A candidate with guts?

[blackpup]

Sarah Palin may not have the qualifications to be President. I still think grit and character should be given due consideration.

I am also interested Chris Christie the New Jersey Governor even if he is a yankee. Need smiley face here. I like the way he stood up to the jersey public unions

Also interested in Scott Walker the Wisconsin governor for the same reasons. Had to have taken a lot nerve to stand up to the unions in their states even if it was political calculation on their part.

jimmy

 

[layoutshooter]

Sarah Palin may not have the qualifications to be President. I still think grit and character should be given due consideration.

I am also interested Chris Christie the New Jersey Governor even if he is a yankee. Need smiley face here. I like the way he stood up to the jersey public unions

Also interested in Scott Walker the Wisconsin governor for the same reasons. Had to have taken a lot nerve to stand up to the unions in their states even if it was political calculation on their part.

jimmy

Why would being a baseball player from NYC be a disqualification for being president?

 

[blackpup]

Why would being a baseball player from NYC be a disqualification for being president?

Maybe we could clone/reanimate the one and only George Herman Ruth. He was once quoted as saying he was paid more than the President of The United States. Said he had a better year than President did.

jimmy

 

[layoutshooter]

Maybe we could clone/reanimate the one and only George Herman Ruth. He was once quoted as saying he was paid more than the President of The United States. Said he had a better year than President did.

jimmy

That would work.

 

[witness23]

Gee Witness, do you think that the "Tea Party" are conservatives?

Conservatives, Libertarians and those of us who are fiscally responsible, yes.

I do like that they have done what Americans SHOULD be doing. They became politically active. They spoke up.

Agreed. But what started as a "grassroots" movement has since been hijacked or co-opted by the Republican party and turned into "astro-turf".

From the link above:

Recent Examples

Political

Organizations representing opposing schools of political thought have engaged in this activity worldwide.

Examples include:

In August 2009, FreedomWorks, a corporate and individual-funded conservative political activist organization, and 60 Plus Association, a self-described "conservative alternative to the AARP", played an instrumental role in organizing health care reform protests at a large number of Democratic legislators' town hall meetings. Health care reform proponents have labeled FreedomWorks' efforts as "astroturf", because they use millions of dollars in corporate funding to support conservative "tea party" protests.[11][37] Newsweek has stated that the organization has issued instructions and tactics on "how to make the demonstrations look homegrown".[37] A FreedomWorks representative disputes the classification of this as 'astroturfing', saying, "there always needs to be some kind of organization — we provide the organizational backbone."[11] The AARP has described 60 Plus Association as being a front group for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

It has been claimed that the Tea Party movement is astroturfed.

The 2011 anti-union drive in Wisconsin led by Governor Scott Walker has been criticized as, in part, an astroturf campaign by Americans for Prosperity, which is supported by the Koch brothers.

Fox News has NOTHING to do with this. Drop the ragging on entertainers. It's not their fault that they are too dense to find a REAL job.

You really are unable to see the forest through the trees aren't you? I bring up FoxNews because they prop up these so-called TeaParty politicians and make them legitimate when they are not.

When those here in the Soapbox stop referring, quoting, copying and pasting, linking to, defending, believing, and parroting what the entertainers put out, then I will stop ragging on them.

But until then, suck it up kid.

 

[layoutshooter]

Conservatives, Libertarians and those of us who are fiscally responsible, yes.



Agreed. But what started as a "grassroots" movement has since been hijacked or co-opted by the Republican party and turned into "astro-turf".

From the link above:


You really are unable to see the forest through the trees aren't you? I bring up FoxNews because they prop up these so-called TeaParty politicians and make them legitimate when they are not.

When those here in the Soapbox stop referring, quoting, copying and pasting, linking to, defending, believing, and parroting what the entertainers put out, then I will stop ragging on them.

But until then, suck it up kid.

KID? That's funny. OBAMA is a kid. I am WAY passed kid.

I can't see the forest for the trees? Funny, you just put far more importance on entertainers than most is all.

I don't believe you answered my question, or maybe I did not understand. Do YOU believe that the "Tea Party" is conservative?

And PLEASE don't use Wikipedia as a source. It is one of the most corrupt sources I can imagine. I can point out item after item in there that is wrong. Not even CLOSE to right. It is NOT a valid source for anything except comedy relief.

