I grew up in the Church of Christ, which is a flavor of Southern American Evangelicalism, and at that time I believed that Mormons were definitely not Christian. (They were even less Christian than Catholics, who were themselves Christian only by virtue of having held the title in trust for a 1,600 until the Protestant Reformation could come along and set things right.) I have no trouble believing that many, many Evangelicals will feel very uneasy about voting for a Mormon. They'll do it, but they won't smile about it.
See and this is the exact opposite view of the Church of Christ than my experience. I've attended services with the little woman's grandparents and have a friend who is a preacher (or whatever their official title is, he doesn't really use it) at a larger church here in town. The view I have gotten from both was if you believe in Jesus (as the son of god) then you are a christian everything else is just people nitpicking.
Either way I think Romney may get the nomination because he is the relatively safe choice. I don't think he can win the general election though. Just my $.02 feel free to leave any change for the next person.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."--George Orwell
Arcanis wrote:
See and this is the exact opposite view of the Church of Christ than my experience. I've attended services with the little woman's grandparents and have a friend who is a preacher (or whatever their official title is, he doesn't really use it) at a larger church here in town. The view I have gotten from both was if you believe in Jesus (as the son of god) then you are a christian everything else is just people nitpicking.
I can believe it. The CoC "brand" is traditionally very conservative, but it's so decentralized that different congregations have liberalized at very different rates. I was a kid in rather conservative CoC congregations in Birmingham and north Atlanta, but when I was in college I started attending another CoC in Atlanta with a much more open-minded minister. He could have passed for a Methodist.
The major Church of Christ affiliated universities also reflect this split. Harding University (in Searcy, AK) is conservative, while David Lipscomb University (in Nashville) is considered more liberal. I spent a semester at Abilene (TX) Christian University, and it was probably in the middle.
Either way I think Romney may get the nomination because he is the relatively safe choice. I don't think he can win the general election though. Just my $.02 feel free to leave any change for the next person.
A giraffe could win the general election if this economy stays like it is.
Either way I think Romney may get the nomination because he is the relatively safe choice. I don't think he can win the general election though. Just my $.02 feel free to leave any change for the next person.
A giraffe could win the general election if this economy stays like it is.
It depends how hard they can spin it. Almost everyday I talk to people who will contort themselves into knots to say Obama is the only reason we all aren't eating cat food.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."--George Orwell
It depends how hard they can spin it. Almost everyday I talk to people who will contort themselves into knots to say Obama is the only reason we all aren't eating cat food.
Those are the types of people who are going to vote for Obama no matter what, because he's not Republican candidate X. The election will be won or lost by the people I talk to everyday who voted for Obama and are disappointed/ashamed/embarrassed that he's been so ineffectual (including myself).
YellowKing wrote:The election will be won or lost by the people I talk to everyday who voted for Obama and are disappointed/ashamed/embarrassed that he's been so ineffectual (including myself).
True but those people are going to compare what they think of Obama to the alternative presented by the Republicans. If they bring the crazy (Bachmann, for example) many of those folks will decide to go with ineffectual over crazy.
YellowKing wrote:The election will be won or lost by the people I talk to everyday who voted for Obama and are disappointed/ashamed/embarrassed that he's been so ineffectual (including myself).
I don't understand. Your complaint is that he hasn't been effective enough?
The people that I talk to everyday who voted for Obama and are disappointed are the ones that wanted real universal health care access. That are ok with "revenue non-reductions". They want him to have done a lot more of the sort of things that he's been doing. Well, that and disappointment over the lack of promised transparency and promised not-war-starting.
But you get the point. And I would say that over the past almost two years, I've got the sense that most of the people you talk to everyday didn't vote for Obama (which is why you felt you had to be a closet Obama supported way back when) - or even if they did - they are horrified by what he's done (rather than the things he has done enough of) - namely set us on a path of marching straight on toward a Socialist dystopia.
I never go the impression from your posts that you are awash in a sea of disgruntled Obama supporters that think he hasn't done enough.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
My comments about him being ineffectual lie primarily with the economy. We're not in much better shape than we were 3 years ago. He has failed to inspire Americans and restore our status on the global stage - in fact, quite the opposite.
