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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.