Mhy glass guy is here. MOre latere

 

[LDB]

LCol. A. West is the type of leader we need in the office. I believe he's too new in politics right now but he absolutely should be the VP choice for otj training for 2020. Christie and Bachmann are pretty genuine. Huckabee has a number of good points but the left will vilify him as too religious since they are allowed to call observation establishment and demean anyone with any religious leanings.

It would be interesting if West were elected. He might break Reagan's record of 22 minutes.

 

[witness23]

I can't see the forest for the trees? Funny, you just put far more importance on entertainers than most is all.

I truly think that comment should be directed towards others here in the Soapbox.

I don't believe you answered my question, or maybe I did not understand. Do YOU believe that the "Tea Party" is conservative?

I believe I did answer your question by stating:

Conservatives, Libertarians and those of us who are fiscally responsible, yes.

 

[layoutshooter]

"I believe I did answer your question by stating:
Quote:
Conservatives, Libertarians and those of us who are fiscally responsible, yes."

I am sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean that conservatives, liberatarians and fiscal responsibility is the "Tea Party" Or maybe should be?

We speak a different language.

I think, just my personal belief, that your idea how just how much Fox News sways opinion is MUCH greater than their true ability to do so.

I give people a bit more credit than you. Same with the rest of those other news outlets. I still find it odd you don't rag on them for their lies etc. They are absolutely NO better, if not worse, that Fox in that regard.

I just hope that in the next election that 100% of the registered voters show up. This foolishness of our government being elected by at BEST 30% of all voters is NOT good.

The problem is that MANY voters have just given up. I can see why too. Far too much BIG money and no real choices. I mean, imagine, Obama is out to raise 1 BILLION dollars for his reelection bid. MOST of which will come from the EXTREME rich and special interest groups. The other side will NOT be much better. It really does suck.

 

[witness23]

I am sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean that conservatives, liberatarians and fiscal responsibility is the "Tea Party" Or maybe should be?

Are you being funny or are you seriously not comprehending what I am saying?

You asked the question:

Gee Witness, do you think that the "Tea Party" are conservatives?

I answered yes, conservatives, along with libertarians and fiscal conservatives predominately make up the movement. The core values of the Tea Party movement would be described as fiscal responsibility, constitutionally-limited government, and free markets. I am sure there are a variety of different views in the Tea Party movement but I would say most are of that nature. Does that help?

We speak a different language.

Huh? I thought we were speaking english????

I think, just my personal belief, that your idea how just how much Fox News sways opinion is MUCH greater than their true ability to do so.

Hence my comment about the forest through the trees. Do you read the comments in here? I am speaking of those who post HERE in the Soapbox.

I give people a bit more credit than you. Same with the rest of those other news outlets. I still find it odd you don't rag on them for their lies etc. They are absolutely NO better, if not worse, that Fox in that regard.

Have you read my tag lines? Cable news is a joke! Other cable news outlets are not repeatedly mentioned here in the Soapbox, Fox News Channel on the other hand is. Not to mention how some here like to brag about Fox's ratings over the other outlets. Using that sense of reasoning, if nobody is watching those other networks and everyone is watching Fox, why would I comment on a network that doesn't have anyone watching?

By all means start posting the things you consider to be lies or fabrications from the other networks. But try to back it up with some facts, not just regurgitated talking points from Fox and conservative pundits. I would have to ask though, why? Nobody is listening or watching them, so what's the point?

I mean, imagine, Obama is out to raise 1 BILLION dollars for his reelection bid. MOST of which will come from the EXTREME rich and special interest groups. The other side will NOT be much better. It really does suck.

You crack me up. You claim that they all suck, vote the bums out, but you always, always, lambaste Democrats and downplay what the Republicans do. Since you are so concerned where the money is coming from for election campaigns, why don't you find out who the top ten money donors are, and who they back?

 

[layoutshooter]

Are you being funny or are you seriously not comprehending what I am saying?

You asked the question:



I answered yes, conservatives, along with libertarians and fiscal conservatives predominately make up the movement. The core values of the Tea Party movement would be described as fiscal responsibility, constitutionally-limited government, and free markets. I am sure there are a variety of different views in the Tea Party movement but I would say most are of that nature. Does that help?



