BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Because many are already nuts. But there are certain people that make them frenzy, and Bachmann is one of them.
Rep. Michele Bachmann May Run for President to Repeal "Obamacare"
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
Because many are already nuts. But there are certain people that make them frenzy, and Bachmann is one of them.
emceeemcee
Banned
I wouldn't call them nutters. More like:
I wouldn't call them nutters. More like:
:1orglaugh
great movie BTW
appology accepted:hatsoff:
I think it was the smilies that created the confusion. :tinhat:
IMO Zolf's one of the good guys.
I wouldn't call them nutters. More like:
:clap:
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I assume you mean Sarah P@lin? :dunno:
I don't know if that's true or not. But I think one does have to ask themselves what Palin, Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell have in common, other than their gender and hair color? While (supposed) conservatives might claim that they represent "traditional", God fearing women, who support "conservative causes"... others (more cerebral conservatives, independents, as well as progressives and liberals) might point to the perception that these women all have a tendency to rely on hyperboles (slashing her wrists if the health care reform passed), exaggerations of the truth and have a shocking lack of knowledge of facts (it's Smoot/Hawley, not Hoot/Smalley, Michelle... and they were BOTH Republicans - not Democrats, sweetie).
I mean, in this very thread, about the only endorsement that even Palin/Bachmann lovers can point to is that they'd like to fuck her. How pitiful is that? But to be honest, she's not bad looking at all for a woman her age. After a few drinks, and if she'd promise not to talk, I'd probably fuck her too. But I can say that about a LOT of women. I wouldn't consider that as a reason to put them in higher political office though. And the fact that she and Palin have a habit of sticking their feet in their mouths, embarrassing themselves and others, isn't a reason to support them either. IMO, she's just like Glenn Beck, but with tits.
If the suggestion here is anything other than those who deride Palin and Bachmann are trying to figure out who's more doofus...those two or their fans...then you're deluded.
I suspect the mainstream of GOPers wants these two to go away...but are caught in a catch because of their fan base within the 'party'.
Either way, those who don't support these two are only in fear of them mangling another stupid, ill-informed statement.
I think Palin is way off-base, along with the "popular Tea Party" leaders that pry with this bullshit ... but ...
The overwhelming majority of people who talk about how they want to "fuck her" -- especially on a left-leaning board like this -- are Democrat in my experience. And, sadly, they feel justified in saying such since she's a Republican, and "deserves it" because of her views.
Now that's just going the other way. If you are really a person, you respect women regardless of their message. I don't like Palin. I think the Tea Party has gone the way I believed they would, radical right-wing Republican non-sense.
Most of us Libertarians are just watching it, shaking our heads, since we are the "original" concept of a "Tea Party." And we just want to smack Democrats too when they play their own, bullshit partisan non-sense when they talk about how Palin is hot and they want to fuck her.
I'm looking for someone, anyone, to be about "small business." Right now I see the Democrats and Republicans equally about "big business," and the donations don't lie. Democrats get the entertainment industry, lawyers and, even if surprises many, several defense R&D companies (because peacetime is always a boon for defense R&D, not wartime -- Loral and others have been great examples), and Republicans get the staple of major enterprises.
I only tend to side with Republicans more because they realize raising income taxes on those making US$100-250K only hurt small businesses. But I don't see Republicans as champions of small business at all.
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
At least she's intellectually capable of discussing her state's history without sounding like a fool.
Most of us are really calm and relaxed, knowing you party will actually pick someone like Bachmann or Palin to win your nomination. You would pick a losing horse over Pawlenty or Huntsman, since they would not survive the far right wrath.
she is a joke
My party? I could care less about Newt, Bachmann, or Palin. I'd vote for Obama in '12 if he promised to lower taxes.
I don't think many people will vote for daddy o after he hasn't made anything he promised during 4 years. Most of your industries are gone and a lot of your high paid jobs are moving to Asia, so is that what you call a good economical recovery with Daddy O magic words?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...ericanswanttaxesspentonhealthcareandeducation
It's just interesting that the same 2 come out on top of this survey for the past 22 years - but it sure never gets coverage through M$M - guess that might hurt the advertisers too much
that started in 2009?
moops were chanting "how's that hope and change?" before Obama even took office because its all about cheerleading for "their team" regardless of what was actually being done. I don't think Obama supporters have anything to pat themselves on the back about, though. He has shown he is just as Republican as any other suit that would be in office (so I'm not sure where the right-wing disgust for the guy is)....even "health-care" legislation fell waaaay short of accomplishing what the American people actually wanted.
