jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (79 posts)

GOP 2012 candidates: Are they really this out of touch?

  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

    Fox News' Bret Baier asked all eight Republican candidates:

    "I'm going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal, a real spending cuts deal, 10-to-1, as Byron said, spending cuts to tax increases. Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you'd walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?"

    All eight candidates raised their hand. If offered a debt-reduction package that is 10-to-1 in their favor, all of them would say no.

    They are all so afraid of the far-right extremists that they wouldn't have the guts to work toward solving our debt problem.  They would choose stagnation over real solutions.

    This should be a real wake-up call to moderate voters.

    Video of all 8 Republican candidates saying no to debt reduction deal

    1. profile image0
      JacksBlogsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting questions but they are phrased wrong.  Part of the problem is in the phrasing.  Whomever controls the conversation often wins.  Damn it there is NO tax increases!  Several years ago Clinton had things on the right path with the best national debt expectations we have had in the modern era.  THEN Pres Bush gave a tax break that was supposed to be temporary and the vast majority of it went to the wealthiest people.  Now a lot of ordinary people have been fooled by the joke that these wealthiest 5% need that money so they can hire everyone else,  That's crap.  The wealthiest people need to start paying what they paid before the GOP gave away what we needed and what we need now and that is the wealthiest people's proper contribution. It is a rare first world country indeed where the wealthy people pay as little as Americans.  Has America gone nuts!  Throw out the silly Tea Party!

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Sad but true. However, some are in touch with God.

      2. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jack,

        In reality, most went to the middle class. Wait till they expire and you will realize and remember the cuts. I wrote a hub about it but it was censored. Google Bush tax cut and read the actual bills. I will give you one example. 2001 tax cuts gave us a 3% with holding cut, some lower income got more with the new 10% bracket. 2003 gave another 2% cut. Expire the tax cut and you will lose 5% of you pay. Married people will pay 15% to 20% more when the marrage breakd are gone. Not to mention all the rules for 401K and retirement funds that gave you great options including putting in more for retirement and not paying taxes on it. That will all go away. There are many breaks for small businesses like the local elecrtician and more. If you read the bills, you will be truly suprised. I was

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In typical deceptive style, you neglect to mention that President Obama only wants the cuts to expire for the top 2%.

          The GOP will not close tax loopholes for the rich, and the won't vote for a bill that extends the tax cuts for the bottom 98% unless the wealthy get their free ride.

          Who is the GOP working for?

          1. Moderndayslave profile image59
            Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            He didn't hide the truth did he?

          2. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            As always, it is you that is truly uninformed. He says he wants to close loopholes fro the top 2 %, but wants to let the ENTIRE Bush tax cuts expire. Please be more informed when responding.

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans," Obama said in his speech. "But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can't afford it. And I refuse to renew them again."

              The Bush Tax Cuts will expire. Based on the previous legislative proposals, I predict the President and democrats will try to extend the cuts for the bottom 98%. Based on their previous policy, I predict the Teabaggers will demand tax Cuts for their masters, the top 2%.

              You are entitled to your opinion, but the quote from the President is clear.

              1. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Doug,

                Do yourself a favor, go read the 2001 and 2003  Bush tax cut bills. I could care less what Obama said. Here are some fact for you:
                1. Obama has raised taxes. Less than 30 days in office, he raised the taxes on gas calling it a sin tax to get people to conserve and buy electric cars. Recently GM has asked for a $1 dollar tax on gas, Obama said he would address it after the elections. Now I do not have to be a Harvard grad to know he meant he will do it, but knows it would hurt his election chances.
                2. He raised taxes on cigaretts and alcohal.
                3. Starting 12-31-2011 Obama has put a 3.8% tax on real estate sales over $250,000.
                4. Obama want to eliminate the republican jet tax. THe tax break was part of Obamas stimulus plan. Nows for the best part. The tax break expired in 2010. Obama wants to cut a tax break that no longer exists.

                So "Obama said" carries no weight when it comes to tax increases

                In order for your prediction to come true, there are only a few cuts that will happen. They will not add up to anything.

