Genius .... and Boobus .....

[cheri1122]

Come on now Cheri, why are you so quick to call Bachmann a moron for the things that she believes?
Not quick, it took a few days, [and comments] ok?
I didn't hear you or anyone else making such comments about Obama's choice of church.....one that is steeped in Black Liberation Theology which has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, nor does "collective salvation", he believes in that too.
It's not her [or anyone's] choice of church that bothers me, it's her total commitment to her religion and its' beliefs - not what I want in any president. I believe that it would threaten everyone's freedom of religion, because the President's would dominate - even if not overtly. If no decision is made [in her mind] that isn't informed and shaped by her religion, then her religion would have too much influence on everyone else, and the same goes for any and every candidate. They can belong to whatever church, but they need to separate their religious beliefs from their secular work, and I can't see her doing that. [Probably true of Rick Perry, also.]

If it's the gaffes, she's made no more or no less than the big O but still, only the conservatives report on them, the rest of the MSM gives him a pass.
I don't know from 'MSM' - I check the Google News aggregate, and follow the articles/links that get my attention. Bachmann has made so many outrageous comments that she just can't be taken seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all in her corner but it seems that she falls into the same category as Palin in that it's open season on conservative women.

Nope - it's just that those two are not even close to presidential material. It's like they think a pretty face and conservative 'values' speeches will distract everyone's attention from their lack of actual knowledge & depth, but it isn't even working on the guys, much.
I'd love to see a woman who would make a good president, but I haven't yet. [Not many men, either.]

I believe a true Christian would believe that God can do all things and that would include change ones heart to work toward changing their homosexuality. Now, you can make fun of that and call me an ignorant moron but anything short of believing that God can do all would not be true Christianity....IMHO

And there's the crucial difference between you & her: you believe God can do it, she says he is doing it. [Well, her husband does, and she believes him.] It's like the crazies who insist that God is punishing us with hurricanes & AIDS - anyone who believes they know what God is doing is just not playing with a full deck.
And what do the 'converted' homosexuals say? What I've read, some get caught up in the guilt/relief syndrome and try to be other than what they are, but none have really truly changed their innate nature - they pretend [even trying to convince themselves] for as long as they can, but wanting to be something you're not is just asking for heartache , guilt, and misery, and I have no respect for people who 'persuade' anyone that it ought to be done.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

And I'd like to see a black person make a good president. Not there yet either.

 

[LDB]

Only a moron would run for president on her qualifications.

You mean like Obama?

 

[LDB]

not even a country that elected a black Democrat President

What country is that?

 

[dieseldiva]

It's not her [or anyone's] choice of church that bothers me, it's her total commitment to her religion and its' beliefs - not what I want in any president. I believe that it would threaten everyone's freedom of religion, because the President's would dominate - even if not overtly. If no decision is made [in her mind] that isn't informed and shaped by her religion, then her religion would have too much influence on everyone else, and the same goes for any and every candidate. They can belong to whatever church, but they need to separate their religious beliefs from their secular work, and I can't see her doing that. [Probably true of Rick Perry, also.]

Maybe I should have worded my response differently, referring to Obama's "black liberation theology". These beliefs that he has do indeed come into play in his decisions and make no mistake, he's totally committed to this philosophy. It lines up with his socialist policies and class warfare. So the decision, as I see it, between the two types would not be whether you want your president to be influenced by traditional Christianity beliefs or something that seems to be having a negative affect on all of us at this point in the Obama presidency.

 

[Moot]

I'm rather surprised there isn't a tremendous amount of support for RP. It seems when we look at candidates today we are voting against the other guy because we don't find someone we can fully back.

When Ron Paul ran as an independent people bought into the idea that voting for a 3rd party candidate was a wasted vote. Now that he is running as a republican people are buying into "he's too old" line of crap. If you believe in the man and his platform, support him! Don't be swayed by media hype. In my not so humble opinion, the only wasted vote is the one cast for the lesser of two evils.

 

[scottm4211]

A look at how the Australian government proactively moved forward during the "recession" is fascinating. Sometimes it would be a benefit to see how other countries do things...

 

[Tennesseahawk]

A look at how the Australian government proactively moved forward during the "recession" is fascinating. Sometimes it would be a benefit to see how other countries do things...

I read somewhere Australia is having a false boom, just like we did in the mid-2000s. Apparently, Greenspan is now an Aussie... OI OI OI!

