Republican candidates for 2012

• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;831658 wrote:I'm no fan of Bachman, but it's not the scrutiny, per se, that anyone objects to. All presidential candidates should be thoroughly vetted by media digging through every aspect of their professional and educational backgrounds.
  
  What we're seeing with Bachman, and will continue to see, will be a portrayal that makes her look as "fringe" and "out there" as possible, in an effort to effectively kill her campaign.
  
  If any candidate provides even the least bit of threat to Obama, you'll see a full scale assault on that candidate by the media. It won't be the usual vetting, either. It will go much further.
  
  Of course, when it comes time to do the same kind of vetting of Obama's first term in office, you won't see much of anything too negative. And what they do portray, will be couched with excuses such as "he inherited a horrible economy" and similar statements. They'll do their best to insulate him from too much criticism -- even though he's arguably the worst president this country has had in the last half century.

  
  i guees you were in coma during the years of GWB. and never heard of richard nixon
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Ahhh, my stalker is back on the political forum, too.
  
  Good to see you continuing to lose your grip on sanity -- it suits you so well.
  
  For the record: I lived through those administrations. I also lived through Carter (it was bad, bad, bad) but I've never seen a man less equipped to be President than Obama. He's utterly and completely over his head, especially when it comes to economic issues. Just a total screw up. Of course, had people actually done a little research on him before voting for "hope and change" they would have known this was coming.
  
  I certainly did.
  
  And for the record: I'll take the economy under Nixon or Bush ANY DAY OF THE WEEK AND TWICE ON SUNDAY compared to what we're seeing with this group of losers in charge.
• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;833514 wrote:Ahhh, my stalker is back on the political forum, too.
  
  Good to see you continuing to lose your grip on sanity -- it suits you so well.
  
  For the record: I lived through those administrations. I also lived through Carter (it was bad, bad, bad) but I've never seen a man less equipped to be President than Obama. He's utterly and completely over his head, especially when it comes to economic issues. Just a total screw up. Of course, had people actually done a little research on him before voting for "hope and change" they would have known this was coming.
  
  I certainly did.
  
  And for the record: I'll take the economy under Nixon or Bush ANY DAY OF THE WEEK AND TWICE ON SUNDAY compared to what we're seeing with this group of losers in charge.

  there is more to being president than just the economic issues, but you wouldnt know that. GWB wasnt equipped to work the drive thru at burger king.
• Belly35

  

  Knight Rider, Ty and Bigdog ...OC answer to the Political Three Stooges
• Ty Webb

  

  Why Belly....because we don't agree with every word you say(mostly because everything you say is crazy)
• Belly35

  

  Ty Webb;834283 wrote:Why Belly....because we don't agree with every word you say(mostly because everything you say is crazy)

  
  We all are a little crazy ... it's the stupid, uninformed and incompetent that we should be worried about ...
• fish82

  

  KnightRyder;834253 wrote:there is more to being president than just the economic issues, but you wouldnt know that. GWB wasnt equipped to work the drive thru at burger king.

  Yeah, BamBam's foreign policy is really the schiznit so far. You people. :rolleyes:
• I Wear Pants

  KnightRyder;834253 wrote:there is more to being president than just the economic issues, but you wouldnt know that. GWB wasnt equipped to work the drive thru at burger king.

  Because they would never have hired someone that qualified?
  
  As far as Bachmann, her views on gays will really hurt her.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I personally have no problem with gay people and I honestly could care less if the president/candidate is against them. I won't let something like that sway my vote. I feel like there are bigger problems to worry about. Just saying. The thing I am against her for is the "God told me to be a lawyer" stuff. I'm not religious and I generally don't knock anyone who is but damn that is a little much.
• I Wear Pants

  bigdaddy2003;834372 wrote:I personally have no problem with gay people and I honestly could care less if the president/candidate is against them. I won't let something like that sway my vote. I feel like there are bigger problems to worry about. Just saying. The thing I am against her for is the "God told me to be a lawyer" stuff. I'm not religious and I generally don't knock anyone who is but damn that is a little much.

  My generation is increasingly of the opinion that if you give a shit about whether someone is gay and what they do you're probably an asshole.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I Wear Pants;834419 wrote:My generation is increasingly of the opinion that if you give a shit about whether someone is gay and what they do you're probably an asshole.

  
  Yeah, like I said I don't care whether someone is gay or not. Doesn't matter to me one bit. I'm simply saying I don't care if a candidate disagrees with me. Won't change my vote one way or another. Both parties have assholes. Just different kinds of them.
• BGFalcons82

  

  bigdaddy2003;834372 wrote:I personally have no problem with gay people and I honestly could care less if the president/candidate is against them. I won't let something like that sway my vote. I feel like there are bigger problems to worry about. Just saying. The thing I am against her for is the "God told me to be a lawyer" stuff. I'm not religious and I generally don't knock anyone who is but damn that is a little much.