                One more thing, enough with tea baggers. Were they here when Congress overspent? NO Were they here when Obama pushed his stimulus? NO In fact they were not aroung for anything that everyone blames them for. The only item you can get on them for is the Debt debate.

                http://www.moneyandrisk.com/retire-earl … atic-plan/

                link to the Bush tax cuts here, there is also a link for a calculator to see how much your taxes will go up if Obama allows then to expire.

                http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c … .1836.ENR:
                http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2:
                http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/taxcalc/

              2. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why can't we afford 1 trillion in tax cuts? The simple answer is to spend 1 trillion less. Better yet spend 2 trillion less.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There's a reason not a single one of them raised their hands.

      Taxes are already as high as they need to be, we need to cut spending.

    3. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The real solution is cutting spending.  John Stossel has many great ideas on how to create a surplus without raising tax rates one iota.  If you stop and take a look at all the taxes we pay on all levels, you would see that we actually get to keep very little for ourselves.  Even if you took all the money that the top 5% have, you still wouldn't come close to balancing the current budget, which by the way is not even a real budget.  So the real cutting needs to be done and the politicians need to grow the backbone to do it.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't that the job of the Super Committee?
        Interesting that there are 12 of them.
        I see a hung jury in our future...

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image58
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hanging is too good for Congress.

        2. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          MM Very true

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          12 people in charge of 2 trillion taxpayer dollars.

          the constitution really is dead.

          1. Jonathan Janco profile image79
            Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, Ive sent an email or two to my representatives in Washington, Evan. You should too if you havent already.
            No, Im not overflowing with confidence that my objections to this superduper commitee are going to be taken seriously. But making your voice heard is better than not.

            1. uncorrectedvision profile image58
              uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The Congress and President do not care what we have to say about anything.  There is a new aristocracy emerging and they are confident that they are wiser and more virtuous than all the rest of us.  That is why this whole thing was cooked up in secret meetings and ignores the budgetary responsibilities with which Congress was charged by the Constitution.

              1. Jonathan Janco profile image79
                Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Emerging? I got news for you it emerged a long time ago and it aint goin away! As for whether or not they care about what we have to say I'm sure I agree with you, but I've never been one to take it lying down.

                1. uncorrectedvision profile image58
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You won't have to take it lying down you can take it standing on the bread line with the rest of us.

              2. Reality Bytes profile image91
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Everything was settled at the Bilderberger meeting.  The marionettes do dance well though, you must admit.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I've been writing letters for years. No one cares.

        4. profile image69
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They should be hung or they are well hung? smile

    4. uncorrectedvision profile image58
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are we still struggling in an economic down turn?  What does a tax increase do to an economy in a recession?  There are times I wish the Republicans did not take the House and that Democrats still had a filibuster proof Senate.  It will take an absolute disaster created by an over reaching State to convince some that the government is a problem not a solution.

    5. Awkward Turtle profile image61
      Awkward Turtleposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Michele Bachmann recently said that she would bring back the ban on gays in the military...

      Because uncalled for, unneeded, unfair, hell-raising segregation and inner conflict is the USA's first priority. She is a visionary, she sees that drawing lines between citizens and breaking apart national unity is the best way to save a country spiraling out of control. I'm not a big Obama fan, but if she is the Republican's candidate, then congrats to the Democrats on another four years.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        My husband, who is a registered Republican, says the same thing.  If Bachmann, or any other extreme social conservatives gets the Republican nomination, then it's Obama for another four years.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image58
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't Ask Don't Tell has already been reinstated.

        http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/18/nin … dont-tell/

        On the request of Barry's Justice Department.

        http://legalpad.typepad.com/my_weblog/2 … arges.html

      3. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What national unity are you talking about?

      4. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Awkawrd,

        Do you think our country is united right now?

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    Yes

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes.

  3. Jonathan Janco profile image79
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    The Tea Party and now the mainstream Republican Party simply dont want to tax the rich. All of the different liens, surcharges and regressive taxes on the poor and middle class are not so quietly applauded by the Republicans. After all, they need revenue and other scams to do their dirty pet projects that they get through with riders on bills that Democrats will vote for. They also have made no effort to resist the increasing 'war' 'economy' and they give a rat's @ss about creating jobs. But they wont dare mess with the wealthiest people's precious tax cuts eventhough alot of that money is leaving the country. Politicians need their kickbacks. And you could say Democrats are taking kickbacks from what they call Big Labor and that is true. But atleast the unions are fighting for jobs to stay in this country.

