If Mitt leads the ticket?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am not sure Rick Perry is out of the running yet. He has a lot of money and is an aggressive campaigner.

He did a terrible *** in the last debate.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Billyray

He did a terrible *** in the last debate.

I know. He just sat there and did very little if anything other than ask Romney a question that gave Romney a chance to shine.

[alanmolstad]

If Mitt leads the ticket , I will vote for him..

But because he is not a conservative I do not give him much of a chance

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

If Mitt leads the ticket , I will vote for him..

But because he is not a conservative I do not give him much of a chance

Because Mitt is not hard right and knows how to make businesses running again, I think he has the best chance against Obama.

We shall see. I think of all the candidates, Romney has the strongest resume as far as well-rounded and ready to deal with the issues. His more central leaning on social issues may harm him. We shall see.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

His more central leaning on social issues may harm him. We shall see.

yes...

The point is that we already have a person in Obama that appeals to the more liberal/central voter...

The thing lacking in the last election was someone who appealed to the strong pro-life voter...the true conservative.

at this point if Mitt gets the lead position on the ticket it may come down to the person he picks to be VP?

at that point, Mitt has a chance to swing hard for the conservatives and pick Herman Cain as his VP.

At that point the last republican doubters like Rush will jump on board and we would finally have a ticket people like myself can support.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

yes...

The point is that we already have a person in Obama that appeals to the more liberal/central voter...

The thing lacking in the last election was someone who appealed to the strong pro-life voter...the true conservative.

at this point if Mitt gets the lead position on the ticket it may come down to the person he picks to be VP?

at that point, Mitt has a chance to swing hard for the conservatives and pick Herman Cain as his VP.

At that point the last republican doubters like Rush will jump on board and we would finally have a ticket people like myself can support.

I don't think Roe vs Wade is going to be overturned in the next four years, and Mitt is conservative enough he is not going to take it further left. I think this year will be determined on the economy and Obama's only shot is if he can flood enough money into the economy to make it "appear" that it is doing better. The underlying fundamentals of the economy right now speak to the fact that money in the system right now will only be temporary and even Obama's economist say that his ***s bill will be short-lived as it only does more of the same (which only works temporarily).

[Libby]

There is a revolution going on, in this country, (and around the world) and I don't think I can even speculate about where we are going to be, this time next year. I do know conservative answers have not been very popular, because they tend to protect the rich, and that is just not going over well, right now. Unless this new House can do something effective, I predict they will all be out in November of 2012. All of the new members will be up for re-election, at that time. Depending on what's going on, I can see the elections going in several different directions. It will be an interesting year, that's for sure.

[alanmolstad]

We shall see, it's hard to predict the future....

Right now all we can do is make a guess, and add a bit of wishful thinking to the mix.
and on that note:


My wishful thinking is thus>

Mitt fails to do well in the future, and after Iowa and New Hampshire and Florida have their say, Mitt drops out of the race.

Cain does stunningly well in the first 3 tests, and by the Florida vote is seen as the go-to guy for all the Republican and conservative base voters.

Cain wins the nomination and will lead the ticket, and picks...as his VP........

Condoleezza Rice!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

We shall see, it's hard to predict the future....

Right now all we can do is make a guess, and add a bit of wishful thinking to the mix.
and on that note:


My wishful thinking is thus>

Mitt fails to do well in the future, and after Iowa and New Hampshire and Florida have their say, Mitt drops out of the race.

Cain does stunningly well in the first 3 tests, and by the Florida vote is seen as the go-to guy for all the Republican and conservative base voters.

Cain wins the nomination and will lead the ticket, and picks...as his VP........

Condoleezza Rice!

That will be interesting to see. I have alway slike Condoleezza Rice. She is a smart woman.

[alanmolstad]

if Mitt leads the ticket....pick a person to be his VP.....

but dont pick anyone in the race now.....

pick a name you think would actually be on the list of people that could add a lot to the ticket....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

There is a revolution going on, in this country, (and around the world) and I don't think I can even speculate about where we are going to be, this time next year. I do know conservative answers have not been very popular, because they tend to protect the rich, and that is just not going over well, right now. Unless this new House can do something effective, I predict they will all be out in November of 2012. All of the new members will be up for re-election, at that time. Depending on what's going on, I can see the elections going in several different directions. It will be an interesting year, that's for sure.

