The straw poll turns out to be a hay ride.

Ron Paul is a sneakin' on up. He was the one with the "it" factor in the debate. The others, well, were bland.

Why is it that everyones name is in bold except for Dr. Ron Paul? wtf is up with this bias between the media and Ron Paul??

That is messed up. I didn't notice that, till you mentioned it. They should fix that. Ron Paul will get my vote. Congrats to Michelle, but I hope Ron Paul is our next U.S. president.

Hey, Tea Bagger markmitch -- do you like bein' able to call on your local POLICE 24/7/365? How about your local FIRE DEPARTMENT? How about bein' able to drive on PAVED ROADS? Well, guess what, those are SOCIALIST programs paid for with -- wait for it.......... -- TAX DOLLARS!!!!! Now go back to your little tea party.

? Michele Bachmann wins a straw poll ?

What in the Hell did she do? — Pick the most straws out of her ass?

Why, she was the dumbest bunny in the whole hutch!

^^(markmich) *eyeroll* someone's been watching a little too much glenn beck.

Ron Paul is the republicans ONLY hope at vindicating a party of pathetic corporate owned traitors!

Interesting though that bachmann won. Shows just how dim witted the majority of republicans truly are!

I'm ready for my close up Mr. DeVille. Talk about getting the short straw, this hayseed should be on hee haw with Sarah killing a chickens, in the back ground.

Democrats or those tea party-avoidant, intelligent individuals who see this as what it is will applaud the Repubicans choice, and yes, I spelled Rebubicans as it should be spelled. Republicans are a disgrace to the political process, if there is still such an animal.

They should get the "L" out of their own stinkin'-thinkin way and begin to do what is right for the country instead of what is right for the ultra-rich and their politician/whoring/lobbyist-payoff-loving, best-representatives-you-can-buy lives. Take care of business or take the rest of your lives off, as you are not doing anyone any favors. I can't see how your mothers could love anyone of you Repubicans!!!

Hey markmich when did Liberal Progressives become teabagger's From where I stand I see a lot more hate pouring out of the far right. Maybe you need to freshen up your old taliking points

I feel like I'm too young to witness the demise of America, but that's all I see happening. This country has become no better than the taliban run countries... a bunch of religious zealots who chokehold the whole system for their agendas which seem to be limiting women's rights, worrying about who does and does not get married and distrubing the wealth in such a way that the gap might as well be shieks vs. slaves. Unbelievable!! We are now corporately and religiously owned... I'm sure that's exactly what our forefathers had in mind. I'd say "Lord help me" to Bachmann's victory except I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky... I'd just as soon vote for Santa Claus.

THAT'S ALL SHE'S GOING TO WIN TOO.....................

Let the games begin!!!

HEY!!!!

Who collapsed Feisty Redheads post?

His post is just the typical Liberal Progressive nonsense that is expected from the dependent mob being created by our incompetent government.

Hate: is the repulican parties 1st name.. They pride there name on cuts. Cuts only apply when it comes to cuting the middle class and poor. I would respect a Republican or a Democrate politican that agrees to cutting thier pay. And one that agrees to paying into thier pension and health care.. They say they hate taxes but really they hate middle class and the poor.

Kitty M.

I'd say "Lord help me" to Bachmann's victory except I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky...

It's OK, He believes in you.

MARKMICH

You could stand a history lesson and if you think there is a Republican or Teabagger in this race that can beat President Obama think again. He's definitely not the progressive we lefties hoped for but as Robert Frost said; There are miles to go before we sleep........OBAMA 2012...........

Seriously I don't give much credit to this vote. I received 2 political junk mailers from Bachmann, one with free tickets to the Straw Poll and the concert and I am not even Republican, I'm registered Democrat. There was even a offer to get a free ride to the Straw Poll. How can people take something like that seriously when it feels to me like votes being bought? I heard you had to pay to vote in the Straw Poll. Seems to me it's just one big small and big business fest for money. Was beer served? I think it makes us Iowans look like a joke. The mailers were a something from a Leave it to Beaver Show; as I cannot believe someone has this much time to do all the things and be involved in all things Bachmann claims to be doing and being.

Mrs Bachman should run for senator, not president. If we'd listened to Ron Paul's logic for the past 60 years, th US would be completely surrounded by an earth full of communist countries. Mrs Bachman must be older than she says because anyone who has seen the Rocky and Bullwinkle show would have to agree Bachman's/Rocky's sound track are the same!! Rick Perry will be our next president

Mrs Bachman should run for senator, not president.

Dog Catcher.

Markmich you're a treasure. Now can someone please bury you.

no bus for santorum ... just goes to show ya ... the candidate that tried so hard but just couldnt do it .. the next time he will launch his campaign with a hitch hike across america tour

Well. Bachmann is giving free tickets to the straw polls and Obama is selling lottery tickets for a 'Dinner with the Presz Extravaganza night' in order to bump up his campaign chest. Every day, in every way, American politics resembles the TV gameshow, 'the Price is Right.' American politics is so utterly pathetic.

So did Rick Perry, or Rick Parry with an A as in American and IowA get 4% of the vote?

I have given much thought to "russey's" comment about being bought. You should be glad someone was helping to give you the opportunity to vote.

Almost 50% of Americans don't have to pay any federal income taxes. One would think that politicians promising not to raise income tax on these 50% was BUYING votes. Instead there is an outcry for taxes to raised on people who are "rich". I keep hearing the words "fair share" by Obama and Democrats.

What is the definition of the word fair??

1% of $30000 is $300

1% of $100000 is $1000

Who is paying more in this scenario??

