an age of political correctness where we're to walk on eggshells to avoid saying anything potentially offensive to almost every classification of human existence. Yet disparaging Christians is not only acceptable but encouraged. After all, we can't inject a sense of moral decency in a culture that is clearly in dire need of it.

Not a problem though. Christians are supposed to wear the insults as a badge of honor.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." - Jesus

I have to laugh at the people who don't take some of these candidates seriously. I've yet to hear a valid reason of why any of the candidates aren't presidential material.

Newt and Romney could definitely beat Barry in a debate. I think a couple more of them could though.

believer;861343 wrote:My question as well.

Obama's disastrous domestic policy speaks loudly enough. His initial world wide apology tour, his pathetic handling of Israeli diplomacy, and the Libyan debacle all tell me what I need to know about BHO's foreign policy decision-making.

ANY of the Republican candidates would be an improvement.

With Perry now in the race, things could get very interesting.

Yeah, we can forget about the domestic side and Obama is still a disaster.

bigdaddy2003;861590 wrote:I have to laugh at the people who don't take some of these candidates seriously. I've yet to hear a valid reason of why any of the candidates aren't presidential material.

I've wondered that myself. Maybe some can be questioned regarding their experience or lack thereof, but it's way too early to say someone is or isn't presidential material.

ccrunner609;861614 wrote:Now there are only 2 of these candidates that can beat Obama in a debate in regards to public speaking (even though people say Obama is awesome at speaking I find him full of ****) those 2 are Newt and Romney.

All of you are getting wrapped up with who you like as a candidate, you have to look at who can beat Obama. Bachman and Christie or even Paul for that matter arent going to. I think Newt would mop Obama up.

I think any of them could mop him up in a debate, Newt included. My only problem with him is he always looks like he wants to fight someone, kind of reminds me of Pat Buchanan. I would take him over Obama in a heartbeat, I think he's really sharp on the issues, but a few smiles and a little more graceful easygoing style would go a long way with undecided voters, IMO.

believer;861571 wrote:Rural Christians? Really?

Ironically, blanket statements and stereotypical generalities about the beliefs of - um - "rural Christians" only serves to point out your own ignorance.

Gotta love how we live in an age of political correctness where we're to walk on eggshells to avoid saying anything potentially offensive to almost every classification of human existence. Yet disparaging Christians is not only acceptable but encouraged. After all, we can't inject a sense of moral decency in a culture that is clearly in dire need of it.

Not a problem though. Christians are supposed to wear the insults as a badge of honor.

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me." - Jesus

Spare me. I went to parochial schools my entire life. I'm a big fan of the Big Guy.

But I find it increasingly annoying when voters are too damn concerned about gay marriage and abortions--two topics the President won't have any say in--than they are about experience and their specific plans to get this country out of the shitter.

Tobias Fünke;861787 wrote:Spare me. I went to parochial schools my entire life. I'm a big fan of the Big Guy.

But I find it increasingly annoying when voters are too damn concerned about gay marriage and abortions--two topics the President won't have any say in--than they are about experience and their specific plans to get this country out of the ****ter.

I agree with that for the most part, but I'll add that those issues will come into play if/when the President selects justices for the Supreme Court and other federal courts. As long as he (or she) picks strict constructionists who won't create social policy from the courts, then I'm OK with the people and the states taking care of those issues themselves.

FWIW, most of the candidates I'm rooting for who agree with me on social issues have pretty good plans for restoring America's fiscal health.

Suffice it to say that even ignorant "rural Christians" - who think that disposing of defenseless unborn lives for purposes of convenience is flat-out murder yet somehow allowable by Supreme Court mandate and; therefore, directly influenced by POTUS decision-making - will consider the fiscal health of this country as being paramount in the 2012 elections.

I sure hope so, Believer. While I have no problem generally with conservatives who seem to tilt on single issues, the next election is so damn important for the future of our country that I'm hoping IF the nominated candidate doesn't quite meet everyone's litmus test, they'll put that aside and think about broader issues like the economy and immigration reform (which I think will be continue to be a huge issue as it relates to southern border security).

