Palin gets people killed

[timesjoke]

I can see Obama being a two-term President as long as the healthcare bill doesn't get dismantled.

Hell, even if it is, he can just say the Repubs don't want you to be healthy, or something.

It is possible Obama will try and rebrand himself, he has even hired new people from the business community to try and make himself "look" like he has stopped attacking business but at the end of the day all the wackos he has appointed at places like the EPA will keep the pressure against him and make it highly unlikely he can get elected to office again unless he moves with the Republicans in a very obvious way to fix things like this messy Obamacare garbage.


Obamacare does nothing to actually reduce cost of medical care, at best it simply attempts to spread the cost to more people to pay for it. The American people want the cost reduced, and there are very easy ways to reduce the cost of medical care that cost the Federal Government almost nothing. Everyone in America has seen a large increase in their insurance policies because of Obamacare. The mandate to keep young adults on their parent's insurance policies is a huge cost to the insurance companies and someone has to pay for that cost as one example.





On topic, humans have always been violent, we have killed each other for about any reason you can imagine. Some people try to give excuses for their behavior but at the end of the day the true reason is they are broken, something in them does not work right and they do horrible things. This guy in this incident was certainly not a Palin or Rush supporter, it is not like anyone can show he ever even heard a single speech by Sarah Palin. Those trying to say it was driven by anything said by Conservative speakers are simply trying to use this horrible incident to push their progressive agenda. If they can cast a shadow on Palin and the rest of the Conservatives and shut them down, they will have an easier time transforming America into the daycare center they wish it to be.


Even after this shooting and the claims of progressives that it was "political rhetoric" from the Conservatives that caused the shooting, we see more examples of the same not from a Republican but from a Democrat:

During a comment about repealing Obamacare, Steve Cohen (D) compared the comments from Republicans to the propaganda from Nazi Germany that came before the Holocaust.

"They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like (Nazi propagandist Joseph) Goebbels."

So here we have another Progressive painting Republicans as being similar to "Nazis" there is your hostile "political rhetoric" at it's source, even the ADL cam out against this guy and said "We hope he will reconsider his offensive statement and we urge all members of Congress to reject such odious comparisons".

 

[snafu]

I can see Obama being a two-term President as long as the healthcare bill doesn't get dismantled.

Hell, even if it is, he can just say the Repubs don't want you to be healthy, or something.

His health bill is one of the biggest things that's gonna kill him.. Oh did I say kill? I guess I'm insighting violence!

 

[timesjoke]

I can see Obama being a two-term President as long as the healthcare bill doesn't get dismantled.

Hell, even if it is, he can just say the Repubs don't want you to be healthy, or something.

His health bill is one of the biggest things that's gonna kill him.. Oh did I say kill? I guess I'm insighting violence!

And the messy way it was passed using tricks and back room deals to get votes from his own Democrats. Comming up to the election I would remind the American people of those facts that prove how completely partisan he is.


Obama got elected by pretending to be a moderate who was outside the Washington politics and WANTED TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER. The American people believed the lie and voted for him and the secod Obama took office he gave the Republicans the finger and went completely partisan closing Republicans out of every big policy meeting he conducted from the Stimulus to the healthcare meetings.


In all studies conducted the average American is middle right, at their heart they want their Government to get things done and be responsible about it while they do it. I don't believe Obama can claim he has been very responsible with the taxpayer money with all the payoffs and tricks he has played as a pure partisan progressive and killing jobs. But we will see how it goes.

 

[hugo]

The bimbo is toast

Palin: The GOP's Pelosi?
By Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza
Sarah Palin's unfavorable rating has spiked to a new high, adding further fuel to the argument that her presidential campaign may be doomed before it begins.

A new Bloomberg poll shows the former Alaska governor is now viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of American adults. That's higher than any other poll has shown, but it's not even the entire picture.

Of that 60 percent, nearly two-thirds - 38 percent of all adults - say they view the former GOP vice presidential nominee "very unfavorably." No other politicians tested even comes close, including President Obama (22 percent). What's more, Palin's unfavorable rating is more than twice as high as her favorable rating, which rests at just 28 percent. Another 12 percent aren't sure how they feel about her.

The poll follows a long and continuous trend in which, as the presidential race nears, people gradually find that they like Palin less and less.

In fact, the numbers are starting to look a lot like someone else's: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Except that they are worse.

On the eve of her party's historic 2010 losses, the former House speaker's unfavorable rating rose into the mid-50s in most polling, while her favorable rating was right around 30. Bloomberg, using the same pollster as now, showed her favorable rating at 33 percent and her unfavorable rating at 55 percent.

Palin, after having better numbers around the time of the 2010 election, now has even worse numbers than Pelosi.

A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed Palin's favorability dropping to 27 percent, a CBS News-New York Times poll showed it dropping to 19 percent and now we have the Bloomberg poll.

There is no official campaign for Palin or any other major potential presidential candidate, but she is getting judged by voters as if there is. And so far she's moving in the wrong direction.

For a long time, it was accepted that, while she might not be broadly popular, she would at least have enough juice with the base to perform well in the primaries. Recent polling in Iowa and New Hampshire, though, shows her dropping in those two states -- including her ratings in Iowa, which would be a very important state for her. And Thursday's Bloomberg poll suggests we might be getting to the point where Palin is a bona fide liability - ala Pelosi - for the GOP.

