Rep. Michele Bachmann May Run for President to Repeal "Obamacare"

[xfire]

From a friend of mine-

The Tea Party is a demonstration of lack of comprehension. For instance, Is everyone as tired as I am of waiting for the Bush tax cuts to increase tax revenue and cut unemployment? Oh, wait - those tax cuts came in 200...1 and what happened? Oh, yes - rocketing unemployment and the greatest decline in tax revenue since the Great Depression.

The fat cats are doing ok - the DOW is settling in to about 12,000 points having risen almost 6000 points since Obama came into office, but tax revenue is still low and unemployment still high.

Tea Party/Republicans are still out there pushing those same tired, failed policies passed by the last administration and hoping for a different result in an Einsteinian illustration of insanity. My assessment is that the Republicans and the Tea Party are to fiscal and economic policy what Neville Chamberlain was to peacekeeping and diplomacy.

 

[ragincaucasian]

the problem in America is that NEITHER 'party' is about anything substantially different. BOTH are going to give you corporate entitlement, more wars, more exceptionalist foreign policy.....neither will serve the labor force or pursue the common interest (raise the standard of living for the citizenry).

 

[CunningStunts]

the problem in America is that NEITHER 'party' is about anything substantially different. BOTH are going to give you corporate entitlement, more wars, more exceptionalist foreign policy.....neither will serve the labor force or pursue the common interest (raise the standard of living for the citizenry).

Agree with your first statement. The problem is that taking all of the money out of the hands of the "rich" would defacto create a massively powerful state, and that scares me more than rich people. Having rich people is a necessary evil; these utopian dream-states where everyone is equal have been tried and all have failed... history is littered with them, and all have turned into a police state. All men should be equal in the eyes of the law and in having the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit within the bounds of the law. Other than that, all men are clearly NOT equal. I hate to take up for "rich" people, but I also don't want to take their money by force unless they break the law. :2 cents:

Remember, a government big enough to give the people everything they want is also powerful enough to take it all away.

 

[Trident1]

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.

Yes I'd vote for him, as long as he doesn't raise taxes, supports small business, and the entire middle class. Obama finally drifted towards the center instead of hanging out with the leftnuts. That drift is the only thing keeping him in play for '12, otherwise he'd be out.

 

[Member2019]

Agree with your first statement. The problem is that taking all of the money out of the hands of the "rich" would defacto create a massively powerful state, and that scares me more than rich people. Having rich people is a necessary evil; these utopian dream-states where everyone is equal have been tried and all have failed... history is littered with them, and all have turned into a police state.

Communist utopias have existed in the US. They worked when people were accountable on a first-hand basis to each other. The threshold is always size.

As far as "rich," I would replace that with "successful." 80-90% of wealth is first generation in the US, meaning it was acquired by income and/or hard work, not given to them. Paris Hilton does not represent the overwhelming majority of millionaires.

All men should be equal in the eyes of the law and in having the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit within the bounds of the law. Other than that, all men are clearly NOT equal. I hate to take up for "rich" people, but I also don't want to take their money by force unless they break the law. :2 cents:

You hit on a great point there. Equal opportunity is what the US is about. Fair is it not. Fair is an ideal which I've yet to see ever implemented in any nation.

People complain about the lack of business taxes. I invite Americans to look at the UK, among other nations, and how their tax laws and liabilities work. It is far more favorable to start a business in the UK in my view, tax-wise. One of my best colleagues founded his new business there about 2 years ago for this reason.

Remember, a government big enough to give the people everything they want is also powerful enough to take it all away.

Exactly. The problem with "group rights" and "simple majority" is that a minority is not represented, and "individual rights" may differ, but become secondary. There is not one successful communist regime that has not burdened its citizens and trumped their individual rights to great ill effects.

And don't get me started on the parallelism of the US to a facist economy. The last time a nation had 100% employment was Nazi Germany. The nationalist movement is a real scare in my view, and it's one of the things I see out of Democrat desires more and more. That's what bothers me, Americans are so ignorant of what the Germans learned first hand.

