Whirly Might Be Right

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Yes it is a "big difference," with the "difference" being if he had been President as opposed to the Governor of Massachusetts, it would have been the entire country and you guys would have been slobbering all over him for being a visionary!

how stupid are you? yea, I know you went to a community school but when you google big turd you get

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Norm Coleman held a senatorial seat for us in Minnesota for six years until Al Franken stole it; so maybe Minnesota is more purple. Since Wisconsin seems to be in play, there are probably a few other states we've got a shot at that we didn't last time. I hope Romney picks Rubio for VP. Locking in Florida would be a shot in the arm, plus Rubio should help with the Hispanic vote nationwide.

Here are the latest polls and this was just posted 3 days ago which shows Obama leading in key toss up states: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/bal...-in-key-states

Also, If Romney chooses Rubio as VP he just handed Obama a sure victory- do you realize most Hispanics do not even support Rubio? If you think Romney selects Rubio would get Hispanics to leave Obama and support Romney than you are a bigger fool than I thought- here's another poll that shows Rubio's unfavorable rating with Latinos/Hispanics: http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/...e-rubio-dream/

In fact in most polls Latinos favor Obama by a 40 plus margin and trust me that's not changing by November. Rubio is not liked by Hispanics- period- it's almost as absurd as saying if Romney choose Herman Cain as VP then Obama will lose the African-American vote. If anyone in Romney's camp think that by choosing Rubio that Latinos will all of a sudden forget Romney's policies about immigration than they will get what they deserve on 11-6-2012

[CuteOldGuy]

Polls at this stage are relatively meaningless, except to give the candidates an idea where they need to campaign. The problem for Obama is that he is not at 50% in those polls, and if it stays that way, he is in trouble, since undecideds have traditionally broken for the challenger by 60%-80%.

But you are right about Rubio. He would be a disastrous choice for VP. He's too new to know what he is about.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Polls at this stage are relatively meaningless, except to give the candidates an idea where they need to campaign. The problem for Obama is that he is not at 50% in those polls, and if it stays that way, he is in trouble, since undecideds have traditionally broken for the challenger by 60%-80%.

But you are right about Rubio. He would be a disastrous choice for VP. He's too new to know what he is about.

Rubio is a Tea Party favorite. He's a strong Reagan conservative and would help to energize the base. Rubio balances the ticket because Romney is a moderate. It's reasonable to assume that Rubio's favorite son status would help to carry Florida, a swing state, with of lots of Electoral College votes.

I certainly don't think the Hispanic voted is going to dramatically shift to Romney, because of Rubio on the ticket. I do think Rubio would help somewhat with the Hispanic vote.

[CuteOldGuy]

I appreciate that, Joe, but Rubio has only had two years in the Senate. He needs more of a track record before he's trusted with being 2nd in line for the Presidency. I think it would be a mistake to put him on the ticket. The governor of New Mexico (can't remember her name) would be a better choice, IMHO.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Rubio, Rubio, and do it now...HaaahaHaahaaa...fuckers

[Chica Chaser]

Interesting opinion http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-...care-decision/

How far might the Federal Government really go with this, now that the door has been opened and precedence set?

The true impact of the Obamacare decision

Do Americans – do YOU -- really understand the gravity of what happened in the Supreme Court? Do you have any idea at all how the power of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States has been exponentially increased?

I spent the better part of yesterday listening to various pundits and reading blogs and columns about the ObamaCare decision. I think a lot of people are missing something here; missing something very important. The Court’s ruling on ObamaCare grants the Congress of the United States the power to command virtually any action – any action that would not in and of itself constitute a crime – of any individual in this country, and to demand compliance with that command or be penalized. The federal government can now regulate virtually any human activity in which you wish to engage, and to regulate whether or not you will be allowed to refuse to participate in that activity, so long as a penalty is attached to your noncompliance.

Let’s say that you are not a homeowner, but you are wealthy enough to purchase a home if you wished to. Arguably, under today’s ruling the government could force you to purchase that new home. This the government could do in order to promote job creation in the construction industry, and it would be perfectly constitutional so long as a penalty is assessed for your non-compliance. The government would merely say that you are being taxed for your decision not to buy a new home, and our Supreme Court would uphold the law as a bona fide exercise of the government’s taxing power.

The government wants you to change your profession … move to another state … buy more cotton clothing … purchase an American-made car … own no less than a dozen pair of American-made shoes … limit your stock purchases to only unionized companies … put solar panels on your roof. All of this the government might well be able to do so long as a penalty is levied for your failure to comply with the government directive. The penalty would, of course, be nothing more than a tax, and the regulatory requirement would merely be the government exercising its taxing power.

Lets see who is the first to attack the author rather than the message. Any bets?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

How far might the Federal Government really go with this, now that the door has been opened and precedence set?