This simply illustrates the sorry state of political affairs in The United States. I wouldn't hire this woman as cleaning lady or Walmart greeter. She is clearly so far off the edge that a broken nail could send her into a dangerous frenzy. Her intellect, moral fortitude and aggressiveness places her just below the level of an 8 year old spoiled brat. She would most likely spit in your drink, when you turned your head, if you failed to compliment her on her bright red shoes and tangerine dress. The lady is N-U-T-S with a large number of squirrels pushing her up the tree.

The rest of the Republican field is a three ring circus of clowns busily stumbling over their big clown feet. It would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. Then we have Obama.

An intelligent man once thought to hold great promise to a suffering nation. A man that promoted change we could believe in. A man with noble ideals that most of us share. A proud man that struggled against tremendous odds to achieve the American dream that all us hold sacred. A man that, despite all of his accomplishments, has proven not to have the meddle as leader of the free world.

Necessity is the mother of invention. We can only pray for a 3rd party candidate, a challenger to President Obama within his own party or a Republican candidate that is not wed to a foolish pledge to a powerful individual or the extremes of the Tea Party.

I fear for my country tonight. I also have faith that a true leader will finally emerge out of the vast American spirit (that is our heritage) to restore this great land and her people. It will take each and every one of us to recognize that leader, put our own petty differences aside and move this country forward.

This is particularly funny when you consider that the Fox post debate "who won" poll showed Ron Paul at 65% and Bachmann a distant 5th with only 5%.

But the straw poll is where the buying and selling of Republicans begins. Consider that Bachmann spent a fortune on their tent with all kinds of fun and games including music, food and even a petting zoo.
Likewise the efforts by Romney, Gingrich, and several of the others were over the top as well.
Meanwhile Ron Paul's efforts to buy votes was modest.
This really says volumes and shows that the real winner was in fact Ron Paul.

As for the media not helping, and in fact trying to hurt, Paul lies in the fact that the same wealthy elite who control the Federal Reserve also control the media. Ron is the only candidate from either party who is calling for getting rid of the FR and ending its control of US banks, money and ultimately government.

Of all the candidates from all of the parties Ron and the Libertarians, I don't believe they have named their candidate yet, are calling for dramatically less government, an end to the wars and Americas constant meddling in the affairs of other countries and any financial responsibility.

In the debates Ron gave real solid answers to hard questions while the rest, especially Bachmann, gave little more than vague platitudes.

Commonsense101,

Reading your comment, I would suggest that you take commonsense 101 over, because you defiantly failed the course.

Let's just be civil and think ..not be ready to throw anyone into a lion's den with gibberish from only information attained from TV media......

Am I a Democrat???

What is the definition of the word fair??

In the clustered, painful, delusional mind of Liberal Progressives the definition is simple. However, it really has nothing to do with "fair".

In the Liberal mind fair is considered equal. By this I mean, the Liberal Progressive is not enraged by fairness, it's about you having more AFTER you pay taxes than he or she does. It doesn't matter how high you raise the tax bracket as long as they and you have as much left after you both pay taxes.

For example, the median income in America is about $50,000. The average taxes on this is about $9,500 (with return) leaving $40,500.

Now if you make $200,000 it doesnt matter what tax bracket would make it fair unless all you have left after taxes is $40,500, the same as the Liberal Progressive. It doesn't matter to them that you're paying $159,500, you ended up with the same amount after taxes as them. This is now FAIR.

This is the delusion of the Liberal Progressive mind. It doesn't matter that you work twice as hard or have some exceptional skill you crafted over your career. Liberals don't care. They just want more and more of others people money. ESPECIALLY if you're the demonic RICH.

This is the indoctrination they have been put through. Their mantra is, "What is mine is mine, what is yours is mine also". You should work harder and longer and just give it to the Liberals because they have already worked their union required 40 hours. Self-reliance, self-esteem and ambition does not exist in their world. The government (indirectly, you) should take care of their other wants in life even though they haven't earned them.

commonsense101 is the only post that is an enteligent and unbiased responce to this whole articale. You said it all.

I hate to wake up a few of you folks but we are already witnessing the demise of this country. I hope we can make it to the next presidential election. Stop the blame game and lead Mr President!

to Markmitch, I don't know where you get your info from but when I was working making

to markmitch

When I was still working before I retired I was paying 34% in taxes the same as someone making $200,000 and I was only making $98,0000 a year . Where did you get you facts from or did you pull them out of your lower anatomy

498,000

ogreugly

So. You made $98,000 in a year and paid $34,300 (34%) in taxes. Leaving you $63,700.

The person making $200,000 paid $68,000 (34%) in taxes. Leaving him with $132,000.

You notice they are paying $33,700 MORE than you.

This is fair right?

People like ogreugly won't think it's "fair" until everyone ends up with the same amount of money....not the same percentage in taxes.

markmich. i used to work with a police officer who had little-man's syndrome.

you sound just like him.

cheers!

Bernitch

That's funny. I used to work with a police officer with little-manliness syndrome.

You sound just like him. It's a common problem for you Liberal Progressives.

I understand it's because of other underlying little problems you have.

No one polled me or asked for my vote. This whole thing is bs. Government, politicians and the media creating your next presidential candidate for you. So why even bother to vote since your vote doesn't count if you did not vote the right way.

yes, markmich, that is fair. there are no absolutes, so when looking at fairness, it has to be relative. those people may pay more total dollars, but it is no more relative to everyone else. when it's all said and done, the rich still have more money. and, since they end up with more money from their jobs, which they wouldn't be able to have without things like roads, police, firefighters, courts, etc, it can be argued that they are benefiting more from tax supported services than the rest of us. *shrug*

and i would ask you: what makes you an expert in the "liberal progressive's" mindset? you can't seriously sit there and tell yourself that you know the liberal's mindset better than they know themselves. your claims are unsubstantial at best and you offer little more than an opinion; an extremely biased opinion; and an opinion i'm almost certain that you did not form yourself.

the best you've been able to do is insult "liberal progressives" (which only exist in the fears of right-wing extremists). how about trying to make your own opinion? tell us what YOU think rather than what liberals think. you're probably the least qualified to talk about how liberals think, anyways. best to stick to what you know rather than what you think you know.

