Dante Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Yes, with this president as with most others this will be the outcome. If Christie was there, I could assure that this wouldnt be the case. We need a true leader to tackle this issue, and we know that the president we have today doesnt have what it takes to make the hard decisions that is necessary to help solve our growing debt problems. That's because he doesn't want to. It has to be clear now that this is intentional. A deliberate attempt to scuttle the economy to further discredit the capitalist/free enterprise system. To Obama, considering his Marxist beliefs, its kinda like making an ommelete by breaking a few eggs. Although I don't think Obama is particularly bright, I don't think he's enough of a moron to make the spending decisions he and his partners have without fully realizing the consequences. Not sure if Christie is the guy or not. I'm sure Mit is not. What Ive read about Bachmann I like.
Magox Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 That's because he doesn't want to. It has to be clear now that this is intentional. A deliberate attempt to scuttle the economy to further discredit the capitalist/free enterprise system. To Obama, considering his Marxist beliefs, its kinda like making an ommelete by breaking a few eggs. Although I don't think Obama is particularly bright, I don't think he's enough of a moron to make the spending decisions he and his partners have without fully realizing the consequences. Not sure if Christie is the guy or not. I'm sure Mit is not. What Ive read about Bachmann I like. Bachmann more capable than Christie or Mit???
Dante Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Bachmann more capable than Christie or Mit??? What do you mean by capable? I guess I just want someone who is genuinely dedicated to the good of the country and promote personal freedom. By capable do you mean experienced? At what point is the "same old same old" just not good enough. I don't want someone to play ball with the other side to get along and not ruffle any feathers. I don't want someone to be afraid to make moves because they want to get re elected. I really am afraid Mit and his healthcare record. I don't like the fact he started government health in Mass. I like Bachmann and her support for a personal health saving program and opening up interstate competition for insurance companies. I don't pretend to be a expert on the health care industry but some basic rules(concept of competition) apply to just about everything. It's still pretty early and I don't know everything about every candidate. Just a little bit I've read about her I like. Notice how I don't insert condescending emote's in my posts? Not necessary Magox. Edited June 28, 2011 by Dante
IDBillzFan Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 If Christie was there, I could assure that this wouldnt be the case. I picked up this story from Real Clear Politics this morning, and I was stunned this was the first I've really read about this. I knew they were working on it, but I didn't know it was a done deal. There are two stunning parts to this equation: (1) that the Democrats in NJ have finally concluded that the party is over, it's time to cut public pensions, etc., and (2) that this took place without 24/7 coverage of the purple people beaters banging drums in the NJ capital while shoving their moronic pusses in every camera they can find, chanting their stupid union label songs while MSNBC screams how the people have spoken! How in the holy hell did this go under the radar?
Peace Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Yes, with this president as with most others this will be the outcome. If Christie was there, I could assure that this wouldnt be the case. We need a true leader to tackle this issue, and we know that the president we have today doesnt have what it takes to make the hard decisions that is necessary to help solve our growing debt problems. We need a one term clean-up, because no one who tackles the problems will last more than one term. But even in 4 years, you could get some things right.
Adam Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) What do you mean by capable? I guess I just want someone who is genuinely dedicated to the good of the country and promote personal freedom. By capable do you mean experienced? At what point is the "same old same old" just not good enough. I don't want someone to play ball with the other side to get along and not ruffle any feathers. I don't want someone to be afraid to make moves because they want to get re elected. I really am afraid Mit and his healthcare record. I don't like the fact he started government health in Mass. I like Bachmann and her support for a personal health saving program and opening up interstate competition for insurance companies. I don't pretend to be a expert on the health care industry but some basic rules(concept of competition) apply to just about everything. It's still pretty early and I don't know everything about every candidate. Just a little bit I've read about her I like. Notice how I don't insert condescending emote's in my posts? Not necessary Magox. What makes you think Bachmann could counter the healthcare lobby's dirty money, so we could open it to competition? That's because he doesn't want to. It has to be clear now that this is intentional. A deliberate attempt to scuttle the economy to further discredit the capitalist/free enterprise system. To Obama, considering his Marxist beliefs, its kinda like making an ommelete by breaking a few eggs. Although I don't think Obama is particularly bright, I don't think he's enough of a moron to make the spending decisions he and his partners have without fully realizing the consequences. Not sure if Christie is the guy or not. I'm sure Mit is not. What Ive read about Bachmann I like. I didn't know that President Obama was a fan of Groucho Marx. He was a funny guy Edited June 28, 2011 by Adam
erynthered Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 We need a one term clean-up, because no one who tackles the problems will last more than one term. But even in 4 years, you could get some things right. Besides the obvious, I'd really like to see term limits for both houses. I picked up this story from Real Clear Politics this morning, and I was stunned this was the first I've really read about this. I knew they were working on it, but I didn't know it was a done deal. There are two stunning parts to this equation: (1) that the Democrats in NJ have finally concluded that the party is over, it's time to cut public pensions, etc., and (2) that this took place without 24/7 coverage of the purple people beaters banging drums in the NJ capital while shoving their moronic pusses in every camera they can find, chanting their stupid union label songs while MSNBC screams how the people have spoken! How in the holy hell did this go under the radar? I had read about it before but didnt know it had passed. Good for them. I like this sentence in that article: Do I hear the echo of Ronald Reagan who said during his 1980 campaign for president, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter obama loses his."