  4. Jonathan Janco profile image79
    Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago

    By the way, funneling your money to Switzerland or the Caymans to avoid taxes is called capital flight. In most countries it is a crime. In fact in South Korea (that's South Korea, the democratic, anti-communist part of Korea) you can and will get the death penalty for commiting capital flight.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I know Singapore had pretty harsh penalties for this since the early 1980's.

  5. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    Sorry Pretty Panther -

    I did not see that you had posted on the same thing I did. I will pull mine down but let me include...

    Now consider this...A CNN poll released this week 8/10 found that 63 percent favored "increases in taxes on businesses and higher-income Americans." Additionally, the cornerstone of the GOP plan to balance the budget without new revenue is privatizing Medicare, which transfers the cost of health care from the government to seniors on a fixed income. This approach (or to quote the poll exactly, "Major Changes to the Medicare and Social Security System")... was supported by 35%.

    So who are the GOP candidates representing when they boldly ignore the majority?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think we can guess who they are representing.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Because like you , so many have been brainwashed into believing that nothing can be cut so raise taxes!! Well guess what, if someone like me can find 5.06 trillion dollars in cuts they can find them and more. Take 5% across the board cuts, 15% pay cut for congress, 25% for the President. Cut 600billion dollars from the NSF. They spend so wisely, like the study of jell-o werstling, the recreation of the 64 worlds fair, study of ticket sales on the internet, the shrimp on the treadmill and a whole lot more. THe CBO and GAO showed a report to save over 200 billion dollars per year eliminating duplicate jobs and functions., but Washington ignored that report. And how about redoing the tax code so EVERYONE pays taxes, not just 50%, redo the business tax code. Make businesses that hide overseas pay taxes. Make companies that ship jobs overseas, make those people pay with holding taxes too. After all, they are working for an American company. If ater that we still need revenues, which we will not, I would be for a tax increase and I bet the right would be too.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago

    They embarrass me and I'm not Republican. How can anyone possibly take them seriously?

  7. Rochelle Frank profile image88
    Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago

    So would a ten to one deal mean 10%  budget cuts and 1% tax increase?== in that case why could it not be 8% cuts and lower tax by 1%? I think the premise was vague.
    Also 10% cuts  in spending would total less than an overall 1% tax increase on everyone. Vague.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I would have applauded any of them who had the guts to point out what a stupid question it was.

      1. Rochelle Frank profile image88
        Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think they  all pointed it out by saying they would not agree-- because it was stupid.

  8. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/TPqDBr-FqUI/AAAAAAAAGdM/AGRvf84-F-U/s400/lemming3.jpg

  9. Hugh Williamson profile image88
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    The GOP candidates should get used to hearing this question in some form, because it's going to be front and center constantly, right up to the 2012 election. Translation - are you in favor of continuing the ludicrous and damaging tax structure as it is now?

    The cause of the U.S. worsening financial state is that we allowed industries and jobs to leave the country while wasting outrageous amounts of money on war adventures and unwarranted tax cuts. This was for our own good, we were told and few noticed that it didn't pass the sniff test.

    Foreign production facilities may make their U.S. owners wealthy but closed factories and jobless people are poor sources of revenue at home. The only way to meet our debt obligations is by rapidly expanding our productivity, not by milking it dry for the rich.

    Plan? Is there a plan? I doubt that many believe that the cure is to take granny's social security away while the wealthy get a free ride. Tax cuts are for those who create jobs and add to our economy; not a right of the privileged.

    We will all sacrifice together, or we will all tank -- together. Anyone wanting to be elected in 2012 will need a better answer to the question above and others like it. And by the way, both parties got us into this.

  10. Paul Wingert profile image78
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    Yes, the Republican candidates are wacked out! What's the problem taxing the rich and big companies? They been screwing people for years!

    1. Hugh Williamson profile image88
      Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not just the GOP. The U.S. financial system pulls the strings of the pols in both parties. This money behemoth only cares about next quarter's dividends and profits and they don't care how this is earned.

      The financial people should be yelling about the U.S. corporate tax rate, not the personal income tax rate. Topping out at 35 percent, America’s official corporate income tax rate trails only Japan, at 39.5 percent and Japan has said it plans to lower its rate. Big money doesn't care because our laws allow them to open a 1 person office in Switzerland and pay their tax rate.