I say no vote to any candidate who has been or served in congress or the senate in the last 20 years

Anonymous....do the others not use the same services? Do they not pay less for the "right" to use those services? Bottom line, the new mantra in America has become "Tax the rich to feed the poor, until the rich are rich no more.". It's not good, because if you think these corporations and rich people are going to sit back and have money dained from them for people who refuse to put a hand up instead of a handout, you've got a rude awakening coming. There's a reason why the rich STAYED rich during times of 90% tax on their tax brackets. They will drop their vast fortunes into a shell company that does nothing, pay bills and invest via that company, and pay 15% (about 18 less then they pay now) in capital gains taxes. That money will litterally be doing nothing as it sits in that company, and cannot be taxed unless it makes profit. It's called market stagnation, and our country suffered from it during those times where the rich were expected to foot almost 99% of the tax burden.

anonymouse-3907417

the rich still have more money. and, since they end up with more money from their jobs,which they wouldn't be able to have without things like roads, police, firefighters, courts, etc, it can be argued that they are benefiting more from tax supported services than the rest of us.

That's the most convoluted thinking I have ever heard!

So, the doctor who makes $200,000 drives to his office works 10-12 hours and then drives home uses more roads, police, firefighters, courts, etc?

HOW?

Does he have a police escort home? Does HIS car use more of the road than someone driving to their $50,000 a year job? Do firefighters drive by his house daily to make sure it isn't on fire? By your logic, you wouldn't have your $50,000 a year job either if it wasn't for the roads police, firefighters and courts.

HE pays more taxes than you do regardless of the utilities used. How the hell do roads, police and courts enable someone to make more money than you do? Your Liberal Progressive delusion is fully exhibited with posts like these. As I posted above. It has nothing to do with fairness or or tax brackets. It's simply ENVY.

You Liberal Progressives can't stand the people who succeed and make more money. Your social and economic justice is simply an equality issue, fairness has nothing to do with it. Regardless of income, you are angry that AFTER taxes the rich have more money left over. You THINK they should make more money but give you more so after taxes everything is equal. That is Socialism at best and Communism at worst.

What if I wanted YOU to pay more in taxes for the same reasons you gave because you use them all more than the person who doesn't work or pay taxes? Would you agree? Of course not, because it doesn't make any sense.

the best you've been able to do is insult "liberal progressives" (which only exist in the fears of right-wing extremists).

Ahhhh yes, but it's OK when the Liberal Progressives call people Rethuglicans, repukes, teabaggers, Nazi's, racists, extremists and terrorists, RIGHT? Even your Democratic "leaders". Liberal Progressives are what is in your corrupted Democratic party, despite what you say. The true Democratice party left long ago, as did the GOP.

You my good friend are a HYPOCRITE.

It's a shame you don't realize it.

Ok.it sounds like the media already has a few of you in it's lair...emotionalism and calling each other whatever, is NOT going to solve the problems...Please get a grip..we need to work together, not split apart.....there are 2 of you I am particularly referring to.......delve into FACTS....not inuendos about others or yourselves....Look at REAL history, not pared down history............My dad used to say, which I have heard MANY times in my life...that the better man( woman) walks from a fight( discussion) that has no validity or goes in circles, and GETS TO WORK.....HE worked his way from pure poverty to a highly successful man who was revered by many........Don't YOU want REAL history to say that of YOU and US, or do you want the same old, same old of the recent historical past??........

I agree with markmich 100% .

I would like to see the poorer people paying more actually. Paying their share, afterall, they use more government resources than the the richer people do. When 50% do not pay income tax, they have that cutoff way to high. Maybe only let the bottom 10% not pay taxes, then everyone else pays the same percentage of their income. Make more money, you will pay more money, but still only the same percentage.

funny how you yell at people to read when you haven't really read my statement yourself. i never said that they used tax supported services more, i said that they benefit more. they benefit more because they have more to lose by not making it to work, having their stuff stolen or charred in a fire. more to lose = more benefit from tax supported services. you did the math already, didn't you?

please point out to me where i said it was okay for "liberal progressives" to say things like teabaggers rethuglicans, repukes, teabaggers, nazi's[sic], racists, or terrorists. because that is not an argument i would make, nor is it one i've even alluded to. further, you're making the assumption that i'm a liberal progressive. i don't claim such, i consider myself much more moderate. but i know it probably has little significance to you how i identify myself. you're more content with your labels and name calling.

you've gotten way ahead of yourself and have some pretty absurd assumptions. you've gone on about how you think i think, yet still have not stood up to my challenge to say anything of your own. how should people be taxed? how should companies be taxed? how should we decide where our resources go? how do you define fair? (since when you decided to respond to the definition of the word fair, you never actually defined fair for yourself, you only went on about how (you think) liberal progressives define fair...)

are you going to stand up to the conversation or are you going to lean back, make some more assumptions, and tell me more about what i'm thinking?

Bachmann is a total loser, what are they drinking in Iowa.

I am so glad I live in Canada. Universal Healthcare and all our Universities are public. We focuss on producing a large healthy and educated population. We also don't profit off of crime through private jails--how perverted.

The best country in the world.

Steffon-3884954

I say no vote to any candidate who has been or served in congress or the senate in the last 20 years

fine by me..... at the least no-boma

ogreugly You must have did something wrong. In a recent interview, Warren Buffett said that he paid 13 percent. He also stated that his cleaning lady paid a higher percentage of tax, then he did.