 

[scottm4211]

I read somewhere Australia is having a false boom, just like we did in the mid-2000s. Apparently, Greenspan is now an Aussie... OI OI OI!

I listened to a BBC interview with their finance minister. Impressive guy. They are concentrating on selling finished goods to Asia, not just natural resources.

 

[Pilgrim]

When Ron Paul ran as an independent people bought into the idea that voting for a 3rd party candidate was a wasted vote. Now that he is running as a republican people are buying into "he's too old" line of crap. If you believe in the man and his platform, support him! Don't be swayed by media hype. In my not so humble opinion, the only wasted vote is the one cast for the lesser of two evils.

For those that believe Paul is the real deal - do everything you can to help him get the GOP nomination, and forget the "too old" stuff. However, if he doesn't wind up being the Republican nominee he's out of the picture. The reality in this country at this point in time is that the two-party system rules. For those who vote for a third party candidate, maybe they'll fell warm and fuzzy inside for a few days thinking "that'll show them" - whoever "them" is. However, we've had two presidential races in the recent past that have demonstrated the counterproductive consequences of voting for third party candidates: (1) HW Bush vs Clinton - those who voted for Ross Perot effectively elected Bill Clinton. (2) W Bush vs Gore in 2000 - those who voted for Ralph Nader in effect elected W. Unless and until a 3d party candidate comes along who can marshal a significant amount of money and popular support equal to roughly 33% in the polls, they will only act as spoilers who are responsible for the election of the candidate their supporters DON'T want to see elected. Sometimes the voters need to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils - McCain vs. Obama was a prime example.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

For those that believe Paul is the real deal - do everything you can to help him get the GOP nomination, and forget the "too old" stuff. However, if he doesn't wind up being the Republican nominee he's out of the picture. The reality in this country at this point in time is that the two-party system rules. For those who vote for a third party candidate, maybe they'll fell warm and fuzzy inside for a few days thinking "that'll show them" - whoever "them" is. However, we've had two presidential races in the recent past that have demonstrated the counterproductive consequences of voting for third party candidates: (1) HW Bush vs Clinton - those who voted for Ross Perot effectively elected Bill Clinton. (2) W Bush vs Gore in 2000 - those who voted for Ralph Nader in effect elected W. Unless and until a 3d party candidate comes along who can marshal a significant amount of money and popular support equal to roughly 33% in the polls, they will only act as spoilers who are responsible for the election of the candidate their supporters DON'T want to see elected. Sometimes the voters need to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils - McCain vs. Obama was a prime example.

You just proved voting for a third party can make a difference; and you also say that the two parties rule. So which is it?

It's not an "I'll show them!" vote... at least for me it isn't. If and when I vote third party, it's a "That guy/party is right along with my way of thinking."

Just thought of something... If you vote for one of the two main candidates BECAUSE most lemmings are voting for them, what does that make you?

 

[muttly]

You can think it lame if you wish, but unfounded it is not. Personally, just the fact that she believes that sexual orientation can be changed by means of prayer is all I need to know - that's wishful thinking, not rational thought.
If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of other examples of her unfitness for office, with hypocrisy and lack of knowledge & preparedness chief among them. Only a moron would run for president on her qualifications, IMO. [And too many usually do.]

So using your criteria just stated are you prepared to call Obama a moron? Yes or no.

 

[Moot]

The reality in this country at this point in time is that the two-party system rules.

That is exactly why the two-party system rules and always will as long as people buy into the notion that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote. Create your own reality and vote for a candidate you most believe in! You are only wasting your vote if you follow the lead of some on television.

 

[greg334]

Well the other side of the coin is that if we have a true two party system, then the people can only fire the one who is in office at the time of the problems (first carter, then bush, maybe obama) but it isn't because we are choosing at the better candidate in the race - just the opposite - we are getting rid of the one in office ... and there is no guarantees that the one who replaced the sitting president will be better but may be a lot worse.

Who ever the republicans put up against obama may win on the merits of only obama, not their own but on the other hand the people can still give obama a chance to fix the things he said he will fix - this is the risk that the republicans are making by going through the primary process and getting people tired of the BS and confusion. We can't believe polls, they are actually meaningless with such a small numbers and without the breakdown of the demographics involved so what is there left but to sit and wait and get tired of the republicans pandering and posturing while using worn out terms and talking points.

The underlying problem is no one can predict the outcome until the day after the election but the bigger problem is that the republicans only have a few who are capable of beating obama on more than obama's floundering and dismal record and those are the few who are beaten up in the primaries so badly their message won't get out.