It is interesting to me that you say that the GOP "protects the rich." This is a talking point for the democratic party, but in truth--there is very little to back it up. The bailouts did more to protect the rich than not and there is a reason people like Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffet are smoozing up to Obama. The way I see it, all politicians have and still protect the rich. That is part of the problem. As long as the Dems can get you to believe it is the GOP's fault, they can laugh all the way to the bank.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

It is interesting to me that you say that the GOP "protects the rich." This is a talking point for the democratic party, but in truth--there is very little to back it up. The bailouts did more to protect the rich than not and there is a reason people like Jeffrey Immelt and Warren Buffet are smoozing up to Obama. The way I see it, all politicians have and still protect the rich. That is part of the problem. As long as the Dems can get you to believe it is the GOP's fault, they can laugh all the way to the bank.

Oh, I think plenty of Democrats protect the rich. I am not a Democrat and I do vote across the aisle. But, generally speaking, it is the Republicans who want to give tax breaks to the rich, and remove consumer protections.

I voted for George Bush, his second term, because I believed we needed a strong military, at that time. But, now, we need someone to help us out of this financial crisis. I don't see any Republican that would be up for that ***. Mitt would be the lesser of the many evils, IMO, but still the conservatives (IMHO) are going in the exact opposite direction that we need to go. We do need to cut gov't, but not on the backs of the poor...not during an economic meltdown (and not ever, IMO). And, we need to stop giving the rich so many tax breaks, to the point where some of them pay no Federal taxes, at all. That's not right. Obama is not my ideal, but at least is kind of moving in the right direction.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

Oh, I think plenty of Democrats protect the rich. I am not a Democrat and I do vote across the aisle. But, generally speaking, it is the Republicans who want to give tax breaks to the rich, and remove consumer protections.

I voted for George Bush, his second term, because I believed we needed a strong military, at that time. But, now, we need someone to help us out of this financial crisis. I don't see any Republican that would be up for that ***. Mitt would be the lesser of the many evils, IMO, but still the conservatives (IMHO) are going in the exact opposite direction that we need to go. We do need to cut gov't, but not on the backs of the poor...not during an economic meltdown (and not ever, IMO). And, we need to stop giving the rich so many tax breaks, to the point where some of them pay no Federal taxes, at all. That's not right. Obama is not my ideal, but at least is kind of moving in the right direction.

Libby, I can see your reasoning, but the reason the rich are getting richer is not because of tax breaks. One of the best things we could do would be to get rid of all cooperate taxes so that companies want to be here rather than overseas.

That said, the main reason that the rich are getting richer is because of government protections. For example, many sugar farmers are protected. As a result, our sugar farmers are billionaries and the cost to the country is about 28,000 ***s (straight from my economics text) to other countries as candy companies, etc. go over seas.

Immelt (who paid no cooperate taxes) who is the very rich CEO got a ton of stimulus money under Obama and a lot of that money went straight overseas.

One of the biggest scams that has occured recently is that the GOP and the Dem leaders took a bill to Obama to close these "cooperate" loopholes that offer protection to large companies and it was Obama who balked at the bill. The news does not tend to report all the details, but if you read enough papers and keep up on the stuff (I read both liberal and conservative papers)--you start to see what is going on.

Another large scam, Boeing hired 1,000 people in S.C. only to be told by government that they could not open a factory in a non-union state (they are suing, I believe) right now.

One of the most dangerous thing that has happened currently is the banking situation. Frank and Dodd's bill will basically mean the demise of small banks and these big (too big to fail) banks will be all that is left. While it appears to be regulation to save us from these big banks, it is actually going to make them richer.

Next is the whole "cash for clunkers" debacle. While it was billed as saving the car companies that were going under, who it helped the most was the rich--because only the rich can afford to buy brand new cars (and they got to do it with tax payer dollars). Then, all the old cars were junked making used car prices go up.

In every way possible, Obama has given lip-service to the middle cl*** while lining the pockets of the rich. Don't just believe what he says--watch what he does and how it affects the middle cl***. I personally think he is the greatest president for saying what sounds good and then smoozing with the rich and doing just the opposite as he claims. It makes me ill, really.

[alanmolstad]

all that stuff is way over my head...

What I know for sure is that I dont care what you look at, this country is not better off than we were 4 years ago, and seems to be sinking fast.

