Are the Republicans getting desparate?

[Tresbn00]

They are practically begging the guy from New Jersey...who has said at least six times this week that he has no intention of running!  Even if he does end up running he will be viewed as a liar because he has said undoubtedlly no so many times.  I understand giving up on Perry...he was worse of a maniac than George W, Sarah Palin is mentally retarded,  Bachman has split personalities and Republicans could never join forces to vote for someone who has a religion that isn't main stay...even though I think Romney is a sharp individual.  I like Obama but his different tax rates for different groups is crazy and I am not wild about his healthcare agenda.

[jaymz462]

They're desperate, and they're insane.  Wonder who the new flavor of Republican candidate will be after Christie's tossed overboard 

[Abrupt]

It isn't that we are desperate and regarding insanity, well I have been called insane a few times but I can't speak for all.  We want as large a field as possible with as many choices and contrasts as we can muster.  We are not like the liberal/progressive controlled democratic party that votes how they are told and has to conform to a specific outline.  We like diversity and we want our candidates to be properly vetted, even if it is a trial by fire. 

Could you please give some examples or reasons as to why you think Sarah Palin is mentally retarded?  I don't ask you this lightly, but in wonder if you are only following what you are trained to believe.  I spoke to a relative recently and she made a similar remark and when pressed the best she could come up with was "Well she just is, listen to how she talks".  That doesn't quite cut it with me, though, and I need more reasons than that for someone to be so labeled.

[jaymz462]

It isn't that we are desperate and regarding insanity, well I have been called insane a few times but I can't speak for all.  We want as large a field as possible with as many choices and contrasts as we can muster.  We are not like the liberal/progressive controlled democratic party that votes how they are told and has to conform to a specific outline.  We like diversity and we want our candidates to be properly vetted, even if it is a trial by fire. 

Contrasts?  There are no contrasts.  All your candidates have to prove they're farther to the right than the others, and with the Tea Party people calling the shots these candidates are so far right they're completely off the spectrum.


And by "diversity" I assume you mean as long as everyone is white and Christian.  Sure you have Cain, but c'mon, he's a token and you know it.

[lorettahknox]

Did You ever say a mouthful! I agree with you on every point except the tax rates and healthcare. I'll say why, the healthcare costs are so high that they are bankrupting good people. If someone is extremely ill they cannot be without medicine or a doctors care because they don't have enough money it's not fair. On the issue of tax rates I used to do accounting for companies and they pay next to nothing. The guy next door pays more than Pepsi, once there was an article where this corporation paid $1.00. Something has to be done.

[Tresbn00]

I would retract my statement about Sarah Palin being mentally retarded but I believe that she falls terribly close to poster child for the definition.  Sarah Palin has an Intelligence Quotient of one hundred and four.  Technically an IQ of less than one hundred places a person in the category of mentally retarded.  But I believe that someone who aspires to run our country shouldn't be marginally close to being mentally retarded.  If you add in her use of cute quirky gestures , her absence at debates because she can't say anything intelligent and continually puts her foot in her mouth, how she can't follow scripts given to her before going live on talk shows, and the monarchy she lead in Alaska...she is certainly qualified for being below a 100 IQ.

[Bluejay49]

I'm pretty mid ground when it comes to republican and democrats but Obama has it right atleast in my opinion. There's no reason for major corperations to pay nothing when we have 200+taken out of our checks each month.

[Abrupt]

I would retract my statement about Sarah Palin being mentally retarded but I believe that she falls terribly close to poster child for the definition.  Sarah Palin has an Intelligence Quotient of one hundred and four.  Technically an IQ of less than one hundred places a person in the category of mentally retarded.  But I believe that someone who aspires to run our country shouldn't be marginally close to being mentally retarded.  If you add in her use of cute quirky gestures , her absence at debates because she can't say anything intelligent and continually puts her foot in her mouth, how she can't follow scripts given to her before going live on talk shows, and the monarchy she lead in Alaska...she is certainly qualified for being below a 100 IQ.

Actually 90 to 109 or so is considered average IQ, but that depends on how much faith you put in IQ tests.  You have to get below 70 to suggest some form of mental retardation.  I always score well in such tests scoring in the high 130's to low 140's, but I always fail any visual spatial tests and have never been able to manage them -- it is just something that I simply lack the ability to do.  I am a hobbyist programmer and often visualize hundreds of lines of code in my head (but not in a photographic sort of way is different with me) and can easily see the loops and jumps but I cannot unwind the spatial stuff and I can reliably fail them 100 percent of the time.

It sounds to me like you simply dislike her for whatever reason.  Maybe her personality, maybe you jumped on the bandwagon your were goaded to follow...I simply cannot know but I can see from your description that it is personal with you in some way.  That is okay though as sometimes people develop personal dislikes for all the right reasons as that is part of our makeup of pattern recognition to detect things like that.  We have all seen people we simply don't like and we cannot identify with with any certainty.  It is usually better to say that you are unsure exactly why though then to stretch any reasons you can slightly find as you sound sort of silly doing that.

[natashaspy]

Frankly, I think the Reps and the Dems are both getting desperate.  Its impossible to find a politian anywhere anymore in any political party that isnt just out for themselves and that actually are concerned with what the people of the country want or need.

[Abrupt]

It isn't that we are desperate and regarding insanity, well I have been called insane a few times but I can't speak for all.  We want as large a field as possible with as many choices and contrasts as we can muster.  We are not like the liberal/progressive controlled democratic party that votes how they are told and has to conform to a specific outline.  We like diversity and we want our candidates to be properly vetted, even if it is a trial by fire. 