There is also a fallacy of qualifications, at this point it does not matter and in all honestly it never did. The president isn't the "leader", he has a limited amount of power and without being king, many would qualify - including obama - to be president. Rubio and Christy both would make presidents at this time, but so would a number of others we never hear about. It isn't an experience issue that is needed, it is something beyond that, the fortitude to stand firm on an issue and see it through.

As far as I can see, Ron Paul has a lot of great points that the republicans should grasp and run with but alas, the republicans can't even define conservatives and hang on tight to the groups within the party that make them less desirable to the independents.

 

[RLENT]

You just proved voting for a third party can make a difference; and you also say that the two parties rule. So which is it?

Heheheh ....

Hope for this one you're not really expecting a responsive reply, one given in all candor .....

Using similar "logic" as the poster you are questioning, we get the following:

...... everyone that voted for H. W. Bush elected Clinton ....

It really does work both ways of course ....

It's not an "I'll show them!" vote... at least for me it isn't. If and when I vote third party, it's a "That guy/party is right along with my way of thinking."

It's ...... interesting ....

It seems to me that the appeal being given to you, at it's most basic, is not for someone, based on the merits, record, philosophy of that individual ........ but simply against someone ....

Personally, I voted (admittedly ignorantly) in that exact way in 2000 .... and was eventually quite displeased with the outcome that I helped to elect (.... select )

Never again.

If I don't honestly feel in my heart of hearts that any candidate is worthy and deserves my support, I simply won't vote.

I'd rather "waste" my vote - by not voting it - than to become a .... by prostituting myself .....

Just thought of something... If you vote for one of the two main candidates BECAUSE most lemmings are voting for them, what does that make you?

An astute observation ..... (you got "juice" BTW )

I think we just got to face it: .... rugged individualism just ain't for everyone ...

.... apparently it makes some feel ..... uncomfy .... I guess ....

 

[Pilgrim]

You just proved voting for a third party can make a difference; and you also say that the two parties rule. So which is it?

I'll say again - the 3d party candidate has to have large enough numbers to deny at least one of the other candidates a significant percentage of the vote. Let's say the polls show the three candidates split the vote 35-35-20% with the 3d party getting 20% and 10% undecided in late summer or early fall after the conventions. The 3d party guy is really in the hunt and only needs to pick up a few undecided and uncommitted voters from one of the parties to move into a virtual tie on election day. Should the electoral votes get tied up, it then goes to the House of Representatives to select the President. How many of them do you think will vote for the 3d party candidate, considering in that situation each state has only ONE vote.

Bottom line is that any 3d party candidate has to be REALLY strong considering the way the deck is stacked against him. Otherwise, a vote for him is wasted.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

That's the whole thing, Pilgrim. If I'm worried about who the Joneses are voting for, then I'm a Jones myself. Reminds me of Boz Scaggs -

"Got to have a Jones for this, Jones for that. This runnin with the Joneses, boy, it just ain't where it's at."

Runnin with the Lemmings ain't where it's at either.

"Ya gotta come back around to the sad, sad truth - the dirty lowdown."

 

[tbubster]

For those that think a third party vote is the way to go all you need to do is look to Ron Paul.Really as much as you all say the republican party does not like him,or the many times he has spoken out against the republican party. Of the three times he has run twice have been as republican.The first one was as a third party which he recived less then half a million votes.You see even Paul knows that there is no chance of a third party being elected president.Otherwise he would be running as a third party and not a republican.In doing so he has chosen to be part of what he belives is the lesser of the two evils.With the way that so many claim Paul is disliked by both partys Say he did get on the ticket then won the election.With so many that dislike him how much do any of you really think he can change.

 

[RLENT]

That's the whole thing, Pilgrim. If I'm worried about who the Joneses are voting for, then I'm a Jones myself.

That there jus' makes ya really proud to be an Amurycun, don't it ?

 

[cheri1122]

That is exactly why the two-party system rules and always will as long as people buy into the notion that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote. Create your own reality and vote for a candidate you most believe in! You are only wasting your vote if you follow the lead of some on television.

Can we say 'self fulfilling prophecy'?
IMO, the wasted vote is the one you have to hold your nose to make, because it's the lesser of two evils, and that's all most of us have done for way too long.
The 2 party system benefits by insisting a vote for a third party candidate is futile - isn't it time to show that times change?