The only answer the this president seems to have is to take a vacation, and send up bills to Congress that dont do a darn thing and actually end up making things worse.

The bills for the last Obama ***s bill came to well over $800 BILLION!

that one "green" power company alone that went broke still got over 1/2 a Billion dollars$$$ from Obama.....and still went flat broke?

Now lets face it......if I had a company and the Goverment just gave me 1/2 a Billion bucks, there is no way my company would have went broke.

Give me that kind of money and I can tell you one thing, I would not be broke later on...LOL

Yet the company visited by Obama and handed 1/2 a billion in cash went totally broke?

So who is to blame for such a ****py investment of our money?.......Oh that's right, Obama put his VP Biden in charge to make sure "Every last dime " was spent wisely and accounted for.

Obama simply is like President carter, who sat around and kept his coffee warm while the country fell into a hole.

Obama is like the New Carter....




WHAT I SEE....
What I see is that we clearly are going in the wrong direction as a country.

What I see is that this president is just not up to the ***...
That the chair is just too big for him.

What I also see is a lot of fear of the liberals when they think about this next election.
Liberals are looking at Obama's time in office and the shape of the country and are just shaking their heads....

They know the Obama just did not work out.

The Liberals I know personally just keep asking, "Where did it all go so wrong?"

and,

What I see on the conservative side when looking to the next election is a lot of eagerness ......and .....the use of the word "Landslide" when thinking about their dream of tossing Obama out of office, and a take over of both houses of Congress.

[alanmolstad]

Of all the things I truly HATE about this President's actions?.....Its the way he has single-handedly destroyed our whole country's dream to reach out into space.

NASA has been reduced to a small time 'actor" in the very programs we owned not long ago.

We now have to rent a seat just to get into space.

HOW DARE we claim to have a plan to do anything in space, when we have seen this president strip away all the support needed to even reach out to the moon in our lifetimes.

I had a hope of seeing an American flag on Mars before I died...

Now this President has successfully kill that dream, and has replaced it with silly ideas like being able to visit the "The Lagrangian point" one day....

What the &#*&^$#@.....?????

Our new dream is not to reach Mars anymore, but now we are to feel the same inspiration about being able to travel millions of miles so we can look out the window at?..........dead space?
a vacuum?

Or whats that other silly idea that Obama suggested?...oh yah, He said we should one day send men to visit an asteroid?

Boy, thats going to make a great photo-op.....looking out the window at a rock.....
Thats worth risking lives on.....sure Obama...sure....

What ever happened to American Leadership around here?

By the time we get this guy out of office, will there be anything left to NASA to save?

Even Neil Armstrong, (who never take a political stand) came out and openly warned us that this President's actions were destroying NASA.

In the end.......
In the end.....If Mitt is against Obama in the next election, I will fully and 100% support Mitt, because the faster we fire Obama the better off this country will be.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Of all the things I truly HATE about this President's actions?.....Its the way he has single-handedly destroyed our whole country's dream to reach out into space.

NASA has been reduced to a small time 'actor" in the very programs we owned not long ago.

We now have to rent a seat just to get into space.

My brother is an engineer for Boeing---worked on space station and space shuttle stuff. First off--he is forced to pay union dues, which he HATES because they give money to politicians he doesn't want. And they are not protecting his ***. His has a graduate degree from MIT. The reason he stays put is so that his family doesn' t have to up and move while his kids are growing up. So, he is donating money to candidates he doesn't want. That is not freedom, that is not protection, that is like inner-gang thuggery. You have to give us money and in return we will give you "protection."

Secondly, when I asked him about the space station and why we put so much money into it, he said, because when you work with another country to create something, you don't go to war. Working together in a creative project helps resolve differences and space is a neutral place where death is on the line if you don't cooperate. No country wants a national disaster because of their own pride or stubborness when working on a project.

Alan, I agree with you. This president appears to want to take us away from peaceful exploration to war. He has been in three years and it feels like our wars are just growing, not shrinking.

[Libby]

I think it is unreasonable to support space programs, when there are so many people who are struggling just to survive (here in our country and elsewhere). President Obama has his priorities straight, in that regard.

As for the economy, there is only so much the gov't can do to help. Mainly, what the gov't MUST do, is try to support those people who are without work and needing help, until the economy improves. Big businesses need to invest more in this country, instead of running off to other countries and hiring slave labor. That is nothing but greed, in operation.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

I think it is unreasonable to support space programs, when there are so many people who are struggling just to survive (here in our country and elsewhere). President Obama has his priorities straight, in that regard.

