jmog;1242622 wrote:BS "aid to the states" is still government spending whether you like it or not.

I agree but it is the kind of government spending that was ok in the minds of real, true conservatives (who no longer count as real true conservatives) only a short time ago during the Bush years. That is the point. The Tea Party did not come to rise after President Bush spent more than any president since LBJ...it came to being after a lousy stimulus package that was not much different from the 3 stimulus packages of the Bush years comparatively.

I Wear Pants;1242294 wrote:If Obama wins (which I believe he will) it sends the message that the GOP needs to stop letting the neocons and Christian right dictate their policies.

Reagan was called a neocon by his opponents, and he embraced the Christian right. Dude won 45 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984. Just sayin.

BoatShoes;1242302 wrote:This was perfectly accepted by reliable conservatives until one conservative declared it unconstitutional and then it spread like wildfire through the conservative echo-chamber and lands to Jhay's ears who reliably repeats that it was never a conservative idea like a good little soldier saying "us real conservatives in the rural heartland never supported the mandate."

It was opposed by the "do-nothing" Republican Congress during Truman's presidency, defeated in 93-94 under Clinton, and didn't garner a single Republican vote in 2009-10. If conservatives wanted universal health care or a watered-down version with an individual mandate they had plenty of opportunities since 1994 to get it done.

BoatShoes;1242631 wrote:I agree but it is the kind of government spending that was ok in the minds of real, true conservatives (who no longer count as real true conservatives) only a short time ago during the Bush years. That is the point. The Tea Party did not come to rise after President Bush spent more than any president since LBJ...it came to being after a lousy stimulus package that was not much different from the 3 stimulus packages of the Bush years comparatively.

Actually the foundation was laid shortly after the Bush bailouts late in his presidency. The stimulus was the icing on the cake.

jhay78;1242793 wrote:Reagan was called a neocon by his opponents, and he embraced the Christian right. Dude won 45 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984. Just sayin.



It was opposed by the "do-nothing" Republican Congress during Truman's presidency, defeated in 93-94 under Clinton, and didn't garner a single Republican vote in 2009-10. If conservatives wanted universal health care or a watered-down version with an individual mandate they had plenty of opportunities since 1994 to get it done.



Actually the foundation was laid shortly after the Bush bailouts late in his presidency. The stimulus was the icing on the cake.

Like I've said...it was endorsed by conservatives but privatization was more important. The bottom line is, they definitely didn't think it was socialism and certainly could have been a little more reasonable and adhered to their previous positions and worked with the democrats considering it was their idea. Instead, they moved farther to the right. Just because it wasn't a priority doesn't mean they couldn't have sensibly agreed to it when the others on the other side agreed to it instead of single-payer, etc.

There would have been no tea party (beyond the Ron Paul original tea partiers) if John McCain was elected and passed a similar watered down tax-cut laden stimulus like President Bush passed three times.

Reagan was never called a neocon. Not then....not now.

I have called Reagan many things over the years, but never a "neocon".

BoatShoes;1242624 wrote:I agree, it's hard to say with Romney. He was actually my favorite candidate for a lot of the 08' campaign but if you take him at his word, he has endorsed basically the agenda of the House GOP.

You mean the agenda that the American people voted for in a record landslide? I'll take some of that.

98% of the Black voted for Obama 2008 ..... Lucky to get 60% of that in 2012
Black turn out (including voter fraud ) 18-24 55% and 45-65 70% ..... those percentage will not be reached in 2012 5 million additional Black voters in 2008 …. Again many will be a no show in 2013 (Black unemployment is 17% plus) why vote for a fraud … 1 million of that 5 million increase can't find their organial ID and can affort gas to vote. ( gallon of gas or 16 oz ... you make the call

2012 Election 18-24 40% a best and those voting will be split for Obama ( out of work -out of vote)
45-65 lucky to get 50% and many of those will be split also (they are worst now that ever ...why vote at all)

National Black Chamber of Commerce voted for Color in 2008 … Already state that will not happen in 2012

Unions to support Obama in 2013 are you joking …. Only the brain dead and Union Leaders (same same) everyone else wants less hope and change in their pockets

Bottom line Obama not Black enough to hold the Black voters in 2013
“History was made for the worst” … quoted from my Black neighbor


[video=youtube;P36x8rTb3jI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI[/video]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


Romney 47%
obama 43%

For the incumbent to be under 45% at this stage of the game generally means game over.

I can't remember in which thread it was asked, "What's Romney's economic plan?" He has a 59 point plan that is quite wonkish, so there is one if anyone would take some time to look for it. According to the attached WSJ article, it appears Romney got the message and has trimmed the original 59 into 5 items - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577576801104830894.html?mod=googlenews_wsj :

Last week Mr. Romney began laying out a crisper, shorter economic agenda. His "Plan for a Stronger Middle Class" is built around five priorities: promoting more domestic energy, cultivating skills for economic success, making trade work for America, cutting the deficit, and championing small business (including tax and regulatory reform and the repeal of ObamaCare).

What is Barry's plan? Raising taxes on small business and the eeeevil rich, more spending, raising the Capital Gains tax to 23.8%, raising the Death Tax and severely limiting it's base deduction, more money for "green energy" failures, more spending, no proposed solutions for medicare/social security, closing down coal-fired electricity generating plants, more spending and pretty much the exact opposite of Romney's 5 items. The choice is crystal clear. Time to decide in 89 days.

BGFalcons82;1243141 wrote:... wonkish ...

Reps for the word of the day.

And yet Romney cannot get his message across because he and his surrogates spend too much time answering (or attempting to answer) Obama's TV ads. His campaign is being run by fools and, when they lose this election, they'll look as foolish as the prosecutors in the OJ trial. They were handed a slam dunk and they have done a good job of dropping the ball.