To bad the Teabaggee's don't understand that America is waking up from its Debt and spending nightmare and realize the socialist in the White House must be removed before he can inflict any further damage and shame on our great Republic.

markmich, if you read international news at all, you'd realize that the current serious embarrassment is the Tea Party and it's latest trick with the debt ceiling. If you had half a memory and didn't twist reality, you would know that Bush's unfunded Homeland Security, Bush's unfunded Afghan war, Bush's unfunded Iraq war, and the Medicaid that Bush neglected to require funding on, accounts for the majority of our past and current budget deficits and debt. You would also realize that the "Bush debt train" will last for decades and will weigh on Dems and Republicans alike. Your problem isn't Obama... its... well, it's you!

What we need is a party that gives a damn about ALL people. We need one with at least half a memory. We need one with real integrity. We need one that respects other races, religions, and genders. We need one that takes measured steps and is careful NOT to cause a world calamity. That party is NOT the GOP.

And not one part of this post has ANYTHING to do with "liberal" or "socialism".

Nice try, but no LMarcT.......

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/voters_still_express_more_confidence_in_tea_party_than_in_congress

It seems you and the other people all too content to bash the Tea Party are in the minority.

Did you miss the part of the article that said the Tea Party's credibility had dropped by 10 percentage points since last year? And this is coming from Rasmussen, the notoriously right-wing polling agency. Imagine what a real poll would say?

The Tea Party is a ridiculous embarrassment to this country. Hordes of fools waving illiterate placard about topics they can barely understand. A fools parade.

reminds me of the WTO riots we had in our city in the late 1990's. We arrrested one kid for kicking in the windows of the flagship NIKE store downtown. of course, he was yammering on about how NIKE was one of the Corporate giants responsible for all the evil in the world, etc etc etc. And then, we looked down... and what was this little idiot wearing? A pair of NIKE shoes. All i could do was laugh. just like all the right-wing hypocrisy in this country. it knows no bounds.

B707320C

This is good news for Obama.....and George Bush. It makes Bush look smart!

Bush smart; now that is funny!!!

Good thing Michelle won. I'm sure she avoided a beating from that gay fixing hubby of hers.

What makes obama look smart. The "No Child Left Behind" program at Harvard. Wonder where our POTUS will be hiding next week.

I'm still trying to figure out the significance of this, if any.

The results of all this is probably meaningless.

This "straw poll" is nothing more than "pay to play" - every vote you can mobilize costs $30/vote. The greater the "war chest" and the greater the number you can mobilize, the more you can "stuff the ballot box".

For those of us old enough to remember, in 1960 there were the "payola scandals" (AKA "Pay to play"). What was "payola"? ...

Payola, in the American music industry, is the illegal practice of payment or other inducement by record companies for the broadcast of recordings on music radio, in which the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast. Under U.S. law, 47 U.S.C. § 317, a radio station can play a specific song in exchange for money, but this must be disclosed on the air as being sponsored airtime, and that play of the song should not be counted as a "regular airplay."

The term has come to refer to any secret payment made to cast a product in a favorable light (such as obtaining positive reviews).

Although, not the music industry, and while not illegal, this has all the "stink" of Payola, masquerading as something it is not.

we do not need another Texas President looking at the last few they are liars and Idiots

Very sorry to be the one to spoon epsom salts into everyones water pitcher here, but this poll gives great legitimacy to the candidacy of that "Beau of the old confederacy" Rick Perry. This religionist, Secessionist, tea partite, Prodigal of G.W. Bush, Texas Governor, past democrat, and all around "Jack of all political things spinning" has been given one helluva leg up. The others may as well save their money and efforts. This particular "mouth of the south" will be the republican nominee.

Hey Beverly:

Your guy is the one who thought we had 57 states. Oh I know, the excuse is the person who loaded the info on the teleprompter made a typo and as usual Obama's mouth was going with no thought behind it.

james-3199489

we do not need another Texas President looking at the last few they are liars and Idiots

Yes, that LBJ was a story teller.

Such weird results. Bachmann first? The candidates with the most credibility (except for Paul) are the ones who finished at the bottom.

They are drinking the Tea in Iowa.

So what kind of experience did NIXON have before he ran for President? How about Reagan? Yeah, Bachmann, who has only been a Minnesota legislator and LESS THAN ONE-TERM Congressperson, is "more qualified" than anyone else..............

well "justified" - let's ask a simple question with a not so simple answer - How WOULD you pick a president? Remember - there is no way to PRACTICALLY OJT for the job and, of course, IF the RETHUGS pick someone as ADDLE brained as michelle, they are in effect just continuing what you seem to "dislike" - so tell me -

HOW do you determine a candidate's "fitness" for the Presidency? Race? that seem to be an option that "whayte suthunuhs" seem to put high on the priority (persons of "color" need not aply). "Intelligence"? Given the RETHUG field of dreamers, there isn't an IQ above "average" in the BUNCH (some way below that arbitrary "par" of 100); Prior "congressional service"? (some specific amount?) religion? (even though the constitution specifically prohibits THAT ONE) Ability to form "consensus"? (Gee when faced against a totally OBSTINATE congress?)

So, the ball's in your court - let's hear YOUR "bases for choice".

Oh, and "hopeful" while it was an unusual gaffe attributed to lack of sleep, Obama is way more intelligent than ANY of the RETHUG challengers ANY OF THEM, BAR NONE. I'll go for brain over insignificant party affiliations ANY TIME (and just think, no matter WHO the THUGS nominate, they WILL NOT GET MY VOTE) OBAMA 2012. 4 more years of sanity instead of 4 years of a slippery slope toward a theocracy

Justified Defiance: You are a voice of intelligence. Thank you for seeing the big problem. All those voters walk among us. Many have no clue about US history, can't write a complete sentence, have never read a book; but buy lottery tickets and always have their hand out.