Yes, the candidate's ideology will come into play when selecting judges but I swear it seem like most of these judge appointees end up moving one way or another on the political spectrum after they get appointed. So I consider that aspect of a presidency somewhat of a crap shoot, anyway.

Right now, we need to get someone in the presidency who can lead this country back to fiscal sanity, undo the damage Obama has done so far both legislatively and at the agency level (critically important) so current and prospective business people feel confident about investing in future growth again. Right now, they're stuck in neutral and scared to move forward, for the most part.

I believe most ignorant "Bible thumping" Christians see what's going on (IE: the fiscal insanity) and can be counted on to prioritize. We are tasked by God to be good stewards with His resources. I have a hunch He isn't pleased with how we're handling it.

Meantime rest assured the abortion issue will not go away. Make no mistake about it...the President of the United States has a clear and direct impact on the issue. Evangelical Christians will take both issues into consideration when making their choice next fall. I think it's safe to say that Obama does not fit either mold.

I keep hearing some conservatives say if Romney is the candidate they will stay home and not vote next year. I mean even if Romney is the nominee wouldn't that be better for conservatives than Obama? I had to ask them that question and they said well yeah I guess he would be. So I talked them into voting next year. Sad that I had to though. It's pretty simple if a bunch of conservatives stay home because the nominee isn't of their exact model then Obama wins again.

bigdaddy2003;861970 wrote:I keep hearing some conservatives say if Romney is the candidate they will stay home and not vote next year. I mean even if Romney is the nominee wouldn't that be better for conservatives than Obama? I had to ask them that question and they said well yeah I guess he would be. So I talked them into voting next year. Sad that I had to though. It's pretty simple if a bunch of conservatives stay home because the nominee isn't of their exact model then Obama wins again.

In the end most conservatives will turn out to the polls. They see what happened the last time they stayed home...Witness Hope & Change

Just read on Yahoo that Pawlenty has dropped out of the race.

bigdaddy2003;861970 wrote:I keep hearing some conservatives say if Romney is the candidate they will stay home and not vote next year. I mean even if Romney is the nominee wouldn't that be better for conservatives than Obama? I had to ask them that question and they said well yeah I guess he would be. So I talked them into voting next year. Sad that I had to though. It's pretty simple if a bunch of conservatives stay home because the nominee isn't of their exact model then Obama wins again.

I've heard that before from some conservatives and can only shake my head. It's like an angry child saying they'll just take their ball and go home. There's too much at stake here. I hope Believer is right and they understand how high the stakes are -- particularly now. If there's one thing I do have faith in when it comes to conservatives...they'll turn out if they feel this country is under attack. And we have been under attack from the left since Obama won election.

believer;861928 wrote:Make no mistake about it...the President of the United States has a clear and direct impact on the issue.

Not really. What did the last three Republican Presidents do? Jack shit.

And either way it's regardless. When it comes to the Iowa votes it just appears that the candidate who shouts most loudly "GOD!" "SANCTITY OF LIFE!" and "MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!!" gets the nod (Bush, Huckabeee, and now Bachmann) and they cost a legitimate candidate who is socially conservative enough, like Pawlenty, to end the campaign because a few thousand Iowans didn't agree. I think it's incredibly stupid.

It's really, really asinine that gay marriage is even a fucking topic in these debates.\

If you can't tell, I'm really not a fan of Bachmann and am basically just upset that Iowa and Fox News will propel her to a nomination. She will get stomped on my Obama and the press and it's pretty damn said.

Tobias Fünke;862298 wrote:Not really. What did the last three Republican Presidents do? Jack ****.

And either way it's regardless. When it comes to the Iowa votes it just appears that the candidate who shouts most loudly "GOD!" "SANCTITY OF LIFE!" and "MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!!" gets the nod (Bush, Huckabeee, and now Bachmann) and they cost a legitimate candidate who is socially conservative enough, like Pawlenty, to end the campaign because a few thousand Iowans didn't agree. I think it's incredibly stupid.

It's really, really asinine that gay marriage is even a ****ing topic in these debates.\

If you can't tell, I'm really not a fan of Bachmann and am basically just upset that Iowa and Fox News will propel her to a nomination. She will get stomped on my Obama and the press and it's pretty damn said.