So far, Palin has been a limited feature in Democratic attacks, but rest assured that Democrats are recording everything potential GOP candidates say about Palin from here on-out.

 

[jokersarewild]

The bimbo is toast

Palin: The GOP's Pelosi?
By Aaron Blake and Chris Cillizza
Sarah Palin's unfavorable rating has spiked to a new high, adding further fuel to the argument that her presidential campaign may be doomed before it begins.

A new Bloomberg poll shows the former Alaska governor is now viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of American adults. That's higher than any other poll has shown, but it's not even the entire picture.

...

So far, Palin has been a limited feature in Democratic attacks, but rest assured that Democrats are recording everything potential GOP candidates say about Palin from here on-out.

Well yeah. She sounded good at the time to some people, but it's like with many decisions you'll make in your life: Something sounds good (eating all of the ice cream you can) but after you start realizing what the outcome would be (vomiting), it just seems like a really bad idea. And yes, I just equated voting for Palin to eating until you puke.

---

To Snafu: It all depends on how he plays it. If he can work the media by being more sensationalist than the Right, then he'll get that second term. It's all about making people think the Right wants them to be unhealthy or some such nonsense. I wouldn't say Obama has lost just yet, my friend. Anybody got bets for who will win the 2012 election? I have $1 on Obama.

---

To TJ: If the Right can make that known more than whatever message Obama plans on getting out, then Obama will lose. It's all about who can make the most sensationalist journalistic spoutings. The Right would have to remind the American people over, and over, and over again about how Obama lied to us. They would have to get louder and louder each time, probably stopping just short of "Oh, and Obama eats babies, too! Ha!" Simply put, the loudest guy in the shouting match wins.

 

[hugo]

---

To Snafu: It all depends on how he plays it. If he can work the media by being more sensationalist than the Right, then he'll get that second term. It's all about making people think the Right wants them to be unhealthy or some such nonsense. I wouldn't say Obama has lost just yet, my friend. Anybody got bets for who will win the 2012 election? I have $1 on Obama.

Right now Obama is ahead of all the major Republican possible nominees when matched up one on one in polls and the economy sucks. Either the economy will have to suck even more or someone is gonna have to come out of left field for the Republicans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

What you see is a generic Republican is competing with Obama but all the big names are not.

 

[builder]

Any thoughts that the repubs don't want the job, in light of the current economic climate?

 

[phreakwars]

That's my thoughts too. All these right wingers have the complaints, they have all the rhetoric, but not 1 damn one of them have an alternative solution except to take it out on the middle class. The ideology looks great on paper and makes for a great stance as a talking point on message boards, but when push comes to shove, Republicans themselves can't resist all that evil socialist entitlements, and can't live without them.

The breaking point will come sooner or later where somebody is gonna break down and start raising taxes, if they were smart it would be on the wealthy. Don't know if it will be Obama (doubt it), or another Democrat, or even a Republican, but taxes WILL go up. Your probably not gonna see any Republican step up to the plate until we cross that boundary of having to raise taxes. Rest assured after that happens, the Republican will run on a platform about being "OUTRAGED" that taxes went up. Whether that is successful or not, I suppose will depend on what changes have come to the economic conditions right away.

I don't expect a viable Republican candidate till 2016. They're gonna get tromped this next election, and ironically, it's gonna all be the tea party's fault for their retarded "EVIL GOVERNMENT, CUT CUT CUT" BS rhetoric that will make the more moderate Republicans vote for the guy who is pro people not pro corporations.
.
.

 

[builder]

That's my thoughts too. All these right wingers have the complaints, they have all the rhetoric, but not 1 damn one of them have an alternative solution except to take it out on the middle class. The ideology looks great on paper and makes for a great stance as a talking point on message boards, but when push comes to shove, Republicans themselves can't resist all that evil socialist entitlements, and can't live without them.

The breaking point will come sooner or later where somebody is gonna break down and start raising taxes, if they were smart it would be on the wealthy. Don't know if it will be Obama (doubt it), or another Democrat, or even a Republican, but taxes WILL go up. Your probably not gonna see any Republican step up to the plate until we cross that boundary of having to raise taxes. Rest assured after that happens, the Republican will run on a platform about being "OUTRAGED" that taxes went up. Whether that is successful or not, I suppose will depend on what changes have come to the economic conditions right away.

I don't expect a viable Republican candidate till 2016. They're gonna get tromped this next election, and ironically, it's gonna all be the tea party's fault for their retarded "EVIL GOVERNMENT, CUT CUT CUT" BS rhetoric that will make the more moderate Republicans vote for the guy who is pro people not pro corporations.
.
.

So, I'm just wondering, in the greater scheme of things, is it actually lawful to go to election with no clear desire or mandate to want to win?

To simply waste all that advertising money, people's time, etc. etc. ad infinitum, without any clear plan to win election?

We have a candidate in Australia, by the name of Pauline Hanson, who stirs up all sorts of hornet's nests, and never comes close to being elected, but she gets paid a fifth of a million if she gets x amount of votes. She's just declared that she's running again, for the third time.

Nobody (probably inclluding herself) expects her to get in, but the usual suspects will vote for her on her white Australia policies alone. It's a rort for sure. She used to own a fish and chippery.