 

[Jagger69]

How ironic! I was actually thinking of running for president on a platform based primarily to pass a constitutional amendment that would outlaw the death penalty in all states (and legalize drugs). I think my chances are at least as good as hers are.

 

[Hot Mega]

Yes I'd vote for him, as long as he doesn't raise taxes, supports small business, and the entire middle class. Obama finally drifted towards the center instead of hanging out with the leftnuts.

:1orglaugh 'Quit playin wit yoself' Trident. Obama ran on this very platform and proceeded to act on it in his first term and yet here is ol Trident being one of O's most strident detractors.

That drift is the only thing keeping him in play for '12, otherwise he'd be out.

The fate of Obama's re-election in '12 won't be on the strength of how many of his haters he can convert. It will be on the strength of how many of those who landslided him in last time come back to the fold. Hint: It's probably not you, Beck or O'Reilly. Oh..and improving economic numbers.

 

[ragincaucasian]

NO ONE is talking about communism
NO ONE is talking about throwing everyone's money into a great big pot and equally distributing it. :updown:

The issue is WHAT IS THE COLLECTIVE RESOURCE OF GOVERNMENT FOR?

To empower the privileged few? Or to serve the betterment of the people?
Isn't government meant to provide for the general welfare, support, (and defense) of its people, not simply to engineer corporate favor?
The latter is not CIVICS....thats CONSUMERISM



http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


If you are part of the richest and most prosperous nation in the free world, why would you accept to rank as a nation with some of the lowest standards of living?

and honestly.....if your understanding of civilization is limited to a single dichotomy of "free-market captialism" and "Stalin-grade socialism" then either you're being purposely disingenous or extremely dense

 

[Trident1]

:1orglaugh 'Quit playin wit yoself' Trident. Obama ran on this very platform and proceeded to act on it in his first term and yet here is ol Trident being one of O's most strident detractors.



The fate of Obama's re-election in '12 won't be on the strength of how many of his haters he can convert. It will be on the strength of how many of those who landslided him in last time come back to the fold. Hint: It's probably not you, Beck or O'Reilly. Oh..and improving economic numbers.

Meg, Obama's survival for '12 depends on his ability to govern from the center. He thankfully threw the leftnuts under the bus(or at least most of them) to get support from independent voters.
His leftnuts have abandoned him by and large for not being extreme enough. Good riddance to those fuckwits.

 

[ragincaucasian]

Who said this?

prices are rising too quickly and should be stabilized.

Government funding for rural areas, farmers, and agriculture must be increased.

The widening income gap must be closed: The government will raise the minimum wage of workers, increase the subsistence allowance for urban and rural residents, reduce the tax burden on low- and middle-income people, and control wage scales in industries where incomes tend to become disproportionately high.

The social security system must be expanded and improved and the benefits raised: Basic pension insurance and basic medical insurance systems should cover all urban and rural residents; and low-income housing should be made available to 20% of the country's urban households.

Conserve natural resources and protect the environment: The country must increase the proportion of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to 11.4%; reduce energy consumption per unit of gdp by 16%: And reduce co2 emissions per unit of gdp by 17%

the government must combat corruption and promote clean government. officials who abuse power for personal gain, neglect their duties, or infringe upon the rights of others will be prosecuted and punished.

 

[Rey C.]

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.

True to a point. But I'd say it's more true that Bachmann is discussed in the "fuck her or not" terms because she has no other real or obvious purpose... at least not intellectually. Laughter or low comedy maybe? :dunno: But it's only logical that people who hold views which are the polar opposite of hers (or who see her as a joke) would speak of her in disdainful terms.

If you are really a person, you respect women regardless of their message.

No, I'm sorry but I don't give respect to women, men, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Gentiles or anyone else "regardless of their message." In fact, it is largely their message (as well as their accompanying actions) which determines whether I respect someone or not. Why would I give her a pass just because she is a female? I don't expect any more, or any less from women than I do from men. If I found that someone like Bachmann was agreeing with my views, I'd have to take a serious look at my views. Surely, there would have to be a flaw somewhere in my thinking, if a twit was in lockstep with me.