"Hope, Change, and Yes We Can" has turned out to be "Nope, Nothing's Changed, and Apparently We Can't."
I grew up in the Church of Christ, which is a flavor of Southern American Evangelicalism, and at that time I believed that Mormons were definitely not Christian. (They were even less Christian than Catholics, who were themselves Christian only by virtue of having held the title in trust for a 1,600 until the Protestant Reformation could come along and set things right.) I have no trouble believing that many, many Evangelicals will feel very uneasy about voting for a Mormon. They'll do it, but they won't smile about it.
See and this is the exact opposite view of the Church of Christ than my experience. I've attended services with the little woman's grandparents and have a friend who is a preacher (or whatever their official title is, he doesn't really use it) at a larger church here in town. The view I have gotten from both was if you believe in Jesus (as the son of god) then you are a christian everything else is just people nitpicking.
Either way I think Romney may get the nomination because he is the relatively safe choice. I don't think he can win the general election though. Just my $.02 feel free to leave any change for the next person.
I don't speak Christian but I had the TV on in the background as I often do while doing work around the house on Sunday and there was a strong televangalism spark about what it means to be Christian and it was not the love they neighbor, live as Jesus lived kind of what it means to be Christian. It was the you must accept that you are flawed version God and accept that Jesus is the one true god and Bible is His Word kind of what it means to be Christian. It was very explicit about attacking "new age" Christianity. But there are about a three hundred million different versions of Christianity so hell if I know if that is becoming dominant or is on the fringe.
Arcanis wrote:
YellowKing wrote:
Either way I think Romney may get the nomination because he is the relatively safe choice. I don't think he can win the general election though. Just my $.02 feel free to leave any change for the next person.
A giraffe could win the general election if this economy stays like it is.
It depends how hard they can spin it. Almost everyday I talk to people who will contort themselves into knots to say Obama is the only reason we all aren't eating cat food.
I hear it both ways. Except on this website. On OO, it's clearly all the republicans fault for not playing ball.
I will say that Obama could lose based on the economy and this loss will be probable if the economy doesn't improve as long the Rs don't put up someone who "fires up the base." But along with Obama being swept out, you'll see congressional republicans knocked out whereever there offices aren't held by blind partisanship as their "obstructionism" comes back to roost.
Wow. When Drudge is linking to articles suggesting that Bachmann is an anxious pill-popper, I'm suddenly left confused. Or maybe it's just a sign that the Right is more fractured than I thought.
LordMortis wrote:
I hear it both ways. Except on this website. On OO, it's clearly all the republicans fault for not playing ball.
On many issues, it's both sides. However, on the debt ceiling debate, the GOP has effectively said "No tax increases, ever. We mean it. Hell, we might as well never close a tax loophole while we're at it." The Democrats are willing to cut spending substantially, and are willing to delay any tax increase for years. When the GOP hears "increased revenue", they get a mental image of Norquist shaking his tiny, fat fist at them.
They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box...
Smoove_B wrote:Wow. When Drudge is linking to articles suggesting that Bachmann is an anxious pill-popper, I'm suddenly left confused. Or maybe it's just a sign that the Right is more fractured than I thought.
One interesting thing is whether we start to see more damaging Bachmann stories in right-wing media. The GOP establishment is likely terrified of Bachmann in that she could doom them in the general election if the election winds up being at all close (not exactly a candidate that appeals to independent voters). But attacking her directly would bolster her "insurgent taking on the system" credentials.
So if party leaders decide she has to be taken down, you'll likely see more of these stories and attacks appearing in conservative outlets.
Smoove_B wrote:Wow. When Drudge is linking to articles suggesting that Bachmann is an anxious pill-popper, I'm suddenly left confused. Or maybe it's just a sign that the Right is more fractured than I thought.
It sounds like she suffers from the same type of Migraines that my mother does. When my mother gets them, they take her down for several days at at time. Incapacitating. I mean she lays in bed in a dark room for several days until they go away.... usually having to get shots that knock her out. Terrible pain and vomiting.