This shows just how insignificant Iowa is- First they vote with corn- then they will caucus- you know that system where you say your for someone, then get to change your vote, then get to change it again, and again- until time runs out. It's more like musical candidates than an a selection process.



If Mitt Romney and Rick Perry put their egocentrically mentality to the side and joint force for the good of our country they will handle Obama the worst political defeat ever recorded in the history of America and they will be able to keep a power dynasty for the next 16 years, you do the math.

Romney/Perry 2012 or Perry/Romney2012 then repeat in 2016, then Perry/? Or Romney/? 2020 and repeat 2024 till 2028. Of course this will only work out if they don’t strike out like Obama did.

+

Canary: Well, little bird, judging by all the qualifications that previous (20th century) presidents had, perhaps their golf handicaps should be used as a measure.

(and just think, no matter WHO the THUGS nominate, they WILL NOT GET MY VOTE) OBAMA 2012

canary - Nice to see you have an open mind and will consider all the candidates based on their qualifications!

As I see it, Romney's only problem is that he is too white to win. Other than that small defect he is just as qualified as Obama to be President:

Both of them are clean, articulate and well spoken

Both of them look great in their custom-tailored suits

Both of them have weird religious affiliations (although IMO Reverend Wright is weirder than Joseph Smith)

In this era of superficiality, appearance and illusion are more important than experience or leadership. And for some reason being black creates the illusion of fairness. But not too black! Herman Cain for example is clean, articulate and well dressed but compared to the fine-featured, biracial Obama, Cain looks like an ape. No chance of his winning anything.

This entire discussion is an argument for why the electorate should be limited. Not picking on the obvious mark of the Republican Party here specifically (but, really, Michelle Bachmann?), both sides show such a level of stupidity that is absolutely terrifying in context of the future of this country.

For the right, most of the arguments center around voting against the intention of the Founders. That's right, voting for the current crop mostly goes against a very basis of the country: Freedom of Religion, and yes, that means Freedom FROM Religion. To clarify, I don't mean that an American should take issue at walking into a courthouse and seeing a monument to the Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi or even the f'ing Flying Spaghetti Monster (go Pastafarians!). Rather, Americans should be concerned when laws are written that fall outside of commonly held mores (look it up...). It's fine to make a law against murder or theft, but when you start making laws that I can't buy beer on Sunday, you're making a religious law and that does fall outside the very idea of Freedom of Religion. If my religion says I should go buy a beer and drink it on Sunday, then your damned religious belief is conflicting with mine, and that's un-American... on your part. Anyone who is voting for this crop of "God told me to run" cuckoos doesn't understand the values that founded the country you claim be a patriot of.

Further, for the Republicans, and, frankly, for most of the Democrats, you aren't voting for people who are concerned with what's best for the nation. You are voting for people who blatantly flaunt the fact that they are running to support the corporate interests that fund their campaigns and fill their wallets both before and after the election. It doesn't really matter what the name of the candidate is. The ballot might as well reflect "ExxonMobil" vs. "US Steel" vs. "ConAgra." We are headed down the road towards Corporate Oligarchy with all the glee of kids going to recess.

For the Democrats, the entire platform of "We're not Republicans" is no longer working. The ideals of the Democrat Party are so nebulous that even the trolls can't figure out what you believe and, instead, start misuing terms like "Progressive," "Liberal" and "Socialist" despite the fact that they have absolutely no clue what those terms mean (By the way, righties, those terms are not, in fact, perjoratives... nitwits.. <~~ that last one was). It's time for the Democrats to figure out what defines their party and to demand that their leaders stand up for ... whatever it happens to be. It's time to demand that the leaders fight for their positions with fervor, once they figure out what those positions are. Oh, and for god's sake, get rid of Nancy Pelosi. Her very presence in the forefront of the party is a continuing case of "wtf?"

I voted for Obama in 2008 because the alternative was unthinkable and his rhetoric was decent. Unfortunately, he turned out to have all the intestinal fortitude of a wet noodle. It physically pains me to say that I'm now sorry that I didn't vote for that evil witch Hillary, simply because, in hindsight, she's such an aggressive <redacted> that she might have accomplished something... anything... noteworthy in the past few years. With the current crop, there are no true "candidates," only evils, lesser and greater. I hate to say it, but the one standing out, at the moment, is the probably homophobic racist Ron Paul. At least he has a few of the basic ideas of the country correct.

LOL I saw she won the straw poll and immediately thought to myself "I wonder how much money she spent bussing people in to vote for her.", since any sane Republican knows she's a moron and stands absolutely NO CHANCE at winning against Obama. Hell, I'd even vote for Obumbler again before Bachmann. She's to volatile.......and let's not forget.....volatility + stupidity = disaster.

Wow something we agree on.

Apparently it costs $30 to vote in the straw poll and candidates can buy tickets to hand out to prospective voters. Word is the Bachmann campaign bought 6,000 tickets, so I imaging she was rather surprised to get fewer than 5,000 votes. ;-)

Another unwelcome pair!

Romney doesn't need any straw polls - he has 264 million in the bank. Now isn't that who you want to run our already troubled country!

echelon64

Maoist supporter isn't going to win

Hey take it easy now. Just because Huntsman speaks Chinese don't mean he is a commie.

Crazy-eyed Bachmann will be on MTP> LET"S hope she looks in the right camera and we can understand her english

Romney won the Straw Poll in 2007, guess he figured folks would remember him.

Jody, Iowa

Romney won the Straw Poll in 2007, guess he figured folks would remember him.

Woops, I just checked, you are right. Was it McCain who skipped the poll?