If you don't believe the President has a major influence on social issues (take abortion for example, stem cell research, etc) then you have NO CLUE how our government works. The checks and balances allows the President to appoint justices, not only to the Supreme Court, but to all Federal Courts. It allows the President to veto any legislation passed (not as big as the justice thing when it comes to social issues, but still big).

Varying laws with regards to abortion and funding of abortion has been determined in the courts most of the time and in Congress at times as well.

Go back and take a civics class.

I'll bet a $100 donation to your favorite charity right now, Tobias, that neither Iowa nor Fox News (really, this again?) will propel ANYONE to the nomination, let alone Bachmann. So if you really, truly believe that -- say you'll take the bet. If she gets nominated, I make the donation; if she does not, you get to donate your hard earned money to the charity of my choice.

With the exception of Obamakare, Obama hasn't really governed any different than a Republican like Romney would. I would vote third party over Romney. It isn't like the Democrats are going to get their supermajority and both houses back in their control. It would be a different story if they were.

jmog;862388 wrote:If you don't believe the President has a major influence on social issues (take abortion for example, stem cell research, etc) then you have NO CLUE how our government works. The checks and balances allows the President to appoint justices, not only to the Supreme Court, but to all Federal Courts. It allows the President to veto any legislation passed (not as big as the justice thing when it comes to social issues, but still big).

Varying laws with regards to abortion and funding of abortion has been determined in the courts most of the time and in Congress at times as well.

Go back and take a civics class.

Ironically not only did I have the highest score in the region on the civics exam for the American Legion test to go to Buckeye Boys State--I had a perfect score; and was an honors student in civics in high school, and was a Political Science major in college. I get what he can do, I just think it's fucking dumb for 1) people to think that's the most important issue facing our country, and 2) think suddenly that the '12 election will fix the issue when the '04, '00, '88, '84, and '80 elections didn't. It's more likely that you get a balanced budget amendment through Congress than you will an overturning of Roe v Wade amendment.

Writerbuckeye;862422 wrote:I'll bet a $100 donation to your favorite charity right now, Tobias, that neither Iowa nor Fox News (really, this again?) will propel ANYONE to the nomination, let alone Bachmann. So if you really, truly believe that -- say you'll take the bet. If she gets nominated, I make the donation; if she does not, you get to donate your hard earned money to the charity of my choice.

$100 can buy a ton of beer, so no. But I see a Hannity twitch when he mentions Bachmann like he has a strange boner and it makes me sick. I don't know, just over the weekend I watched 20 hours of Fox News and they were parading her like she won the election already and an addition ten old medals in the '12 Olympics. I hope it's only temporary.

ccrunner609;862460 wrote:Michelle will NEVER get the nod. She cannot beat Obama. THe ticket to win is Newt and Mitt. End of story.

If Newt wins the nomination then I'm Bilbo Baggins. He has too many bones in his closet to be on the ticket. I do think he is absolutely brilliant and he would definitely be on my cabinet or close circle in a heartbeat.

Just uncovered another problem with our country. I found a few people who won't vote for Newt because of his past with women. Come on people you can't skip voting for someone who could possibly turn our country around because of something like that.

Why I like Rick Perry (from - http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/ponzis-and-predators-perry-outlines-policies/GocJEtJGv5iKloBLrLTbmK/index.html):

Like most in the GOP, Perry espoused a muscular support for Israel amid a turbulent Mideast, saying, “Israel is not ever gonna have to worry, if I’m the president to the United States, where we’re gonna be.”

Like most Republicans, he also labeled himself a fiscal conservative bent on reining in government spending. “We’re going to stop spending the money, unless I run out of ink in a veto pen,” the governor pledged.

Asked about how the country copes with the growing cost of Social Security and other entitlement programs, Perry said political leaders had to show “courage” especially in dealing with Social Security, which he labeled a &#8220onzi scheme.” He said: “I can promise you, my 27-year-old son, Social Security, under the program that we have today, will not be there.”