What's really sad is that, if Mitt were to somehow come back and win this thing, a lot of the boobs he has running his campaign will be shaping policy for the country. That's scary as hell.

stlouiedipalma;1243675 wrote:And yet Romney cannot get his message across because he and his surrogates spend too much time answering (or attempting to answer) Obama's TV ads. His campaign is being run by fools and, when they lose this election, they'll look as foolish as the prosecutors in the OJ trial. They were handed a slam dunk and they have done a good job of dropping the ball.

What's really sad is that, if Mitt were to somehow come back and win this thing, a lot of the boobs he has running his campaign will be shaping policy for the country. That's scary as hell.

Meh, I see it as a push.

stlouiedipalma;1243675 wrote: What's really sad is that, if Mitt were to somehow come back and win this thing, a lot of the boobs he has running his campaign will be shaping policy for the country. That's scary as hell.

On the other hand, Obama's people ran a brilliant campaign in 2008, but as it turns out campaigning is all they know.

gut;1243727 wrote:On the other hand, Obama's people ran a brilliant campaign in 2008, but as it turns out campaigning is all they know.

I don't know. Mickey Mouse could've run his campaign in '08:

1. The economy sucks
2. If you vote against him you're a racist.
3. Hope and change
4. Bush fatigue and the wars

jhay78;1243964 wrote:I don't know. Mickey Mouse could've run his campaign in '08:

1. The economy sucks
2. If you vote against him you're a racist.
3. Hope and change
4. Bush fatigue and the wars

You left out:

bho is the smartest human on the planet
bho was days away from capturing the nobel peace prize
bho is the messiah

slam dunk indeed.

Being married to Wayne Brady was pretty cool, too.

jhay78;1243964 wrote:I don't know. Mickey Mouse could've run his campaign in '08:

1. The economy sucks
2. If you vote against him you're a racist.
3. Hope and change
4. Bush fatigue and the wars

QuakerOats;1244219 wrote:You left out:

bho is the smartest human on the planet
bho was days away from capturing the nobel peace prize
bho is the messiah

slam dunk indeed.

And for all these faults, the best you folks could come up with is Mitt freakin' Romney. What a sad-a**ed bunch you have become, Obama practically hands you the election and you put up a bonehead.

And you folks all swallow your pride and support him.

You do know that he's really a moderate, don't you? If he wins he will pull out the old Etch-A-Sketch and move to the middle.

stlouiedipalma;1244542 wrote:And for all these faults, the best you folks could come up with is Mitt freakin' Romney. What a sad-a**ed bunch you have become, Obama practically hands you the election and you put up a bonehead.

So true.

nd for all these faults, the best you folks could come up with is Mitt freakin' Romney.

Willard bought the nomination, there was really very little we could do about it.

I'll tell you who scared me during the primary. Newt Gingrich. He may have some baggage but he was the smartest, most articulate man on their side. He also could talk others into doing his dirty work for him. He crashed and burned when Mitt's Super PAC carpet-bombed his campaign. Newt is so confident in himself he occasionally shows up on MSNBC, something the rest of them would never consider. I watched him on Hardball the other day and he really held his own. Actually it was a very polite, civilized give-and-take with Matthews. I'm sure glad he didn't get the nomination.

stlouiedipalma;1244542 wrote:And for all these faults, the best you folks could come up with is Mitt freakin' Romney. What a sad-a**ed bunch you have become, Obama practically hands you the election and you put up a bonehead.

And you folks all swallow your pride and support him.

You do know that he's really a moderate, don't you? If he wins he will pull out the old Etch-A-Sketch and move to the middle.

If you think conservatives are happy about the Romney nomination you are not paying attention.

However, even though Romney is bad, he is slightly (and I mean slightly) better than Obama.

Now, I do like Romney's pick for VP.

stlouiedipalma;1244981 wrote:I'll tell you who scared me during the primary. Newt Gingrich. He may have some baggage but he was the smartest, most articulate man on their side. He also could talk others into doing his dirty work for him. He crashed and burned when Mitt's Super PAC carpet-bombed his campaign. Newt is so confident in himself he occasionally shows up on MSNBC, something the rest of them would never consider. I watched him on Hardball the other day and he really held his own. Actually it was a very polite, civilized give-and-take with Matthews. I'm sure glad he didn't get the nomination.

He was my pick, to be honest, I truly believe Newt would have beat Obama in a landslide, especially after a few debates were aired.

Now we will have to be up late on election day to probably watch Obama win another term.

Edit: In an ideal world I would have wanted Newt as the POTUS, and Ron Paul as the VP assuming Newt would have listened to Paul on fiscal issues.

jmog;1245714 wrote:Now, I do like Romney's pick for VP.

Eh, I'm not crazy about the guy. For all his lip service to fiscal conservatism, I seem to recall him supporting all of the recent bailouts (correct me if I'm wrong).

O-Trap;1245774 wrote:Eh, I'm not crazy about the guy. For all his lip service to fiscal conservatism, I seem to recall him supporting all of the recent bailouts (correct me if I'm wrong).

I believe he did, no one is perfect but at least he is trying (at least giving concrete ideas) while a lot of legislatures on both sides as well as the POTUS are just kicking the can down the road.

jmog;1245789 wrote:I believe he did, no one is perfect but at least he is trying (at least giving concrete ideas) while a lot of legislatures on both sides as well as the POTUS are just kicking the can down the road.

I don't disagree that he's trying, but if a batter is trying to hit a pitched baseball while facing the catcher, I'm not putting stake his ability to hit, regardless of his effort.