Huh? I thought we were speaking english????


Hence my comment about the forest through the trees. Do you read the comments in here? I am speaking of those who post HERE in the Soapbox.



Have you read my tag lines? Cable news is a joke! Other cable news outlets are not repeatedly mentioned here in the Soapbox, Fox News Channel on the other hand is. Not to mention how some here like to brag about Fox's ratings over the other outlets. Using that sense of reasoning, if nobody is watching those other networks and everyone is watching Fox, why would I comment on a network that doesn't have anyone watching?

By all means start posting the things you consider to be lies or fabrications from the other networks. But try to back it up with some facts, not just regurgitated talking points from Fox and conservative pundits. I would have to ask though, why? Nobody is listening or watching them, so what's the point?

I mean, imagine, Obama is out to raise 1 BILLION dollars for his reelection bid. MOST of which will come from the EXTREME rich and special interest groups. The other side will NOT be much better. It really does suck.[/QUOTE]

You crack me up. You claim that they all suck, vote the bums out, but you always, always, lambaste Democrats and downplay what the Republicans do. Since you are so concerned where the money is coming from for election campaigns, why don't you find out who the top ten money donors are, and who they back?[/QUOTE]


Got it. NOW I understand, and NO, I do NOT speak English. Don't want to either. I lived in England for 5 years. We do NOT speak English in this country. We just some of the words. Ask EnglishLady, she can confirm this.

Since when did I NOT lambaste the ReBumLiCans? I know MY rep, John Dingell, get 98% of his funding from OUTSIDE the State.

As I said, I don't like what is going on. The Dumb-O-Crats AND the ReBumLiCans are leftists. I trust NONE of them. BOTH parties are opposed to almost EVERYTHING that I believe in.


Name me ONE news outlet that DOES NOT LIE and prove it. The reporting in this country is ALMOST, not quite, as bad and as one sided as PRAVDA but without a doubt is headed in that direction.

 

[greg334]

I have to ask you though, who is that Republican candidate? Because I am not seeing that person as of yet.

I'm not seeing one single person in the GOP outside the newbies who could actually win. The names mentioned are just retreads and headliners for today's news but as several Democratic strategists have said over the past two weeks, the republicans' can not afford to waste time with trying to guess who may be running and who may not be running but need to throw someone out there to get the campaign started.

Obama has already started to campaign, which leaves a lot of unfinished work at the WH to do but who gives a crap if the country falls apart.

So let's go down the list;

Christie - has openly fought the unions so he will be attacked by the unions who won't support him and won't get much union support to help fight.

Pawlenty - OK but he hasn't done enough to get into the spot light to build on his name.

Romney - retread, needs to go into something else.

Huckabee - another retread and needs to stick to his show.

Trump - forget it, he tops my list of the most egotistical people in show business, so he would be difficult to deal with on an international level and with congress.

Palin - it hard to figure her out at times, so she lost my vote. As mentioned about her kid, I can't bring myself to seeing her actually 'raising' him when she now has a 8 digit income and a whole big staff plus I can't take her serious enough because of her "stardom"

Bachmann - OK maybe but she is a stretch too. She has had a target on her because she is outspoken and it may be another Palin situation where some repubs will be all giddy about her but the old guard will try to sabotage her campaign.

What I would like to see is one of the newbies, maybe Marco Rubio type step up to tackle Obama. The problem this last election and this time around will be the youth vote and Obama is already grooming them with his appearance at FB's HQ and so on. I don't want to see anyone military there unless they are not an officer, this is critical with the youth vote. I also don't want to see someone who has executive experience, we are talking about running an executive branch of the country, not a company.

SO unless someone at the republican party comes up with someone who does actually seem to care, doesn't compare themselves to Obama policies and actually wants to fight, then they may have a chance but otherwise, Obama for another 4 years.

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm not seeing one single person in the GOP outside the newbies who could actually win. The names mentioned are just retreads and headliners for today's news but as several Democratic strategists have said over the past two weeks, the republicans' can not afford to waste time with trying to guess who may be running and who may not be running but need to throw someone out there to get the campaign started.

Obama has already started to campaign, which leaves a lot of unfinished work at the WH to do but who gives a crap if the country falls apart.