Beverly in Chicago

Maoist supporter isn't going to win

strSarcasm( nDoesntWorksSometimes);

Jody, Hope he brings his parka when he is in Iowa this winter. M. Bachmann of course knows how to dress to for those meet and greets in the dead of winter.

Man, I am jumping on her band wagon.... straight out of MN for good...

Why Bev...you dont correctly use correct English in any form I've observed!

echelon64

Calling it now though, Perry/Bachmann 2012 and if that sounds crazy to you, just remember the last GOP candidates we had.

=========

...sounds entertaining (and very sad), but will they be able to resurrect Joe "the dumber" plumber? A classic moment from McCain's campaign was newsfootage of McCain, Palin, and Joe-Sam on a stage with arms extended and enthralling their audience. It reminded me of an old, cheap vaudville act, they should have been stomping around singing "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy".

Joly Folly: "Why Bev...you dont correctly use correct English in any form I've observed!

.....Jolly, Jolly, Jolly, redundantly redundant are you? Be careful when you throw rocks at people, they may come back at you.

Which part of that sentence construction can you point to that's incorrect? I guess I could have said you dont use correct English! But if your a English teacher I will defer to you!

Jolly, if you are going to tell someone her "English" isn't correct you might want to use an apostrophe in don't. Just saying.....lol;)

An English teacher vice a English teacher

jollyoldsoul1

Which part of that sentence construction can you point to that's incorrect? I guess I could have said you dont use correct English! But if your a English teacher I will defer to you!

=========

........Ummm, which part of "redundant" don't (note correct use of the apostrophe, as per Ram) you understand? Basically, is it possible to "incorrectly use correct English", if so, then I suppose your original criticism is legitimate, but I sincerely doubt it? Get the point? Better yet, just go back to being snarky.

P.S., no , I am not an English teacher, but I did pay attention in class.

Robie-3907350

An English teacher vice a English teacher

============

.......Can someone please explain this.

bachman will be the kiss of DEATH to the ticket if she is ANYWHERE NEAR IT. The woman is an imbecile (even if she has a law degree from rectal roberts university)

BTW - Huntsman is the intelligent candidate - BUT - he's mormon and the rightwingnutreligionazis in charge of the RETHUGs will NOT ALLOW A MORMON TO RUN FOR POTUS. Ain't gonna HAPPEN (and out of all of them, he's the only one I could EVER support - which I won't, anyway)

wparker-3730050

"Mrs Bachman should run for senator, not president. If we'd listened to Ron Paul's logic for the past 60 years, th US would be completely surrounded by an earth full of communist countries. Mrs Bachman must be older than she says because anyone who has seen the Rocky and Bullwinkle show would have to agree Bachman's/Rocky's sound track are the same!! Rick Perry will be our next president."

Wow, you have a seemingly irrational amount of faith in the ability of socialism/communism to function over the long-run. Are you familiar with the "calculation argument"?
The arms race and the silly proxy wars had little to nothing to do with the decline of the communist system. It had everything to do with the fact that socialism/communism is, impossible in the long-run. It will and always has collapsed on its very own as a result of its internal inconsistencies, and the calculation problem. It is a totally intellectually bankrupt ideology. And it can never work for long (unless/until we enter a post-scarcity world). That is why we are not surrounded by communist/socialist states, because it DOESN'T WORK.

No massive waste of capital on useless weapons systems and lost lives necessary.

Roadhouse Blues --

An English teacher versus a teacher of English.

I'll be the first to admit that in it's purest form, and on paper, socialism and communism are awesome governments. Unfortunately, both fail to take into account the faults of mankind. Neither take into account greed or jealousy. Neither take into account personal choice or freedom to endeavour to be better then others. No one will study to be a doctor, working days at a time straight, to make the same as the guy at the grocery store that bags your stuff.

It's starting to show very clearly in our country that socialist tendencies of the Democrat party are hurting us more and more. Need proof? Go check out how much entitlement spending costs us a year, what portion of our budget it eats up, and then ask yourself who uses those entitlements. I'll give you a hint. It's not the people paying the taxes. 47% of the country pays no federal taxes then whines that the "rich" aren't paying their fair share. That's like a guy screaming "Drinks on me!" in the bar, and you bitching that you didn't get the two rounds he did.

The "looks good on paper" argument fails. It only looks good if your time horizon is no more than a couple years, tops. The nonsense that communism failed only because there were "bad leaders" has been thoroughly debunked by economists, well before I was born.
So no, it doesn't even look good on paper; if you know what to look for.
The Calculation Problem was the final nail in the coffin. Silly legislative "laws," dreamed up by busy-body politicians, can never trump or overpower the natural laws of economics.

Much harm has come to us all from (us/politicians/elite) not understanding that final principle.

Cheers!

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!

We elected Obama because he was black (per Oblama) in 2008, we will fire him in 2012 because he is incompetent. Oblama could be a strong candidate for dog catcher.

Dasvet

We elected Obama because he was black (per Oblama) in 2008, we will fire him in 2012 because he is incompetent. Oblama could be a strong candidate for dog catcher.

=======

Which makes him more competent than GOP/TP Christine O'Donnell was.....hmmmm!

Even O'Donnell could beat Obama at this point! Christine or Rosie!

Keep talking about how easy it will be to whip Obama and win the election... it only helps Obama!

Of course the truth is Obama is a master campaigner and will NOT be easy at all to beat. In fact, the main reason there isn't one sane Republican running for president in 2012 is because the few sane Republicans know he's not going anywhere... they will try in 2016 when they have a fighting chance.

Yep, all we need to do is retain the House and gain the Senate and we will have Odumba right where we want him, even if we do make the WH

He should be a good campaigner, that's all he does instead of being a leader.