Anyway... she gets them probably once every two or three months. I can't imagine someone getting them once a week on average and being able to hold down a normal job, much less the Presidency.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
That sounds like you would need a very forgiving employer (or a government/union job), as you'd have to get a year under your belt before getting FMLA coverage.
Smoove_B wrote:Wow. When Drudge is linking to articles suggesting that Bachmann is an anxious pill-popper, I'm suddenly left confused. Or maybe it's just a sign that the Right is more fractured than I thought.
One interesting thing is whether we start to see more damaging Bachmann stories in right-wing media. The GOP establishment is likely terrified of Bachmann in that she could doom them in the general election if the election winds up being at all close (not exactly a candidate that appeals to independent voters). But attacking her directly would bolster her "insurgent taking on the system" credentials.
So if party leaders decide she has to be taken down, you'll likely see more of these stories and attacks appearing in conservative outlets.
This is about the only part of this that is news-worthy. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons that she'd be a nightmare as President. This isn't one.
But it sure would be interesting if this were was a right wing attack, as there is at least a hint of sexism in the attack to my (eyes? ears?).
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
YellowKing wrote:The election will be won or lost by the people I talk to everyday who voted for Obama and are disappointed/ashamed/embarrassed that he's been so ineffectual (including myself).
True but those people are going to compare what they think of Obama to the alternative presented by the Republicans. If they bring the crazy (Bachmann, for example) many of those folks will decide to go with ineffectual over crazy.
Given the rather bleak outlook for unemployment, petrol prices, inflation, and the economy in general, I would not be so confident that "crazy" will be a sufficient preventative to keep an additional 5% from voting against Obama's reelection in 2012.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
I don't even see why we're still talking about Bachmann. She doesn't have a chance in hell of getting anywhere near the Presidency. Her only long shot would be a VP slot, and I don't think Republicans are willing to hang another nutjob albatross around their neck.
YellowKing wrote:I don't even see why we're still talking about Bachmann. She doesn't have a chance in hell of getting anywhere near the Presidency. Her only long shot would be a VP slot, and I don't think Republicans are willing to hang another nutjob albatross around their neck.
Michele Bachmann's momentum continues to build and she's taken first place by the smallest of margins on PPP's newest national Presidential poll. 21% of Republican primary voters say she's their top choice to 20% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Rick Perry, 11% for Herman Cain, 9% for Ron Paul, 7% for Newt Gingrich, 5% for Tim Pawlenty, and 3% for Jon Huntsman.
Bachmann's rise has been fueled by her appeal to voters on the far right- and their skepticism about Romney. Romney has the lead with centrist Republicans (23-17) and with those defining themselves as only somewhat right of center (24-17). But among 'very conservative' voters only 48% have a positive opinion of Romney to 34% who view him negatively, weak numbers, and Bachmann's capitalizing on that with a 26-15 lead over Romney, who's in third place with that group of voters.
...
There's been a fair amount of speculation that this contest could end up as a two race between Romney and one of the more conservative candidates in the field, the strongest of whom at this point is looking like Bachmann. In such a scenario Bachmann would lead Romney 44-41. Bachmann would win the support of Cain voters (57-35), Paul backers (43-31), and Perry's (57-30) while Romney would get the voters of Gingrich supporters (43-29), Huntsman ones (79-10), and Pawlenty's (43-32).
...
These numbers also show potential signs of trouble ahead for Romney. Only 17% of Republican voters say they'd be willing to vote for someone who had supported an individual health insurance mandate at the state level, compared to 66% who say they would not be willing to support such a candidate. The funny thing about that is Romney's getting 17% right now with that latter group of voters and his favorability with them is 49/33. Your average primary voter isn't tuned in enough to the race right now to know the specifics of Romney's record.
YellowKing wrote:I don't even see why we're still talking about Bachmann. She doesn't have a chance in hell of getting anywhere near the Presidency. Her only long shot would be a VP slot, and I don't think Republicans are willing to hang another nutjob albatross around their neck.
Who should we be talking about? Everyone is just as much of a loser so far.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
Michele Bachmann's momentum continues to build and she's taken first place by the smallest of margins on PPP's newest national Presidential poll. 21% of Republican primary voters say she's their top choice to 20% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Rick Perry, 11% for Herman Cain, 9% for Ron Paul, 7% for Newt Gingrich, 5% for Tim Pawlenty, and 3% for Jon Huntsman.