So let's go down the list;

Christie - has openly fought the unions so he will be attacked by the unions who won't support him and won't get much union support to help fight.

Pawlenty - OK but he hasn't done enough to get into the spot light to build on his name.

Romney - retread, needs to go into something else.

Huckabee - another retread and needs to stick to his show.

Trump - forget it, he tops my list of the most egotistical people in show business, so he would be difficult to deal with on an international level and with congress.

Palin - it hard to figure her out at times, so she lost my vote. As mentioned about her kid, I can't bring myself to seeing her actually 'raising' him when she now has a 8 digit income and a whole big staff plus I can't take her serious enough because of her "stardom"

Bachmann - OK maybe but she is a stretch too. She has had a target on her because she is outspoken and it may be another Palin situation where some repubs will be all giddy about her but the old guard will try to sabotage her campaign.

What I would like to see is one of the newbies, maybe Marco Rubio type step up to tackle Obama. The problem this last election and this time around will be the youth vote and Obama is already grooming them with his appearance at FB's HQ and so on. I don't want to see anyone military there unless they are not an officer, this is critical with the youth vote. I also don't want to see someone who has executive experience, we are talking about running an executive branch of the country, not a company.

SO unless someone at the republican party comes up with someone who does actually seem to care, doesn't compare themselves to Obama policies and actually wants to fight, then they may have a chance but otherwise, Obama for another 4 years.

It is ALL part of the plan of the left. BOTH parties have been working to control the People for YEARS! The ReBumLiCans WANT Obama to win. IF he does, the take over will be completed. The Constitution eliminated and the United States of America as we knew it, will cease to exist. We will be turned over to the UN or some other wack job group.

 

[AMonger]

Contrary to what the mainstream media would have us believe, Obama will lose to almost any reasonable candidate the GOP nominates, so long as he/she is a person of character with experience as an executive and a reasonable amount of charisma. The Obama mystique is gone now, and he has a track record - a really bad one. The media will not be able to sell the fantasy the American public so easily bought in 2008. The GOP just needs to get its act together and establish a platform of fiscal conservatism, a strong defense and a reasonable foreign policy that doesn't try to police the world. The public will vote their from pocketbooks in 2012 like never before - It's the Economy Again, Stupid!

I wish you were right. However, I just saw a poll that indicates that the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, and there'll be no meaningful financial change unless those programs get slashed (preferably abolished completely, but America isn't ready for that much freedom). So if the Republicans fight to cut them, which has to happen, the approximately 50% of Americans who depend on the feral gummint will rally to Obama.

 

[AMonger]

LCol. A. West is the type of leader we need in the office. I believe he's too new in politics right now but he absolutely should be the VP choice for otj training for 2020. Christie and Bachmann are pretty genuine. Huckabee has a number of good points but the left will vilify him as too religious since they are allowed to call observation establishment and demean anyone with any religious leanings.

It would be interesting if West were elected. He might break Reagan's record of 22 minutes.

Huckabee is a contradiction. He's a BIG GOVERNMENT neo-conservative. No BIG GOVERNMENT type can be the answer for a number of reasons.

 

[bobwg]

Conservatives, Libertarians and those of us who are fiscally responsible, yes.



Agreed. But what started as a "grassroots" movement has since been hijacked or co-opted by the Republican party and turned into "astro-turf".

From the link above:


You really are unable to see the forest through the trees aren't you? I bring up FoxNews because they prop up these so-called TeaParty politicians and make them legitimate when they are not.

When those here in the Soapbox stop referring, quoting, copying and pasting, linking to, defending, believing, and parroting what the entertainers put out, then I will stop ragging on them.

But until then, suck it up kid.

Just what makes the Tea Party Politician not legitimate ? who makes them legit? you?

 

[cheri1122]

I wish you were right. However, I just saw a poll that indicates that the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, and there'll be no meaningful financial change unless those programs get slashed (preferably abolished completely, but America isn't ready for that much freedom). So if the Republicans fight to cut them, which has to happen, the approximately 50% of Americans who depend on the feral gummint will rally to Obama.