Dante Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) What makes you think Bachmann could counter the healthcare lobby's dirty money, so we could open it to competition? I don't know Adam. I guess you just vote for the person that seems the most committed. I didn't know that President Obama was a fan of Groucho Marx. He was a funny guy That would be okay. Not sure what side Groucho was coming from though. Edited June 28, 2011 by Dante
Adam Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I don't know Adam. I guess you just vote for the person that seems the most committed. That would be okay. Not sure what side Groucho was coming from though. I go for who I feel can be the most influential and presidential. Something people need to remember is that the President doesn't do nearly as much as people want to blame him for. President Bush didn't unilaterally declare tax breaks or wars and President Obama didn't author the Affordable health Care Act. People who talk like that is the case are just lazy. I am hoping Huntsman wins the nomination. He seems like the smartest of the bunch
Magox Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Notice how I don't insert condescending emote's in my posts? Not necessary Magox. Dammit, now you made me feel bad.
Dante Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Dammit, now you made me feel bad. Not sure if your being sarcastic. On this board I would guess yes. I don't think there is a need to twist the knife while making a point. If you don't like Bachmann thats ok. Just tell me why. Maybe its a valid reason and I may agree with you. Like I said, I don't know everything about these people. I like her because she doesn't buy the global warming scam. Doesn't want socialized health care. She believes in the constitution and smaller government. She appears to be a solid citizen. She really did practice law and she's just not a faux lawyer like Obama. Raised a family and a some foster kids. Not sure why she is being portrayed as some sore of extremist. What I don't like about Mit is that he seems to agree with the enviormentalists on "climate change" and by creating or help creating the government health care in Mass I would assume he supports it nationally. Or at least he would be sympathetic to the current plan by Obama and company. This is why I have a positive attitude about her. Not necessarily my first choice but we'll see.
Passepartout Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Conservatives blast liberals and liberals blast conservatives. Not the first nor will it be the last time.
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Not sure if your being sarcastic. On this board I would guess yes. I don't think there is a need to twist the knife while making a point. If you don't like Bachmann thats ok. Just tell me why. Maybe its a valid reason and I may agree with you. Like I said, I don't know everything about these people. I like her because she doesn't buy the global warming scam. Doesn't want socialized health care. She believes in the constitution and smaller government. She appears to be a solid citizen. She really did practice law and she's just not a faux lawyer like Obama. Raised a family and a some foster kids. Not sure why she is being portrayed as some sore of extremist. What I don't like about Mit is that he seems to agree with the enviormentalists on "climate change" and by creating or help creating the government health care in Mass I would assume he supports it nationally. Or at least he would be sympathetic to the current plan by Obama and company. This is why I have a positive attitude about her. Not necessarily my first choice but we'll see. My understanding is that Mitt was able to get the plan being pushed by the legislature changed to a point where he could reluctantly sign it. Otherwise they were going to pass it over his veto. He has come out solidly against Obamacare. I'm not sure on his stance regarding "climate change" but I would be interested to find out.
Magox Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) My understanding is that Mitt was able to get the plan being pushed by the legislature changed to a point where he could reluctantly sign it. Otherwise they were going to pass it over his veto. He has come out solidly against Obamacare. I'm not sure on his stance regarding "climate change" but I would be interested to find out. I will tell you his stance. He does believe that Climate change is real, he does believe that humans have contributed to its change, but doesnt know exactly how much. He does believe that we should be conscience of trying to pollute less but he is categorically against cap and trade legislation. In other words he has the stance that George Bush did. I believe you can find more info in a Politico June 9th article. I happen to believe pretty much the same, that there is a climate change occuring and that it is possible that humans are contributing some to it, but not nearly as much as the enviro fear mongers would have you believe. I also believe that taxing pollution isnt the way to go about it, much like mitt, but that we should be conscience of how much pollution we are emmitting... To me this seems like the rational reasonable approach. In regards to Obamacare, he has come out strong against it and has promised to at least try to repeal it... And you cant compare Romneycare in Massachussets to Obamacare. Remember, Mass. is very liberal, thats what the people wanted over there, if he hadnt of campaigned on some sort of universal care over there he would of never have gotten elected. What is one of the main priorities of being an elected official? Could it possibly be serving the wishes of the people he represents? That was what they wanted over there. Edited June 29, 2011 by Magox
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 I will tell you his stance. He does believe that Climate change is real, he does believe that humans have contributed to its change, but doesnt know exactly how much. He does believe that we should be conscience of trying to pollute less but he is categorically against cap and trade legislation. In other words he has the stance that George Bush did. I believe you can find more info in a Politico June 9th article. I happen to believe pretty much the same, that there is a climate change occuring and that it is possible that humans are contributing some to it, but not nearly as much as the enviro fear mongers would have you believe. I also believe that taxing pollution isnt the way to go about it, much like mitt, but that we should be conscience of how much pollution we are emmitting... To me this seems like the rational reasonable approach. In regards to Obamacare, he has come out strong against it and has promised to at least try to repeal it... And you cant compare Romneycare in Massachussets to Obamacare. Remember, Mass. is very liberal, thats what the people wanted over there, if he hadnt of campaigned on some sort of universal care over there he would of never have gotten elected. What is one of the main priorities of being an elected official? Could it possibly be serving the wishes of the people he represents? That was what they wanted over there. Thanks. Because of his experience and skills he might just be what this country needs right now. I haven't made up my mind on anyone yet but believe that he might just be the right candidate for the GOP.