Wow. Just wow. Republicans really are intent on getting Obama re elected, aren't they? I get the no compromising principles thing, but you'd think you'd still want to get your guy elected. I guess we'll see what happens when candidates start to drop out. It also means it's getting near time to figure out who Perry, Cain, and Huntsman are, I guess... And to ask myself if I could vote for Romney.
YellowKing wrote:We're still over a year out. I ain't afraid of no Bachmann.
I agree. The problem is that there aren't any better candidates to talk about now. So people talk about this one.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
I say the GOP nominee will be Perry, and here's why:
1) Bachmann is strong where the GOP is Craziest. She won't win the nomination, but she will push the debate to the Right, which hurts Romney and helps Perry.
2) Santorum is a pale, sad, Michele Bachmann wannabe, but without the train-wreck charisma.
3) Cain is a gaffe machine who won't survive his interview with Katie Couric.
4) Ron Paul would rather be right than President. He will be neither.
5) Newt Gingrich is in the party of Newt Gingrich. He is running for the office of Newt Gingrich, which he will win.
6) Huntsman is more Romney than Romney, and thus invisible.
7) Right now, Romney is nominee by default. He is staking everything on the GOP establishment bringing the Tea Party in line. However...
8) As soon as Rick Perry anoints himself as Jesus' own Reagan, the rest of the field will turn on Romney and eat him alive, literally, on stage.
My prediction: Perry will be the nominee. The Tea Party will accept him, and the establishment will hope to sell him as more Bush than Bachmann.
EDIT: Oops, I left out Pawlenty. How did that happen?
Last edited by Holman on Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michele Bachmann's momentum continues to build and she's taken first place by the smallest of margins on PPP's newest national Presidential poll. 21% of Republican primary voters say she's their top choice to 20% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Rick Perry, 11% for Herman Cain, 9% for Ron Paul, 7% for Newt Gingrich, 5% for Tim Pawlenty, and 3% for Jon Huntsman.
Wow. Just wow. Republicans really are intent on getting Obama re elected, aren't they? I get the no compromising principles thing, but you'd think you'd still want to get your guy elected. I guess we'll see what happens when candidates start to drop out. It also means it's getting near time to figure out who Perry, Cain, and Huntsman are, I guess... And to ask myself if I could vote for Romney.
Perry - corrupt, morally bankrupt douchebag who would 10x worse then Bush ever dreamed of being.
Cain - crazy
Huntsman - seems alright, kinda Romney-lite
To my Wife:
"Life's only life with you in this song" -Whistles the Wind, Flogging Molly
Not to my Wife:
- "When someone smiles at me, all I see is a chimpanzee begging for his life."
I grew up in the Church of Christ, which is a flavor of Southern American Evangelicalism, and at that time I believed that Mormons were definitely not Christian. (They were even less Christian than Catholics, who were themselves Christian only by virtue of having held the title in trust for a 1,600 until the Protestant Reformation could come along and set things right.) I have no trouble believing that many, many Evangelicals will feel very uneasy about voting for a Mormon. They'll do it, but they won't smile about it.
See and this is the exact opposite view of the Church of Christ than my experience. I've attended services with the little woman's grandparents and have a friend who is a preacher (or whatever their official title is, he doesn't really use it) at a larger church here in town. The view I have gotten from both was if you believe in Jesus (as the son of god) then you are a christian everything else is just people nitpicking.
Either way I think Romney may get the nomination because he is the relatively safe choice. I don't think he can win the general election though. Just my $.02 feel free to leave any change for the next person.
Are you sure that wasn't a United Church of Christ church? CoC, typically right-wing conservative. UCC, typically left-wing liberal.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
I say the GOP nominee will be Perry, and here's why:
1) Bachmann is strong where the GOP is Craziest. She won't win the nomination, but she will push the debate to the Right, which hurts Romney and helps Perry.
2) Santorum is a pale, sad, Michele Bachmann wannabe, but without the train-wreck charisma.
3) Cain is a gaffe machine who won't survive his interview with Katie Couric.