      Citizens can start to fix things by studying the issues and working for change. If party levers are pulled blindly in 2012, then we'll get the same old political snowjobs at the behest of big finance and all bets are off. This is a critical period for us all.

    2. Jelly Bean 1 profile image60
      Jelly Bean 1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hunter seemed left to me, was he less whacked to you?

  11. Wayne Brown profile image88
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    Nothing comes out of a deal like this except more spending. Reduction is spendiing is a zero compromise deal.  I am not going to allow you to spend at the same rate with the promise that somewhere down the road you are going to slow your rate of spending...that BS...it will not happen and I look like a "sucka the horses just ran over".  Reduction in spending is first and foremost in any plan...no argument.  Don't trade me beads for more spending and the promise that something good will happen later on when you have left office and most of the ones who are still here must meet your committments...that program sucks and has too many flaws to fix America...wake up! WB

    1. Jed Fisher profile image86
      Jed Fisherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are correct. Time to stop passing the buck.
      Much if the 'spending' is money leaving the country, one or two or three billion at a whack, handed to one little dirtpile country or another. It adds up pretty quick. The leaders of those countries know that as long as they remain dirtpiles, America will keep handing them billions.

  12. Hugh Williamson profile image88
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    It's easy to see where the cuts are to be made - military spending and entitlements. The military needs a haircut - like the one they gave me in boot camp. Entitlements - I'll willingly give up ALL of my so-called entitlements to help solve this crisis but, like everyone else, I won't give up a dime while the existing Bush tax cuts allow the wealthy to slide on their share. 

    It's all on the table and there isn't another choice. The last balanced budget was by Clinton and he hasn't been president for 10 years. With today's debt interest load, it is impossible to tax cut our way back into the black.

    It's time to pay the piper - for all of us. There are no simplistic fixes to be had. So the Bush tax cuts will go along with the current entitlement level.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Clinton did not have a surplus, it was phony math. He did not declare the expenses of SS or Medicare. He counted the revenues that went to SS and cival service retirment funds ad income. That is not income. Make the adjustment and he was 400 billion in the red.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        This lie has been repeated so frequently by right-wing fringe media scum that some rubes actually believe it.  Research it yourself people, don't fall for this crap.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Actually Ron, What I posted is not what what the republicans say. What I posted is after resaerch. Do it yourself and you will be surprised. You will find out I am right

          1. Reality Bytes profile image91
            Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You are correct!

  13. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    Cut spending!

    Cut spending!

    Simple solution.

    Cut spending!

  14. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    PS - why are we even talking about this when...

    WE JUST GAVE 12 PEOPLE THE POWER TO DECIDE HOW TO SPEND $2.21 TRILLION OF OUR MONEY?!?!!?

    King George never did this to us!

    The Tree of Liberty is withering.

  15. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    It has been sad watching the gop bring America to it's knees by opposing anything that black muslim non American citizen Obama has tried to do to bring America kicking and screaming into this century.

    The gop has behaved more like the KKK than a viable opposition political party.

    40 years behind the rest of the developed world at home, while invading other countries to enforce their sad religiously based morality as a pretence to control their wealth is not a good look.

    America your values are in the gutter, and the tea party took you there.
    A country cannot remain strong if it does not support those in need because it's morals are weak.
    Strong countries support their weakest links, that's what strength is in a country.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't blame me, I don't vote Republican and Tea Baggers need to go form their own country! LOL I didn't watch the candidate debate the other night. Although I was in the mood to watch a comedy, I settled on the Family Guy instead - seemed more realistic than what the gop candidates had to say. Now that the Texas, Bible thumping Governor, Perry, jumped into the race (as if we need GWBush: Part 2),  the gop cadidate debates is now an official sitcome!

  16. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I must agree. I avoided the bagger debate myself. I think they should go with the Texan myself. smile It's about time this guy got some of the attention he deserves. lol

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He should get the attention he deserves, but they don't do tar and feathers like they used to.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think he will get a bit more than tarred and feathered the very next time he puts his head up.
        That is one southern chicken that will get fried early on.

  17. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Well with Bachmann winning in Iowa I would think Obama's reelection is secure...

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If you look at it, Romney wasn't in the poll (he would have gotten first), and it was Bachmann's home state.

      Paul got Second by only a 152 vote margin despite it being Bachmann's home state.