Doc Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 My understanding is that Mitt was able to get the plan being pushed by the legislature changed to a point where he could reluctantly sign it. Otherwise they were going to pass it over his veto. He has come out solidly against Obamacare. I'm not sure on his stance regarding "climate change" but I would be interested to find out. Romneycare is the big problem I have justifying supporting Mitt. I know he's against Obamacare, but it sounds like another "I was for it, until I was against it" thing. I've seen plenty of interviews with him where he not only doesn't disavow his role in getting Romneycare passed (like saying "it was the will of the people" or "even if I had vetoed it, it was going to be overridden), but defends it, meaning he was truly for it.
Adam Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) I will tell you his stance. He does believe that Climate change is real, he does believe that humans have contributed to its change, but doesnt know exactly how much. He does believe that we should be conscience of trying to pollute less but he is categorically against cap and trade legislation. In other words he has the stance that George Bush did. I believe you can find more info in a Politico June 9th article. I happen to believe pretty much the same, that there is a climate change occuring and that it is possible that humans are contributing some to it, but not nearly as much as the enviro fear mongers would have you believe. I also believe that taxing pollution isnt the way to go about it, much like mitt, but that we should be conscience of how much pollution we are emmitting... To me this seems like the rational reasonable approach. In regards to Obamacare, he has come out strong against it and has promised to at least try to repeal it... And you cant compare Romneycare in Massachussets to Obamacare. Remember, Mass. is very liberal, thats what the people wanted over there, if he hadnt of campaigned on some sort of universal care over there he would of never have gotten elected. What is one of the main priorities of being an elected official? Could it possibly be serving the wishes of the people he represents? That was what they wanted over there. I thought everyone believed in climate change, and the debate was over what caused it. Something I watched on Discovery Channel about the reversal of our magnetosphere was very interesting on the topic- supposedly it reverses polarity over time and basically because nearly non-existent for awhile. I don't suppose we have anything that can fix it...... Not sure if your being sarcastic. On this board I would guess yes. I don't think there is a need to twist the knife while making a point. If you don't like Bachmann thats ok. Just tell me why. Maybe its a valid reason and I may agree with you. Like I said, I don't know everything about these people. I like her because she doesn't buy the global warming scam. Doesn't want socialized health care. She believes in the constitution and smaller government. She appears to be a solid citizen. She really did practice law and she's just not a faux lawyer like Obama. Raised a family and a some foster kids. Not sure why she is being portrayed as some sore of extremist. What I don't like about Mit is that he seems to agree with the enviormentalists on "climate change" and by creating or help creating the government health care in Mass I would assume he supports it nationally. Or at least he would be sympathetic to the current plan by Obama and company. This is why I have a positive attitude about her. Not necessarily my first choice but we'll see. A few months ago, I was listening to her and then she started joking around and went as far as mocking the name of the president of another country. I turned it off at that point. We don't need that type of entertainment in the white house- and people who like that can watch MTV, instead of voting for something important. Edited June 29, 2011 by Adam
DC Tom Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 I thought everyone believed in climate change, and the debate was over what caused it. Something I watched on Discovery Channel about the reversal of our magnetosphere was very interesting on the topic- supposedly it reverses polarity over time and basically because nearly non-existent for awhile. I don't suppose we have anything that can fix it...... Reducing carbon emissions. Duh.
Adam Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Reducing carbon emissions. Duh. lol, I would like to see that happen for other, obvious reasons. Then again, I was the guy in high school who was told that the tailpipe of my car was plugged up.....I looked (cough cough)
Dante Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Romneycare is the big problem I have justifying supporting Mitt. I know he's against Obamacare, but it sounds like another "I was for it, until I was against it" thing. I've seen plenty of interviews with him where he not only doesn't disavow his role in getting Romneycare passed (like saying "it was the will of the people" or "even if I had vetoed it, it was going to be overridden), but defends it, meaning he was truly for it. Sounding a bit too much like a cookie cutter politician. Especially when he starts talking about "getting along" with democrats. How can you get along with a party that is so far left and so radical? Getting along infers compromising. How can you let the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Obama and the rest of them have even the slightest influence on our country? The inmates running the asylum have to be crushed. Simple as that. Reading this it really seems like Mit is not the guy.
Recommended Posts