Perry said that before deciding how to deal with immigrants already illegally in the country, United States needed to secure its border with Mexico both to block new illegals and also to tamp down on drug-related violence.

On budget issues, Perry said he supported a balanced-budget amendment “to clearly say, if it’s not coming in, we’re not going to spend it.”

More immediately, he pledged a series of executive orders to reduce government spending and regulation, as well as to halt implementation of the federal universal health care law enacted by President Obama. “Stopping that is one of the first things we have to do as a country and as a people, because it will bankrupt this country,” he said.

Finally, on energy policy, Perry exuded a confidence in discussing the issue that is common from those hailing from such an oil-producing state. He branded himself as “all-of-the-above” supporter of all types of energy, except for the subsidies paid for ethanol production.

These statements are manna for conservatives and he speaks like he means what he says.

Why I like Rick Perry (from - http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/ponzis-and-predators-perry-outlines-policies/GocJEtJGv5iKloBLrLTbmK/index.html):

Like most in the GOP, Perry espoused a muscular support for Israel amid a turbulent Mideast, saying, “Israel is not ever gonna have to worry, if I’m the president to the United States, where we’re gonna be.”

Like most Republicans, he also labeled himself a fiscal conservative bent on reining in government spending. “We’re going to stop spending the money, unless I run out of ink in a veto pen,” the governor pledged.

Asked about how the country copes with the growing cost of Social Security and other entitlement programs, Perry said political leaders had to show “courage” especially in dealing with Social Security, which he labeled a “Ponzi scheme.” He said: “I can promise you, my 27-year-old son, Social Security, under the program that we have today, will not be there.”

Perry said that before deciding how to deal with immigrants already illegally in the country, United States needed to secure its border with Mexico both to block new illegals and also to tamp down on drug-related violence.

On budget issues, Perry said he supported a balanced-budget amendment “to clearly say, if it’s not coming in, we’re not going to spend it.”

More immediately, he pledged a series of executive orders to reduce government spending and regulation, as well as to halt implementation of the federal universal health care law enacted by President Obama. “Stopping that is one of the first things we have to do as a country and as a people, because it will bankrupt this country,” he said.

Finally, on energy policy, Perry exuded a confidence in discussing the issue that is common from those hailing from such an oil-producing state. He branded himself as “all-of-the-above” supporter of all types of energy, except for the subsidies paid for ethanol production.

These statements are manna for conservatives and he speaks like he means what he says.

I think Ron Paul is the GOP's best bet to knock off Obama. A lot of registered Democrats will cross party lines to vote for him and he would eat Obama alive in his debates. He's hands down won every debate I've seen thus far...and most of the polls agree. It's a shame that the mainstream media won't give him a little more credit and give him the publicity he deserves. The guy had a super showing in Iowa and they completely ignored it. They claim it's a three-horse race with Bachmann, Romney, and Perry, but I don't think any of those three can take down Obama.

I think Romney and Perry can both beat Obama if we escape the "he's from Texas" crap. Paul will never win.

Cleveland Buck;862636 wrote:With the exception of Obamakare, Obama hasn't really governed any different than a Republican like Romney would. I would vote third party over Romney. It isn't like the Democrats are going to get their supermajority and both houses back in their control. It would be a different story if they were.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Romney would not have put together the agency infrastructure and appointments Obama has. It's those changes to a lot of everyday regulations that are already starting to strangle businesses before they can even get started.

One of the first jobs a new president will have to do is begin to dismantle that behemoth of oppressive regulations, starting with the EPA and working through every agency and (hopefully former) czar appointed by Obama.

Yes, Obamacare is the one big ticket item legislatively that Obama passed that is also putting a stranglehold on businesses and has many of them in a holding pattern, but you simply cannot overlook the effect he's making by transferring so much power to agencies that influence business, education, farming and commerce at just about every level.

Romney would be 1,000 times better than Obama for the business community than Obama has.

bigdaddy2003;862778 wrote:I think Romney and Perry can both beat Obama if we escape the "he's from Texas" crap. Paul will never win.

Oh please, please, please let the Democrats try and make comparisons to Bush with Perry. That would be such a losing effort that Perry might end up carrying more than 40 states on the way to victory.