      This means that the two most powerful presidential candidates in the Republican Party are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

      Yes, that's right. Ron Paul is the second most desired candidate in the Republican Party right now.

      Don't bother trying to find a news article confirming this - all the outlets are trying to hide this information. Most of the top Google.news searches for the Iowa vote completely ignore Paul.

      Don't believe me? Here's the third-from-top news article title for the google.news straw poll results: "Michele Bachmann wins Iowa Straw Poll; Pawlenty 3rd"

      -- who came in second?

      End the Corporatism,
      RON PAUL 2012
      They'll continue to ignore the only Anti-War candidate in the race
      (Yes, including Obama).

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan

        Paul always does well in straw polls. I know you knew that. But he has nver been close in Presidential primaries, and this year will be no different

    2. profile image69
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty sure Obama will be another one term president ala Jimmy Carter.  When his previous sycophants in the media are questioning whether he has any leadership skills at all, he is in deep doodoo.  Not to mention, no matter what is done, the economy will not change for the better before the next election, and unemployment will probably get worse before it gets better.  He is starting to realize he is on the way out, so he's taking a vacation in a million dollar house instead of staying in Washington to work on solutions.  Probably grabbing up all the Presidential memorialbila he can ala the Clintons on their way out.
      Rick Perry will kick his ass especially if he has Marco Rubio running as his VP.  They'll take every state except for the northeastern ones.  They may even take California with the help of the Latino voter.

      Obama is plenty worried, why do you think he has so much more gray hair? smile

    3. Mighty Mom profile image92
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm happy for her that she got that recognition.
      Not happy enough to ever in a zillion years vote for her, but kinda cool that the woman candidate is doing well, so far.
      Just waiting for Mrs. Palin to jump in and spoil the party.
      If she does, I'd be royally PISSED if I were MB.

      A bit off topic, but not really. When we're talking about GOP candidates being out of touch. roll

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I do not think Palin will run. I think she wants everyone to know she has support and is a force. I think she is positioning herself for a cabinet position and run for President in the future.  I could be wrong

        1. Mighty Mom profile image92
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cabinet position?
          What cabinet post would Palin qualify for?
          Ambassador to her beloved Israel is about the only thing I can see. And that's a huge stretch.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image58
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I continue to be amazed that anyone who voted for Obama can talk about qualifications for elective office.  So I suppose you might have a point.  You can't understand how one might be qualified to run a vast bureaucracy as Secretary of ?  when the least qualified person to ever be elected to national office, let alone the Presidency, now sits in the oval office.

            As former head of Alaska's oil commission and former governor of the most important oil state perhaps Energy would be the right post for her.  But not if the Republican Congress and President Elect do the right thing then there won't be a Department of Energy for which a cabinet secretary would be needed.

          2. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            MM,

            I did not say she was qualified. I was merely pointing out why I do not think she will run for President.

    4. uncorrectedvision profile image58
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So a little over a year from now, if Barry loses, are you willing to be openly mocked?  There are good reasons not to make predictions.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I wasn't being totally serious about it...you gotta lighten up once in a while.

        Do you usually mock people who disagree with you and are proven wrong?

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image58
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Liberals -yes.

  18. nicknpdx profile image61
    nicknpdxposted 5 years ago

    Rick Perry, who was a write in, announced he was running for President today. He said something interesting, stating that he balanced the budget in Texas. I checked the validity of that statement and found that indeed he did, by using billions of dollars from the stimulus program instead of using those dollars on job creation as it was meant to be used. To my knowledge, wasn't Rick Perry very vocally against the Federal Stimulus Program as well as any Federal monies? I believe that story comes out of CNN Money, but go ahead and Google it. Interesting and sure to come up in the General, should he get there.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess it depends on whos site you believe. Here is on called Obamasupporters

      http://obamasupporters.gather.com/viewA … 4979905155

    2. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't care what Perry did or did not do, he's not getting my vote.

  19. Hugh Williamson profile image88
    Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago

    The DADT law has been temporarily reinstated at the request of the government in order to allow additional time to implement the law.

    The point is actually moot because the Appeals Court also prohibited any enforcement of DADT since the reinstatement is only a legal technicality.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ … 4Z20110716

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image58
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Both articles I posted said as much, however, it demonstrates, yet again, the awkward flailing by Barry.

 
working