Obama is not master campaigner, even though that is what he does best. He has been exposed as a fraud and a failure to all but the extremely brainwashed and will be shellacked in 2012!

ok crystal - where's your ball - what information have you gleaned from the mighty cosmos that says Obama is a FRAUD?

"Failure" is a result of having a congress of blathering idiots afraid of their own shadows and a "Party of NO! NO! NO!" who wouldn't let ANYTHING pass that would have ANY "positive effect" on his presidency (of course, congressional DISapproval is 82% (condemning BOTH RETHUGS and DEMS) - throw all of the BUMS out and start fresh. It can't be any WORSE than what we have NOW

He wasn't a good campaigner either, BSNBC and the lib media campaigned for him. He was black, he was new, he was a socialist/marxist in his earlier days(admitted it), but the mainstream media ignored it. If America is dumb enough to vote for an incompetent, blame his failures on everyone else Oblama, then we are doomed. I don't think the American will re-elect a teleprompter PHD again. It will be closer than I hope because we still have the big city voters who ignore history, even as the dems who have failed them miserably in upgrading their lives. They still live in squalor ridden liberal communities as they always have.

There is a reason, when I lived in Wisconsin, we called Iowan's "striped whistlers", and it wasn't because they were so smart! ha ha, Obama can take Bachmann, and Perry. It's getting interesting.

718 people thats it !

Steven Colbert ran televised adds asking everyone to write in pArry, with an A for America.

But you missed alpha's spelling.... "arry", not "erry"? Didn't you wonder who he/she wanted to know the vote count for? It's like an earlier posting of the TX bumper stickers "pRICK PERRY FOR PRESIDENT".

michelle, don't put all Iowans in with this far right bunch; we democrats make better choices.

I'm guessing the put the pArry votes in as a vote for Perry.

Yep.....come on all you liberals.....make fun of every state you can. Please alienate every voting group there is! You all know your way smarter than anyone in the southern states and also every mid western state besides Illinois! I know you can do it!

Jody, Iowa, I would never put you in that group dear, just the rightie Iowans. Should have been more specific, my bad.

It's amusing watching the liberal meltdown actually. For all their hypocrisy and pseudo intellect, they are powerless so attack like cornered badgers. Jimmy Carter exposed them as the frauds they are, and now Obama has refreshed our memory. Good one Obama, set racism back 20 years and drive the car off the cliff, but you've still got the throughly brainwashed few to try to prop you up. You are a one term President!

You are a one term President!

What's the mater, the Republicans have no one worth propping up, that their whole argument is saying how they dislike Obama? We know you don't like him and never will, tell us something we don't know- like the Republicans plan for jobs? Exactly.

so 718 diehard RETHUG idiots voted for PERRY? This is as much fun as watching a demolition derby. National politics determined by people who decided to participate in a meaningless "vote"

and a lot of other folks this pole Sucks

I'm wondering if Bachmann came out on top because she was born in Iowa. You know, voting for "one of their own" kinda things. I'd say based on many polls, this is most likely the case.

I'm ecstatic about Ron Paul coming in a very very close second. I noticed Ron Paul's name wasn't in bold as others have. I also noticed that his reaction isn't in the story unlike Pawlenty and Romney. He came in second, and they still treat him like he's nothing. The media bias just drives me nuts!!!

RON PAUL 2012

RON PAUL 2012

RON PAUL 2012

RON PAUL 2012

RON PAUL 2012

RON PAUL 2012

RON PAUL 2012

The media it seems is somehow against giving R. Paul the attention that he deserves.

I'm not worried too much though.

He will get my vote in 2012.

CNN did a much better job on this story than this MSNBC hack.

Their headline reads"Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, narrowly besting Ron Paul".

Believe it or not the entire headline is bold EVEN the words Ron Paul.

Additionally CNN actually devotes a several paragraphs in the article to Ron Paul, unlike MSNBC who still tries to pretend he doesn't exist.

True. Though MSNBC did make a whole article on Dr. Paul here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44138424/ns/politics/

But CNN is just as bias as all other MSM. They all shuve Dr. Paul aside until he wins.

Tell your friends to join the ReLOVEolution

I was a big fan of Ron Paul, and then someone said something stupid like "He doesn't even have any skeletons in his closet for Obama to use against him!", which of course picqued my interest. Not so much a fan anymore.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how
unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice
system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that
city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23.
That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the
streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and
culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it
refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is
racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white
and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

.....he's kind of a racist A-hole.

I have no doubt those little clips were taken out of context or are completely false. Ron is the man.

Um, some citation would be nice. I think maybe those came from a newsletter, where some ghost writer had been writing under Paul's name. Paul has been a public figure since the 70's, and notice all those comments were made in 92. So what, was he only racist that one year? If he truly was racist there would be remarks spanning more than 30 years, not just one or two years. I've never heard him speak in such a way. I actually set someone straight a while ago about Ron Paul racism quotes. I don't have much time right now, so here's a wiki piece about it, with citation.

Controversial claims made by an unidentified author in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."^[137] Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."^[138]

Paul had given his own account of the newsletters during March 2001, stating the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.^[139]

At the end of 2007, both the New York Sun and the New York Times Magazine reprinted passages from early 1990s publications of Paul's newsletters, attacking them for content deemed racist.^[13] These were the same newsletters that had been used against Paul during his 1996 congressional campaign.

On January 8, 2008, the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic published a story by James Kirchick quoting from selected newsletters published under Paul's name.^[53][140]

Responding to the charges in a CNN interview, Paul denied any involvement in authoring the passages. Additionally, Paul's campaign claimed through a press release that the quotations had come from an unnamed ghostwriter and without Paul's consent. Paul again denounced and disavowed the "small-minded thoughts", citing his 1999 House speech praising Rosa Parks for her courage; he said the charges simply "rehashed" the decade-old Morris attack.^[141] CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said that the writing "Didn't sound like the Ron Paul I've come to know."^[142] Later, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, also defended Paul.^[143]

“

Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual.