As for the economy, there is only so much the gov't can do to help. Mainly, what the gov't MUST do, is try to support those people who are without work and needing help, until the economy improves. Big businesses need to invest more in this country, instead of running off to other countries and hiring slave labor. That is nothing but greed, in operation.

Although most people today will never set foot on the moon, everyone likely comes in contact with a NASA by-product every day. Partnering with various research teams and companies, NASA continues to spawn a vast array of new technologies and products that have improved our daily lives. Basic steps in health, safety, communications and even casual entertainment find their ro*ots in the government branch commonly ***ociated with rocket ships and floating people. In fact, NASA has filed more than 6,300 patents with the U.S. government [source: NASA Scientific and Technical Information].

Each year since 1976, NASA has published a list of every commercialized technology and product linked to its research. The NASA journal "Spinoff" highlights these products, which have included things like improved pacemakers, state of the art exercise machines and satellite radio. Each product was made possible thanks to a NASA idea or innovation.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to use many of these so-called spinoffs. Read on to learn about ten of these familiar products.

In fact, NASA has filed more than 6,300 patents with the U.S. government [source: NASA Scientific and Technical Information].http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic...inventions.htm

So, ten products you most likely use because of NASA:
1) Invisible braces
2) scratch resistent contact lenses
3) Memory Foam
4) Ear thermometers
5) Shoe insoles
6) Long-distance telecommunications.
7) Adjustable smoke detectors
8) Safety grooving concrete to keep our roads safe.
9) Cordless tools
10 Water filters.

Keep in mind, 6,300 patents working with private companies means many many ***s.

Yes, our government should back research (which NASA is) because then, instead of getting a government handout, people can get ***s in new technologies that lead the world.

And this is just another reason why Obama is taking our country one giant step backward.

[Libby]

Julie, as far as I know, it was only the Shuttle program that is being phased out (and that may be temporary, as well). Obama didn't make that decision by himself. That was a part of the budget negotiations and I don't recall Republicans making much of a fuss over this. Times are hard and THEY are the ones who want to do the "deep cuts". Obama's hands are more or less tied, unless they agree to the cuts.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

Julie, as far as I know, it was only the Shuttle program that is being phased out

You dont really pay attention to NASA do you?

President Bush set a goal, and NASA designed a new ship to reach that goal.

Please go study the "Constellation program" to see the thing that Obama has done.


Obama killed that goal,
He has no clue about a new goal,
and when asked about the future of NASA all this President can say is that "private enterprise " will have to pick up the slack.

In the meantime, all we have left of our once proud space agency is a rented seat on the old Soviet space ships left over from the cold war.

Lets look at what this ridiculous president Obama has done.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/01nasabudget/

[Libby]

This was a very good move, Alan. If it had been the social security program, the right would be jumping up and down for joy.

Going commercial frees NASA for deeper space
May 14, 2010|By S. Alan Stern | Guest columnist

Fortunately, the Obama administration has proposed a game-changing solution that uses private industry to more cost-effectively take on the more mundane aspects of human transportation to low-Earth orbit, freeing up needed funds to send astronauts to explore deep space.

The administration's wise commercialization approach echoes an immensely successful path taken by NASA in the past. Consider: At the dawn of the Space Age, all satellites were built and launched by governments. But early on, communications satellites were encouraged to go commercial. The result: a $100 billion-plus spinoff industry that employs thousands of workers to build the satellites, their ground stations, launchers and ***ociated command and control infrastructure. It also launches more satellites annually than any other form of spaceflight. The money saved frees NASA to do other things with its resources.

Go Here

[alanmolstad]

No the decision Obama made was wrong, and Im not surprised to see a political hack hired to try to put the best spin on it,.


But I would trust the words of Neil Armstrong over the Liberal press any day of the week!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaH41IPf0us


This is man who gives us the truth...

We sit back and comment on History, but here is a man who "IS" history.

Obama will soon be forgotten, and Im sure that the next president in 2012 will try his best to repair the damage that Obama has done.

But this generation has lost its moment.....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

This was a very good move, Alan. If it had been the social security program, the right would be jumping up and down for joy.