IMO, Michele invites a lot of the mud that is thrown at her. She's so gaffe prone that she makes Joe Biden look like Abraham Lincoln. Here's her latest:

A blunder of historical fact - not proportions - tainted Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s first visit to New Hampshire this weekend. Speaking to students and conservative activists in Manchester, the Tea Party activist encouraged the Granite state to be proud of its role in the Revolutionary War.

“You’re the state where the shot was heard ‘round the world at Lexington and Concord,” Bachmann said at an event organized by the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire.

The shot that started the America’s war for independence was, of course, fired in Massachusetts.

But IMO, her best to date was the Hoot/Smalley speech. You know, ol' Hoot and Smalley... the Democrats who, along with Roosevelt, sparked the Great Depression.

I'd still fuck her though. :elaugh:

 

[Hot Mega]

No, I'm sorry but I don't give respect to women, men, Blacks, Whites, Jews, Gentiles or anyone else "regardless of their message." In fact, it is largely their message (as well as their accompanying actions) which determines whether I respect someone or not. Why would I give her a pass just because she is a female? I don't expect any more, or any less from women than I do from men.

What kind of card carrying-commie, pinko, limp-wristed, Hugo Chavez-cuddling, French Fry munching, Castro-coddling, socialist, tax and spender are you?

 

[Rey C.]

What kind of card carrying-commie, pinko, limp-wristed, Hugo Chavez-cuddling, French Fry munching, Castro-coddling, socialist, tax and spender are you?

Hey now, just wait a dang minute!



















You left out "anti-Semitic misogynist"! :nanner:

 

[Hot Mega]

Hey now, just wait a dang minute!


You left out "anti-Semitic misogynist"! :nanner:

Well in fairness to me, Philbert has long since cut and ran and I didn't see Facetious logged otherwise I would have ran this list by a pro to make sure I covered all the zingers.:anonymous

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

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 you stick a camera in someone's face waiting for them to screw up, you'll get what you're hoping for.

And yes, you knew exactly who I was talking about.....


The truth is that libs do get in a frenzy over those two women like nothing I've seen before. Even the hate that Republicans used to lump on Hillary during her husband's first term can't compare.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

Yes I'd vote for him, as long as he doesn't raise taxes, supports small business, and the entire middle class. Obama finally drifted towards the center instead of hanging out with the leftnuts. That drift is the only thing keeping him in play for '12, otherwise he'd be out.

I don't see myself voting for him either, but the Republicans field just isn't very good. Romney might be the best of the big names but he will easily get painted as a friend of the guys who ruined the economy.

Who else is there? Ron Paul is too old to run or serve as the Chief Executive.
I can't think of too many people who will be able to withstand the onslaught that the media and the programs alligned with the Democrats (SNL and Daily Show) will unleash to keep him in office.

 

[Hot Mega]

If you stick a camera in someone's face waiting for them to screw up, you'll get what you're hoping for.

And yes, you knew exactly who I was talking about.....


The truth is that libs do get in a frenzy over those two women like nothing I've seen before. Even the hate that Republicans used to lump on Hillary during her husband's first term can't compare.

The thing is...GOPers lumped hate on Hillary (and now Michele) for hates sake..Not because of anything abjectly dumb they were doing or saying. That's aside from the fact that neither of them were/are elected officials at the time.

The 'hate' if you can call it that (..more like righteous criticism) for Bachmanm is mostly a reaction to her attack dog antics coupled with her utter and complete buffoonery at times.

Palin on the other hand doesn't endure 'hate' from people who are against her. She's pitiful and looked upon as a joke. The only people who don't get that are beat it to fit, paint it to match GOPer types who see Palin more as someone to defend with their last breaths than someone who articulates what they believe in.

Well, I should say she does articulate what they believe in...a list of talking points and buzzwords that aren't designed to solve a single problem but to frenzy the niche GOPer.

 

[BioDefenseGrad]

The thing is...GOPers lumped hate on Hillary (and now Michele) for hates sake..Not because of anything abjectly dumb they were doing or saying. That's aside from the fact that neither of them were/are elected officials at the time.

The 'hate' if you can call it that (..more like righteous criticism) for Bachmanm is mostly a reaction to her attack dog antics coupled with her utter and complete buffoonery at times.

