Ah, got it.
Which one?
You mean the one where we are still at 9% unemployment two years after the recession “ended”?
Oh, wait, you probably mean, if I don’t drink the Democratic Koolaid (you know, the one marked “Hope and Change”), not so much.
No president has gotten back in with numbers THIS bad since the 1930’s. And back then, that was when most of the world was writing off democracy as a bad idea.
For example the argument is that because she thinks the Census is unconstitutional, that puts her on the fringe. I worked as a Census enumerator in 2000 and 2010. I encountered a LOT of people who were outright hostile to the notion of the census. Some refused to answer the race questions (which I might add, were stupidly worded.) Others didn’t think that the government had a right asking them any questions and outright refused. Some only told me the number of people living in the house and nothing more.
And this wasn’t a party line thing. The nastiest thing I encountered was some unwashed hippy broad with a big peace sign on the back of her SUV while she drove out of her million dollar house. She just refused to give me any info.
So, sorry, Bachman ripping the census isn’t that far off the mark. I think a lot of people consider it an imposition.
INcidently, I think that Bachmann is probably to this year what Howard Dean was in 2004. Someone the base likes, but they’ll go with someone a little more straight, like Romney or Pery.
It’s all because those people are just sitting around thinking that the world owes them a living, like you said.
By default then, the Republican brand is “No Hope and No Change”. Drink up.
No, the one where you’re apparently a “recovering Republican”. There’s Democratic Koolaid, and then there’s Republican bullshit. You don’t seem to have stepped out of the pile.
The only BS I see here is you guys promised the seas would recede and unemployment wouldn’t get over 8%.
You see, I don’t spend a lot of time arguing over Supply Side vs. Keynesian here. Frankly, I think the ideal works somewhere in between. My problem with Obama is effectiveness more than idealogy. If unemployment were 5%, I’d be singing his praises.
So, frankly, I don’t think you can pray away the gay or that the Census is a plot or give a fig about abortion like Bachmann does. But if she can deliver the goods on the economy, I’m all for her.
Obama’s plans for recovery have been relentlessly blocked by the Republicans, who have admitted they want the recovery to fail so they have better chances of regaining the white house in 2012.
Except that you don’t think that the government should be responsible for people’s livelihoods. So really, you’re just looking for a stick to beat Obama with.
Well, with her strong record on economic development and detailed platform of budgetary reform, she would clearly be the sensible choice.
Except that she’s a fruitloop who can’t get to grips with even basic reality. You have no basis for the assumption that she would be better than Obama on dealing with unemployment other than your irrational hatred for Obama. You keep claiming that Obama’s record is the reason you hate him but every post you make indicates that you hate first and look for excuses to do so afterwards. Are you going to continue to pretend otherwise?
Michele Bachmann: hating gays our way to a prosperous future.
I’m sure she’s all set to do that, what with gays being the biggest problem and threat in America rather than the economy. How much of the employment can we solve by creating a nationwide network of gay re-education camps where we can beat the gay out of them via Jesus?
Good thing the silly queers FILLED OUT THEIR CENSUS FORMS! BAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!
-Joe
Gee, where have we heard this before?
“This new chancellor guy, he’s going around saying a lot of stuff about the Jews – but hey, he promised to us new jobs and that the trains would run on time, so I’m all for him!”
Anticipating the kneejerk response re: Godwin’s Law: Voting on a single issue, to the exclusion of all else, is a very bad idea. It always has been.
I have to wonder…how does batshit insane trump inexperienced or incompetent (given RR’s premise in re Obama for the sake of argument)? Do you really believe, RR, that Bachmann could possibly do a better job than Obama? HOW? If she’s not stupid, she’s insane. If she’s not insane, she’s stupid. Worst case scenario is that she’s both. There IS no best case scenario.
ETA: I mean, sure, if you’re dead-set on voting against Obama, then by all means vote for someone on the Republican side like Romney. Romney’s bland, he’s venal, he’s greedy, and he’s a moving target as far as principles go, but at least he’s sane.
How does one get that Obama is inexperienced, anyway? There are exactly two people in the world eligible for the Presidency with more experience than Obama has, and neither of them is running.
Jimmy Carter and GHWB?
Yes, exactly.
Experience doesn’t count, as long as Obama is the one with it. His experience, in fact, counts as a negative because his is INCOMPETENT experience, so now we’re better off going with a newbie. It’s all very simple. I’m surprised you don’t get it.
Oh my Og. :eek:
I knew Bachmann was totally batshit insane. I had NO idea she was THAT far gone.
Bill Clinton and GB43 are eligible. The term limits are on consecutive terms, not total terms.
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…” 22nd Amendment.