Go Here

Libby, I am personally related to someone who is involved in commercial rocketry (not my brother) and it still has a long way to go. In the meantime, we have spent millions of dollars on a space-station that our only access to will be through other countries.

While it sounds like a wise move, what it really is is a move from government back innovation and research money to en***lement programs. While you say that the right would jump up and down if social security was cut--I don't think anyone in politics at all is under the delusion that without some changes, Social Security is doomed. That is coming from the right and the left. I for one, have accepted that I cannot retire at 65 like my parents before me and that rising medical costs are going to keep me from accessing the same health care system that my parents have. That is the cold hard facts. Anyone who wants to hang on to the status quo is hanging on to a sinking ship. I keep wondering who the politician will be that will face that bear and do what painfully needs to be done. Raise the retirement age, cut the benefits---something will have to happen or the system will be bankrupt---let alone the federal government has been dipping into the trust for so many years, that the money that should be there is not.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Libby, I am personally related to someone who is involved in commercial rocketry (not my brother) and it still has a long way to go. In the meantime, we have spent millions of dollars on a space-station that our only access to will be through other countries.

While it sounds like a wise move, what it really is is a move from government back innovation and research money to en***lement programs. While you say that the right would jump up and down if social security was cut--I don't think anyone in politics at all is under the delusion that without some changes, Social Security is doomed. That is coming from the right and the left. I for one, have accepted that I cannot retire at 65 like my parents before me and that rising medical costs are going to keep me from accessing the same health care system that my parents have. That is the cold hard facts. Anyone who wants to hang on to the status quo is hanging on to a sinking ship. I keep wondering who the politician will be that will face that bear and do what painfully needs to be done. Raise the retirement age, cut the benefits---something will have to happen or the system will be bankrupt---let alone the federal government has been dipping into the trust for so many years, that the money that should be there is not.

I haven't seen anyone on the left say that SS needs to be cut. It's actually quite solvent, right now. It's one of the best programs our gov't has ever supported and I hope it continues. Changes to retirement age have already been made. My generation, for example, has to be 66 to retire with full benefits, and future generations will have a higher age, most likely. That is needed, because people are living much longer, today, than they did in the past, and that will, likely, continue to go up, as medical advances are made.

As for health care, we need a gov't health care plan that includes a single payer benefit!!! That is not going to be a luxury, in the next few years, but a necessity!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

I haven't seen anyone on the left say that SS needs to be cut. It's actually quite solvent, right now. It's one of the best programs our gov't has ever supported and I hope it continues. Changes to retirement age have already been made. My generation, for example, has to be 66 to retire with full benefits, and future generations will have a higher age, most likely. That is needed, because people are living much longer, today, than they did in the past, and that will, likely, continue to go up, as medical advances are made.

As for health care, we need a gov't health care plan that includes a single payer benefit!!! That is not going to be a luxury, in the next few years, but a necessity!

Libby, I have not seen an Act that changes the S.S. retirement age. Can you send me the link to it?

In 2009/2010 (approx.) the White House put together a bi-partisan committee to figure out ways to help the federal budget crisis (which once again, both sides do not dispute.)

Here is a couple of paragraphs from that report. If you look at it, you will see that it is from the White House.

Unless we act, these immense demographic changes will bring the Social Security program to its knees. Without action, the benefits currently pledged under Social Security are a promise we cannot keep. Today, the program is spending more on beneficiaries than it is collecting in revenue. Although the system’s revenues and expenditures are expected to return to balance temporarily in 2012, it will begin running deficits again in 2015 if interest from the trust fund is excluded and in 2025 including interest payments. After that point, the system’s trust fund will be drawn down until it is fully exhausted in 2037.

Unfortunately, the default plan in Washington is to do nothing. The do-nothing plan would lead to an immediate 22 percent across-the-board benefit cut for all current and future beneficiaries in 2037. Over the next 75 years, the program faces a shortfall equal to 1.92 percent of taxable payroll. Seventy-five years from now, that gap will increase to 4.12 percent of payroll. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/site...h12_1_2010.pdf

Interestinly, Obama has deep-sixed these recommendations and currently is bowing down to the AARP and stating that the new "Super Committee" recently is not to touch S.S.

I don't believe I have yet seen anything on the table to change the Society Security retirement age. If it has p***ed, please show me the bill. I would be interested in seeing it. Thanks.