Lets see who is the first to attack the author rather than the message. Any bets?

More chicken little nonsense.

Wahhh wahhhh wahhhhhhhhh!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

as I said in another thread, it was the STATE, not the federal government, big difference

Not anymore.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Interesting opinion http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-...care-decision/

How far might the Federal Government really go with this, now that the door has been opened and precedence set?
Let’s say that you are not a homeowner, but you are wealthy enough to purchase a home if you wished to. Arguably, under today’s ruling the government could force you to purchase that new home. This the government could do in order to promote job creation in the construction industry, and it would be perfectly constitutional so long as a penalty is assessed for your non-compliance. The government would merely say that you are being taxed for your decision not to buy a new home, and our Supreme Court would uphold the law as a bona fide exercise of the government’s taxing power.

The government wants you to change your profession … move to another state … buy more cotton clothing … purchase an American-made car … own no less than a dozen pair of American-made shoes … limit your stock purchases to only unionized companies … put solar panels on your roof. All of this the government might well be able to do so long as a penalty is levied for your failure to comply with the government directive. The penalty would, of course, be nothing more than a tax, and the regulatory requirement would merely be the government exercising its taxing power.


Lets see who is the first to attack the author rather than the message. Any bets?

CC, the government could already regulate/tax anything they wanted to!

Consider home ownership, they already give a huge tax break to those that purchase a home. That means that those that rent are in fact penalized.

Guess what, say you do not want to have American troops policing the world. Tough shit, the government will tax your ass. There are thousands of things the government spend money on with you and I's tax dollar that we do not approve of.

Our problem as a country is that we want security and freedom but we want the government to ensure! That is like being married and being free. Impossible.



The government ability to tax is limited by the people's ability to vote the bums out.

The article is nothing more than a scare tactic.

[CuteOldGuy]

You ought to be scared by this decision. Chica is right, and it is scary.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You ought to be scared by this decision. Chica is right, and it is scary.

And so is WTF. Tell ya what, when the government tells me what house to buy, or what to eat for breakfast, or how many cars (and which ones) to own, come see me.

Though i'll add this. If the day ever arrives when we determine that 40 million people not buying broccoli impacts my life, their life, and the lives of 350 million other people in the way 40 million people not having health insurance does, then i would fully expect the government to enact a law "forcing" people to buy broccoli.

Til then, i won't worry about it. But you can, if ya want. Have fun!

[WTF]

Lotta things I am scared of, this ain't one of them.

Congress can tax anything.

This changes nothing.

All Roberts did was explain that you can paint a Jackass to look like a Zebra but it don't make it so.

Nothing to be scared of there...

Maybe Obama and Congress did not believe this was actually a tax, just like Bush believed their were WMD's..............and was wrong. We can vote them out you know

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I appreciate that, Joe, but Rubio has only had two years in the Senate. He needs more of a track record before he's trusted with being 2nd in line for the Presidency. I think it would be a mistake to put him on the ticket. The governor of New Mexico (can't remember her name) would be a better choice, IMHO.

Susana Martinez, first term governor of New Mexico, says that she absolutely will not accept an offer of being VP on the Romney ticket. Of course, this is a pretty standard response from politicians that ultimately accept the VP offer.

The reason Martinez gives, for not being able to accept, is that she is the guardian of her "developmentally disabled" sister. She says that she can not care for her sister if she takes the VP spot. That's a reason, for declining, that she's not likely to try to weasel out of. Except for the deal killer of having a disabled sister, Martinez might have been a great choice.

Rubio is weak on experience, but I think he is otherwise ideal for the VP spot. Not having much of a track record can be more of an asset than a liability for a senator, seeking the presidency or VP. It means he doesn't have an extensive voting record that has to be defended. Senatorial voting records have been heavy baggage for lots of senators who tried for the presidency and failed.

I can't think of any other VP choices, on the short list, that even come close to Rubio. His lack of experience is going to be tough for the Dimos to criticize, since his resume looks like a carbon copy of Obama's, when he ran for president, with the added benefit that he's not a Marxist.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Rubio is a Tea Party favorite. He's a strong Reagan conservative and would help to energize the base. Rubio balances the ticket because Romney is a moderate. It's reasonable to assume that Rubio's favorite son status would help to carry Florida, a swing state, with of lots of Electoral College votes.

I certainly don't think the Hispanic voted is going to dramatically shift to Romney, because of Rubio on the ticket. I do think Rubio would help somewhat with the Hispanic vote.

So wouldn't that be 2008 all over again??? Wasn't McCain a moderate and isn't Palin a Tea Party favorite although they weren't a strong voice in 2008- nevertheless Independents are not going to flock to a Tea party right winger. Also doesn't Mittens view himself as a strong conservative??
Also Bush wasn't above 50% in 2004 and Kerry still lost..