  
  Much bigger problems to worry about, I agree. I would only add that no one finds a candidate that matches their views 100% across-the-board-no-questions-asked. In any election, you pick the person that holds most of your views, is strong-minded enough to not be swayed by polling/media questioning, and is a strong leader. Unless, of course, you find a candidate that will line your pockets with give-aways, freebies, and kick-backs, then...vote for that person and morals be damned.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  You noticed Knight ignored the fact that the economies under those presidents (except for 2 years of Bush) were far, far, far better than anything we've had under Obama.
  
  And yes, the president doesn't typically have as much sway over what happens with an economy EXCEPT when it has too many draconian and out of touch policies that cause businesses to withdraw and not spend. That's what we have now, and it's why this recession is not getting better and may be getting deeper again.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  As far as candidates go, I know the candidate I vote for won't hold anywhere near most of my views -- and that's okay. Right now, I just want someone who isn't Obama and who will reverse (if possible) the damage he's done to the business environment. If it's Bachman, Palin or Romney, I really don't care. I'm to the point that I'll vote for just about anyone not named Obama, because I know how bad it will be if he gets another 4 years.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;834525 wrote:I'm to the point that I'll vote for just about anyone not named Obama, because I know how bad it will be if he gets another 4 years.

  Haven't you been listening? You have it all wrong. Obama is the brightest and smartest man to have run for POTUS since FDR. His experience and wisdom will guide us from the abyss. We simply need to give him more time denigrate business and spend taxpayer dollars to lead us to economic nirvana. Keep hope & change alive!
• KnightRyder

  

  I Wear Pants;834364 wrote:Because they would never have hired someone that qualified?
  
  As far as Bachmann, her views on gays will really hurt her.

  
  they might have hired him to clean the toilets
• KnightRyder

  

  Belly35;834305 wrote:We all are a little crazy ... it's the stupid, uninformed and incompetent that we should be worried about ...

  
  in that case i will worry about you and whinerbuckeye
• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;834523 wrote:You noticed Knight ignored the fact that the economies under those presidents (except for 2 years of Bush) were far, far, far better than anything we've had under Obama.
  
  And yes, the president doesn't typically have as much sway over what happens with an economy EXCEPT when it has too many draconian and out of touch policies that cause businesses to withdraw and not spend. That's what we have now, and it's why this recession is not getting better and may be getting deeper again.

  
  you notice how whinerbuckeye ignores the fact GWB is a total idiot. and how nixon resigned before he was impeached.
• 2kool4skool

  

  For all the Republicans, if you alone had the choice of who would get the parties nomination, who would you choose? You can separate it into categories of people who are officially running vs. completely hypothetical candidates if you'd like. I understand it's an "anyone but Obama," mode right now, but there has to be some sort of preference.
• I Wear Pants

  bigdaddy2003;834442 wrote:Yeah, like I said I don't care whether someone is gay or not. Doesn't matter to me one bit. I'm simply saying I don't care if a candidate disagrees with me. Won't change my vote one way or another. Both parties have assholes. Just different kinds of them.

  Agreed, and didn't mean to imply that you were an asshole if that's what you thought I was saying because it wasn't.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  2kool4skool;834703 wrote:For all the Republicans, if you alone had the choice of who would get the parties nomination, who would you choose? You can separate it into categories of people who are officially running vs. completely hypothetical candidates if you'd like. I understand it's an "anyone but Obama," mode right now, but there has to be some sort of preference.

  
  I'm not a Republican but I definitely lean right and Herman Cain is my preference but I imagine he has literally no shot.
  
  IWP, understood.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I see KnightLiar is at it again.
  
  I also see he's too clueless to understand that saying GWB is an idiot doesn't make it so, no matter how hard he cries.
  
  And Nixon served something like six years before he resigned, so there were six PRETTY GOOD ECONOMIC YEARS that happened while he was in the White House.
  
  KnightLiar won't talk about that, though, because it's logical, rational, reasonable and accurate -- as opposed to child-like name-calling.
• I Wear Pants

  GWB isn't an idiot. I don't like many of his policies but that doesn't make him an idiot.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I Wear Pants;834875 wrote:GWB isn't an idiot. I don't like many of his policies but that doesn't make him an idiot.

  
  Exactly. Makes me laugh whenever I hear people say how dumb W is/was.
• I Wear Pants

  You do not become president of the United States by being an idiot.