Palin on the other hand doesn't endure 'hate' from people who are against her. She's pitiful and looked upon as a joke. The only people who don't get that are beat it to fit, paint it to match GOPer types who see Palin more as someone to defend with their last breaths than someone who articulates what they believe in.

Well, I should say she does articulate what they believe in...a list of talking points and buzzwords that aren't designed to solve a single problem but to frenzy the niche GOPer.

Bachmann is a reaction to the hate that libs have spewed for the last decade. Palin looks like someone who is straight up traumatized from the character assassination she endured during and directly after the 2008 campaign and wants revenge.

In the end you have people hating Palin and when pressed on what they hate about her, will quote something TINA FEY said if they can name anything at all.

The left is so hypocritical it's almost beyond words.

 

[Member2019]

More history lessons ...

The thing is...GOPers lumped hate on Hillary (and now Michele) for hates sake..Not because of anything abjectly dumb they were doing or saying.

Sorry, gotta disagree big time here.

The Hillary plan for healthcare during her husband's early administration was pay for socialized medicine by taking away the pre-tax deduction on healthcare for those who are working and responsible by paying for their healthcare. That's "abjectly dumb" in my book.

Going the other way, when John McCain was running for President and wanted to take away the same deduction, the Democrats were all over it, lambasting McCain for wanting to do the same. The difference was McCain was going to give everyone a $5,000 tax credit, meaning the government would give everyone $5,000 (plus more for dependents) to pay for their own healthcare -- getting rid of the long legacy of issues with employer-based healthcare.

The fact that your employer:
- Can change providers on you
- Can only give you benefits for up to 1 year after you leave (and that took legislation)
- Can change some pre-existing conditions through the loopholes (and it took legislation to stop the pre-existing conditions)
- Doesn't give you any choice

We do not have "free market" healthcare in the US because you are penalized if you don't get it from your employer. McCain actually made a logical suggestion people have been asking for years, actually try "free market healthcare" for once, because we've never had it, before we throw the "socialism switch."

What both Hillary and Obama have pushed are expansion of the crap "socialized medicine" we already give the poor, which completely sucks compared to those of us who can afford decent healthcare. What I want is either real free market or all socialism, all-the-time, but an end to this partisan bullshit. God knows I've spend more than $100K in the last 12 years on premiums along to get the best coverage.

Now Obama's plan to penalize people who don't pay for their healthcare when they can afford it is no different than what Mitt Romney already implemented in MA. The difference is that Romney is a govenor and Obama is the President. So I totally defend that aspect, saying the President is doing nothing different than what even Libertarian Republicans are pushing for.

The one thing I do take issue with "Obamacare" is that he says he has the power like Romney. No he doesn't. He makes it work by saying he has the power by pre-emption of federal over state via the Commerce Act and related, Common Law. Well why don't we shred the fucking US Constitution while we're at it? Democrats claim only Republicans do that, but they are equally as good as fucking with it. This is the hallmark "bleeding heart liberal" shit I can't stand as much as the "religious right."

One thing I think African-Americans in the US are irresponsible with is the fact that they believe States Rights are wrong. Granted, States' Rights were abused, at their expense. But the US federal government has not only the Constitutional Right, but the Constitutional requirement to protect civil liberties. I'm just very sad that it took 100 years for it to happen.

But that doesn't remove the concept of States' Rights. The US federal government cannot tell US states how to penalize their citizens with resources and costs that are the States' own liabilities. It's been a constant issue with everything from Education to Transportation. Usually the US federal government gets away with it, because they can threaten funding. But in the case of Obamacare, the cost is a State burden the US federal is forcing on them with little help.

Hence why it's going to continue to be gutting in the US federal courts. Obama passed it knowing full well it would never be legal. And that's what not only pisses me off, but reminds me of Clinton. "Feel good" legislation that is actually Unconstitutional, knowingly, for 100% PR, 0% reality.

Because we won't either go "true market" or "fully socialized," the US healthcare system is going to continue to be a system of haves and have-nots. The haves have it good. The have-nots have it worse than most western nations, by far.

 

[fatman0529]

bachmann is sooooo dumb, but i think she tries to use it as an advantage