We're so fucked ...
I stick up for Obama against the right wing, but I'm the first to point out that W.'s first recession was not his fault, and the utter collapse of American industry on-going before him, corporate greed that existed before him, and other issues.
Federal revenue through 2000 was based on false wealth that did not exist. Adjustments to the value of the economy, if done for 2000 like it was 2008, would have put the recession during the Clinton administration.
NAFTA, H1B and other things were championed not merely by the Republican Congress under the Clinton administration, but the Democrat Executive as well. I personally love how Democrat apologists like to ignore the role of Clinton and Gore in these realities.
Libertarians like myself were with Ross Perot and other business leaders, away from both the Democrats and Republicans. So while those two sling mud, we're just face palms.
And the US is so fucked. Americans are in utter denial about the current rate of debt, the fact that it did not end in the '90s (it was just postponed based on false wealth of the .COM boom), and the reality that the Baby Boomers are retiring. Gen-X is much smaller and won't be able to afford the future we've already spent.
So fucked.
Although one thing is for certain. Regardless of the state of the economy and rate of spending at the end of W.'s administration, Obama blew those budget doors wide open. He did that. He did it far worse than even I thought he would! And we're really in the toilet now! Sorry, Democrats are in total denial on social spending. Entitlements make up a record portion of the budget.
The costs of Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing in comparison to those liabilities we now have. And I thought W. was bad! This is not for the "poor's" sake. This is absolute facist economy model pushed beyond the brink, and will result in a completely poor nation of socialist ideals that cannot even be implemented by even the next 2 generations.
So fucked.
No, but it accelerated under Clinton, not W. It spans more than just the previous or current administration.
I stick up for Obama against the right wing, but I'm the first to point out that W.'s first recession was not his fault, and the utter collapse of American industry on-going before him, corporate greed that existed before him, and other issues.
Federal revenue through 2000 was based on false wealth that did not exist. Adjustments to the value of the economy, if done for 2000 like it was 2008, would have put the recession during the Clinton administration.
NAFTA, H1B and other things were championed not merely by the Republican Congress under the Clinton administration, but the Democrat Executive as well. I personally love how Democrat apologists like to ignore the role of Clinton and Gore in these realities.
Libertarians like myself were with Ross Perot and other business leaders, away from both the Democrats and Republicans. So while those two sling mud, we're just face palms.
And the US is so fucked. Americans are in utter denial about the current rate of debt, the fact that it did not end in the '90s (it was just postponed based on false wealth of the .COM boom), and the reality that the Baby Boomers are retiring. Gen-X is much smaller and won't be able to afford the future we've already spent.
So fucked.
Although one thing is for certain. Regardless of the state of the economy and rate of spending at the end of W.'s administration, Obama blew those budget doors wide open. He did that. He did it far worse than even I thought he would! And we're really in the toilet now! Sorry, Democrats are in total denial on social spending. Entitlements make up a record portion of the budget.
The costs of Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing in comparison to those liabilities we now have. And I thought W. was bad! This is not for the "poor's" sake. This is absolute facist economy model pushed beyond the brink, and will result in a completely poor nation of socialist ideals that cannot even be implemented by even the next 2 generations.
So fucked.
emceeemcee
Banned
Re: We're so fucked ...
the workers owning the means of production?
sounds good to me
the workers owning the means of production?
sounds good to me
Now there can be no doubt the Mayan calender correctly predicts the end of time in 2012. For along with the world ending, hell freezing over and Bachmann uttering sense...Trident voting for Obama would be right up there.
Agree in general but I would say he is somewhat as conventional in his thinking as politicians before him.
Keynesian?
Is a simplification. It is an ideal taught at a basic level of macroeconomics. It does not answer many aspects of consumer and provider interaction. It relies on statistical rounding, instead of actual system interaction.
Only detailed microeconomics are reliably predictable. Of course, doing them on a large scale is very difficult and requires massive computational resources, let alone identification of all the factors. Being an engineer, I tend to focus on microeconomics and consider macro a psuedo-science.