4) Ron Paul would rather be right than President. He will be neither.
5) Newt Gingrich is in the party of Newt Gingrich. He is running for the office of Newt Gingrich, which he will win.
6) Huntsman is more Romney than Romney, and thus invisible.
7) Right now, Romney is nominee by default. He is staking everything on the GOP establishment bringing the Tea Party in line. However...
8) As soon as Rick Perry anoints himself as Jesus' own Reagan, the rest of the field will turn on Romney and eat him alive, literally, on stage.
My prediction: Perry will be the nominee. The Tea Party will accept him, and the establishment will hope to sell him as more Bush than Bachmann.
I agree that Perry has a real shot at being the GOP nominee. I would warn everyone that he's been a miserable Governor of Texas, which under his leadership has become a much worse place to live (unless you're very rich). He'd be an even worse President than Bush.
He also might be a closet-case. Just sayin'.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
I say the GOP nominee will be Perry, and here's why:
1) Bachmann is strong where the GOP is Craziest. She won't win the nomination, but she will push the debate to the Right, which hurts Romney and helps Perry.
2) Santorum is a pale, sad, Michele Bachmann wannabe, but without the train-wreck charisma.
3) Cain is a gaffe machine who won't survive his interview with Katie Couric.
4) Ron Paul would rather be right than President. He will be neither.
5) Newt Gingrich is in the party of Newt Gingrich. He is running for the office of Newt Gingrich, which he will win.
6) Huntsman is more Romney than Romney, and thus invisible.
7) Right now, Romney is nominee by default. He is staking everything on the GOP establishment bringing the Tea Party in line. However...
8) As soon as Rick Perry anoints himself as Jesus' own Reagan, the rest of the field will turn on Romney and eat him alive, literally, on stage.
My prediction: Perry will be the nominee. The Tea Party will accept him, and the establishment will hope to sell him as more Bush than Bachmann.
I agree that Perry has a real shot at being the GOP nominee. I would warn everyone that he's been a miserable Governor of Texas, which under his leadership has become a much worse place to live (unless you're very rich). He'd be an even worse President than Bush.
He also might be a closet-case. Just sayin'.
On the upside, we'd finally be rid of him if he won.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
I do not think it will ultimately matter who the Republican nominee is.
Voters' views on the President tend to reflect their views on the economy. Without signs of significant improvement prior to November 2012, I can't help thinking that Obama will not be re-elected (even if the Republicans nominate a hideous Frankenstein's monster composed from the innards of Nixon, Ivan the Terrible, Vlad the Impaler, and Adolf Hitler, along with a Palin-Bachman-Coulter human centipede runningmate).
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
YellowKing wrote:We're still over a year out. I ain't afraid of no Bachmann.
I'm curious though - what would you do if she's the nominee? Vote for her? Sit the general election out?
Yes. I would vote for her.
I do NOT buy the political tactic that the Democrats have adopted (and in ABUNDANCE on this forum) of using social/religious scare tactics to attack candidates.
And I think YellowKing is of the same mindset after the reality of what happened when Obama was elected 3 years ago.
It's 109 first team All-Americans.
It's a college football record 61 bowl appearances.
It's 34 bowl victories.
It's 24 Southeastern Conference Championships.
It's 15 National Championships.
At some places they play football. At Alabama we live it.
YellowKing wrote:The election will be won or lost by the people I talk to everyday who voted for Obama and are disappointed/ashamed/embarrassed that he's been so ineffectual (including myself).
True but those people are going to compare what they think of Obama to the alternative presented by the Republicans. If they bring the crazy (Bachmann, for example) many of those folks will decide to go with ineffectual over crazy.
Given the rather bleak outlook for unemployment, petrol prices, inflation, and the economy in general, I would not be so confident that "crazy" will be a sufficient preventative to keep an additional 5% from voting against Obama's reelection in 2012.
Another way of looking it is that Obama got the highest vote percentage in the last 20 years. (And only twice since 1964 has the vote percentage been significantly higher, in 1972 and 1984).