Contrasts?  There are no contrasts.  All your candidates have to prove they're farther to the right than the others, and with the Tea Party people calling the shots these candidates are so far right they're completely off the spectrum.


And by "diversity" I assume you mean as long as everyone is white and Christian.  Sure you have Cain, but c'mon, he's a token and you know it.

Well these are primaries and that is exactly what they must do is prove where they are in relation to the conservative base.  Tea Party people calling the shots?  Am I?  I didn't know that.  Personally the distance to the right they are is somewhat lacking to me regarding many of the candidates, although a few are fine.  Where you seem to imply that is a bad thing I find it very comforting to know that there are choices that mean that if they were elected I would have fewer politicians and illegally empowered agencies/organizations deciding what I can and can't do (that is assuming they do what they promise but that isn't exactly common for any politicians).  Why anyone would want to hire someone to hire more people to boss over them I cannot understand, but there are enough liberal/progressive out there that obviously more than a few people feel incapable of living their own lives and wish to enslave themselves to others.

I am not a racist as you apparently are to single out Mr. Cain and call him a token.  When you don't have the ability to discern the differences beyond appearance you should remind yourself that it is obviously something out of your field of knowledge and just leave it alone.  Did you also consider Obama a 'token' or was that different because he was a liberal/progressive?

[jaymz462]

It isn't that we are desperate and regarding insanity, well I have been called insane a few times but I can't speak for all.  We want as large a field as possible with as many choices and contrasts as we can muster.  We are not like the liberal/progressive controlled democratic party that votes how they are told and has to conform to a specific outline.  We like diversity and we want our candidates to be properly vetted, even if it is a trial by fire. 

Contrasts?  There are no contrasts.  All your candidates have to prove they're farther to the right than the others, and with the Tea Party people calling the shots these candidates are so far right they're completely off the spectrum.


And by "diversity" I assume you mean as long as everyone is white and Christian.  Sure you have Cain, but c'mon, he's a token and you know it.

Well these are primaries and that is exactly what they must do is prove where they are in relation to the conservative base.  Tea Party people calling the shots?  Am I?  I didn't know that.  Personally the distance to the right they are is somewhat lacking to me regarding many of the candidates, although a few are fine.  Where you seem to imply that is a bad thing I find it very comforting to know that there are choices that mean that if they were elected I would have fewer politicians and illegally empowered agencies/organizations deciding what I can and can't do (that is assuming they do what they promise but that isn't exactly common for any politicians).  Why anyone would want to hire someone to hire more people to boss over them I cannot understand, but there are enough liberal/progressive out there that obviously more than a few people feel incapable of living their own lives and wish to enslave themselves to others.

I am not a racist as you apparently are to single out Mr. Cain and call him a token.  When you don't have the ability to discern the differences beyond appearance you should remind yourself that it is obviously something out of your field of knowledge and just leave it alone.  Did you also consider Obama a 'token' or was that different because he was a liberal/progressive?

Whenever a Republican accuses you of doing something, you can be sure that they're guilty of it themselves.

[GramPolly3]

I don't know if they are desperate or not--nor do I care. What I despair of is the totally non-functional government that is supposed to think about what is good for the country, not politics. We have jobless, homeless and hungry in our country in ever increasing numbers and not one of them is doing anything to solve the problems. Add to that that politicians are mostly all bought and paid for by some corporation or financial interest and you know who they represent. I do give the President credit for getting some meaningful legislation done against probably the greatest odds any president has been up against. We need to use our vote and speak loudly that this is not what they were sent there to do and see that we get good representation in DC that will bring improvement to all of our citizens.

[ktheodos]

Well, I think people are looking for the perfect candidate, which isn't realistic....this idea that a candidate can sweep us off our feet is exactly what got us into the current state.  Also-there's still more than a year to the election so people have time to study and learn about the candidates more thoroughly.  For people who complain about the current state of government, there should be no excuses for not voting. 

[mardukblood2009]

NO, They always were desparate.

[Abrupt]

I don't know if they are desperate or not--nor do I care. What I despair of is the totally non-functional government that is supposed to think about what is good for the country, not politics. We have jobless, homeless and hungry in our country in ever increasing numbers and not one of them is doing anything to solve the problems. Add to that that politicians are mostly all bought and paid for by some corporation or financial interest and you know who they represent. I do give the President credit for getting some meaningful legislation done against probably the greatest odds any president has been up against. We need to use our vote and speak loudly that this is not what they were sent there to do and see that we get good representation in DC that will bring improvement to all of our citizens.

Our government is supposed to be combative and of limited functionality, and I know this doesn't make sense to many.  What I mean is that it was supposed to be virtually impossible to enact new laws and legislation unless almost all were in agreement -- or at least in that few were strongly opposed to is probably closer to the truth.  The enumerated powers outline the responsibilities of the government, and the jobless, homeless, hungry do not fall within them.  So much confusion exists today regarding what was intended.  Thinks like "to regulate commerce" didn't mean to make a bunch of rules and regulations.  The word 'regulate' meant "to make regular" or to make easy and consistent.  If the government was confined as per The Constitution it wouldn't matter if the politicians were bought and paid as there would be little damage they could manage readily.

What meaningful legislation are you referring to?  I hope you don't mean that illegal Healthcare Affordability Act monstrosity.  Where you come up with "probably the greatest odds any president has been up against" I cannot imagine.  Been alive long?  Ever read about history?  Don't mistake me, I am not totally against everything he does as I like that he is escalating our use of drones (or at least continuing them).  I figure if you are going to play war the play to win and the drones fit well within the type of combat needed to fight the terrorist sorts.