Excuse me, but there's a real good reason the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security: because they are not handouts - they have been funded by the same Americans who were promised the money withheld from their earnings for those programs would be returned to them when they retire.
I cannot believe the whole argument even exists! The government took the money, promised the workers it would be returned when they need it, but because they couldn't keep their sticky fingers out of the cookie jar, they now want to renege?
And some folks think that's perfectly reasonable?
Not me - what I've earned, I expect to get, even if I have to fight for it, and I suspect that most working folks would do the same.
If the government needs to make cuts, they should start with their own undeserved pay.

 

[Pilgrim]

I wish you were right. However, I just saw a poll that indicates that the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, and there'll be no meaningful financial change unless those programs get slashed (preferably abolished completely, but America isn't ready for that much freedom). So if the Republicans fight to cut them, which has to happen, the approximately 50% of Americans who depend on the feral gummint will rally to Obama.

But there are other polls that indicate the vast majority of the American public believe that (a)the country is going in the wrong direction - 67.6% according to the Real Clear Politics avg, and (b)Obama's job approval rating(45.6%) is now below disapproval(49% - again RCP avgs). These are significant negatives trending against an incumbent president even before the GOP formulates their platform and produces a candidate and a campaign to emphasize his failures in ads, speeches, etc that will run 24/7 for what will seem like eternity. Obama has a record now - and it's a bad one that can't be disguised.

RealClearPolitics - Latest Polls

More Real Clear Politics insight: their polls showing Obama's standing against a generic Republican show him ahead only 2.8%, even with the advantage of the incumbent's bully pulpit. His standing if Mitt Romney were the GOP nominee is only a 2.5% advantage - and Romney hasn't given a campaign speech in three years.

In the final analysis, Ryan and the GOP will settle for reductions in the rate of growth for Soc. Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the liberal Democrats will still call them "Draconian Cuts" like they always do, but their credibility with that worn-out tactic is shot. Add this to the probability that unemployment will still hover just below 10% with housing starts at all time lows and gas prices at record highs. Once the campaign gets serious, it shouldn't be hard for the GOP to make the case that Obama and the Democrats have been running up a disastrous credit card bill - and intend to send the bill to our children and grandchildren that haven't even been born yet. And that's only part of the record that belongs to the country's worst president ever.

 

[davekc]

Excuse me, but there's a real good reason the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security: because they are not handouts - they have been funded by the same Americans who were promised the money withheld from their earnings for those programs would be returned to them when they retire.
I cannot believe the whole argument even exists! The government took the money, promised the workers it would be returned when they need it, but because they couldn't keep their sticky fingers out of the cookie jar, they now want to renege?
And some folks think that's perfectly reasonable?
Not me - what I've earned, I expect to get, even if I have to fight for it, and I suspect that most working folks would do the same.
If the government needs to make cuts, they should start with their own undeserved pay.

That is the whole problem. If you paid in and you are "rich", should you be entitled to what you put in? Some would easily say no. The folks currently in the White house have taken that position. "They must continue to sacrifice". What do you tell these people? If this government was a business, this would be essentially fraud.
The other problem is how it is currently set up. The average person puts in a dollar but actually collects three in benefits. That is partially why these programs are going broke.
No easy answer. People are going to get screwed. It is just a matter of when and how much.

 

[greg334]

Excuse me, but there's a real good reason the vast majority of Americans oppose any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security: because they are not handouts - they have been funded by the same Americans who were promised the money withheld from their earnings for those programs would be returned to them when they retire.

Well Cheri, there is a problem, it is a handout. It is not based on what people put into the system that was "invested" for them, but rather the money for today's retiree is funded 100% by those who are putting into the system today. The biggest ponzi scam the world has ever seen.

There was a promise made to supliment retirement, but outside of that, nothing else.

I cannot believe the whole argument even exists! The government took the money, promised the workers it would be returned when they need it, but because they couldn't keep their sticky fingers out of the cookie jar, they now want to renege?

I sort of agree with you but the promise was never there, the Supreme Court said in the early 60's that we who put into the system are not entitled that money back as we are not entitled to the tax money we have to pay.

BUT the problem is the greed and selfishness with the thinking that the money that it put into the system is deserved back as "promised". If someone is grossing $250k a year and collecting SS and on Medicare shouldn't get any money out of the system while the person who is struggling every day should. The idea that we can't cut spending or can't cut benefits leaves us with the only problem we will need to face later on - no money to pay anyone.