2008 wasn't exactly a nail biter, so I think Obama has a bit more room than you think. I think you're also underestimating the impact that an out-there candidate can have on an election. The nomination of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware single-handedly turned a GOP rout into a democratic rout, and Angle did a pretty similar thing in Nevada.
If Bachmann is the nominee, I think that we'd have to be in Mad Max territory for Obama to lose.
YellowKing wrote:We're still over a year out. I ain't afraid of no Bachmann.
I'm curious though - what would you do if she's the nominee? Vote for her? Sit the general election out?
Yes. I would vote for her.
I do NOT buy the political tactic that the Democrats have adopted (and in ABUNDANCE on this forum) of using social/religious scare tactics to attack candidates.
And I think YellowKing is of the same mindset after the reality of what happened when Obama was elected 3 years ago.
I was already pretty certain that you would vote for her. That's why I asked YK. YK is in one of the demographics ("Disaffected republicans who voted for Obama") that the GOP could realistically lose from a Bachmann nomination. If not to Obama, then to "not voting."
msduncan wrote:I do NOT buy the political tactic that the Democrats have adopted (and in ABUNDANCE on this forum) of using social/religious scare tactics to attack candidates..
As someone who's life would be dramatically harmed by the sort of backwards, bigoted, hateful social policies against gay Americans a "President Bachmann" would pursue, I don't see how those are "scare tactics." Republicans have a history of doing hateful, harmful things to gays and lesbians. It is not a "scare tactic" to assert that if given power, they will continue down that path. Particularly when you're dealing with someone who's scumbag of a husband bilks tortured souls with a pray-away-the-gay scam.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
YellowKing wrote:We're still over a year out. I ain't afraid of no Bachmann.
I'm curious though - what would you do if she's the nominee? Vote for her? Sit the general election out?
Yes. I would vote for her.
I do NOT buy the political tactic that the Democrats have adopted (and in ABUNDANCE on this forum) of using social/religious scare tactics to attack candidates.
Well if calling out candidates that adopt the whole "look out married Christian folks, the gays are coming for your marriage vows" tactic an abundant behavior on this forum, then I'm happy to be part of this abundance!
"Who's going to tell him that the job he's currently seeking might just be one of those Black jobs?"
-Michelle Obama 2024 Democratic Convention
Wise words of warning from Smoove B: Oh, how you all laughed when I warned you about the semen. Well, who's laughing now?
Fireball1244 wrote:
I agree that Perry has a real shot at being the GOP nominee. I would warn everyone that he's been a miserable Governor of Texas, which under his leadership has become a much worse place to live (unless you're very rich).
He also might be a closet-case. Just sayin'.
I know this is the liberal mantra, but I have a hard time agreeing with it. Texas tax burden is low. Unemployment is low (relative to the nation). Foreclosures were low. Perry was elected easily over a pretty popular figure in Bill White, with roughly the same percentage vote as in 2002. 2006 was fairly screwy with the two independant candidates running, and a weak Democratic nominee in Bell.
What metrics say it's a 'much worse place to live'?
He'd be an even worse President than Bush.
I think Obama has shown Bush isn't nearly as bad as conventional wisdom has made him out to be, and it further casts aspersions on the Perry criticisms.
Black Lives Matter
"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
msduncan wrote:I do NOT buy the political tactic that the Democrats have adopted (and in ABUNDANCE on this forum) of using social/religious scare tactics to attack candidates..
As someone who's life would be dramatically harmed by the sort of backwards, bigoted, hateful social policies against gay Americans a "President Bachmann" would pursue, I don't see how those are "scare tactics." Republicans have a history of doing hateful, harmful things to gays and lesbians. It is not a "scare tactic" to assert that if given power, they will continue down that path. Particularly when you're dealing with someone who's scumbag of a husband bilks tortured souls with a pray-away-the-gay scam.
Barbarian. You need to be civilized.
Don't you know that the Republicans are the party of ideas, and never use social/religious scare tactics?
Fireball1244 wrote:
He'd be an even worse President than Bush.
I think Obama has shown Bush isn't nearly as bad as conventional wisdom has made him out to be, and it further casts aspersions on the Perry criticisms.
Is this the general opinion? Obama's administration is making Bush look good in comparison? Or are you saying something else ND?