”

— Ron Paul, CNN, January 10, 2008^[144]

The newsmagazine Reason republished Paul's 1996 defense of the newsletters,^[145] and later reported evidence from "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists" that Lew Rockwell had been the chief ghostwriter.^[53] Rockwell denies this charge, and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"^[146]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_controversy

It's unfortunate Paul didn't pay more attention to his newsletter. I'm sure he wouldn't have allowed things like that to be said. One reason I know it wasn't Paul who wrote it, is the style of writing. It does not sound like Paul at all.

I was editing when I ran out of time....

I was saying, That the quote in the wiki article about Paul voting against the MLK holiday time and time again is false. While Paul did vote against MLK being a federal holiday, he voted yes for changing the holiday to Monday. I don't think Paul voted against the MLK holiday because MLK was black, but because it was to be a federal holiday. I guess the ghost writer didn't do enough research to know what Paul did or didn't vote for. You want to verify this google voting results yourself.

Ron is the man.

I think that's the concern, actually. He's the Man.

To be fair to the rest of non-crazy Iowa, only the most partisan red-soaked GOP'ers vote in the Ames straw poll.

They all have corncobs stuck up their butts...

lemur now you're just fantistying!

She wishes it was a corn cob! poor uncle willie!

Maybe they should call it the corn poll! What is a tumour? What is fantistying?

Maybe they should call it the corn poll!

That sounds dirty.

Same difference really.

Very true my young grasshopper.

Ron Paul all the way. I can't believe anyone would consider any one else. These other politicians will be bought and paid for by the time their campaign is over. Guess what they would do? Exactly the same thing that's been going on. None of them will change anything except Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is toast with his remark basically approving Iranian nukes.

Hes not approving of them, hes letting them do what they want. Pakistan has nukes, Russia has nukes, China has nukes, lets fight them? No. You totally take it the wrong way.

Go put on your George Bush hat on, and turn on Fox News to where your one-sided remarks are wanted.

Even by some stretch of the imagination that Ron Paul would actually win the nomination and even less likely, were he to win the General election, there is no way that he could ever get his ideas to go anywhere in the Congress. NO President has absolute authority, NO President has the authority to dictate his wishes. The Congress has the duty to enact laws, control the spending and present the budgets. These are the duties of Congress as it has been defined by the Constitution. The problem that we have is that the Congress have been dererilict in their duties. Each one of them swore under oath to represent all of the people, not a select few.

Oh really? Ever hear of presidential signing statement and executive orders? Both Bush and now Obama have virtually sidestepped the legislature, but Paul won't do that. Thing is as Pres he will have the bully pulpit and can get his views across nationwide and in Congress. If the GOP stalls him, the sham that our political system is will be finally revealed. He might not get his entire agenda done overnight, but he could do some good while in office. Just recalling the troops home would be a good start.

I'm a Democrat. I would not mind Romney and/or any Republican who kept away from cultural or social issues. Once they start taking about legislating the "bedroom" while pushing liberty in the free market, they have lost me.

There are a lot of GDI's (god damned independents) who don't like them either, hehe.....or any of the candidates, including the incumbent....it will be another of those "vote for the lesser of the many evils" in 2012. OR, if your state allows it...."none of the above." Here in the USVI where we don't get to vote for president (yet are called citizens of the US), we do get to cast a NO VOTE and I've done exactly that in the past several elections. NONE of the candidates are worthy of my vote and I tell them so with the NO VOTE vote.

It's not that I don't like Republicans, I think many of the candidates are good people personally, I just don't like the issues they stand for. It's what any good U.S. citizen eligible voter should really care about.

Actually Democrats love them more than the GOP!! ROFLAO!

I used to be a republican until they forgot what conservative really meant starting with Reagan. They talk about individual freedom but want to shove their idea of religion, woman's issues down our throats. They aren't small government, they are big intrusive government in areas that are just plain none of their business. Ron Paul is the only far right winger who really means small government; they rest are fakes. Huntsman or Romney are more moderate, more traditional republicans but in the age of the Tea Party fringe, they don't have a chance.

echelon64, that is why one of the sections of the Popular Amendment movement election/campaign finance reform constitutional amendment includes a requirement for all federal candidates to sign a "Contract with the Voters" as part of their filing petition. The contract requires them to spell out in detail their position on every POTENTIAL issue that might come before them in the sought after office (Representative, Senator, President). If they do not live up to ANY of the positions in the contract, the voters in their district/state/nation can then take that elected official to court for breach of contract. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us to get involved in the movement.

News Flash - Former Republicans don't like theocrats.

I would choke down the bile and register as a Republican again if Ron Paul is still in the race come primary time.

If not I will choke down the bile and vote for Obama, maybe Romney if he gets th nom or even Mickey Mouse in the general election before I would vote for any these batsh!t let's-legislate-morality Republican theocrats.

Ron Paul said it, not me, I was just reiterating it. RON PAUL IS TOAST. Just to say it a little louder. I was a supporter of Ron Paul at one time, but he seems to be tottering into old age too quickly.I still think highly of him. He belongs in the mix of those with some good ideas, just not as president. His time has passed.

Anti-trust,

Thanks for the link. :-) My poly-sci class discussed this at length. You will, of course, never get legislators to vote for anything like this, so the popular amendment avenue is the only course available. However, if you would like to see the pitfalls of the popular vote form of amending, you only need look at California.. or even Switzerland. In these areas, constitutional amendments can be made simply by majority vote. This essentially leads to "mob rule" in that the rights of the minority are trumped by the rights of the majority. With such a mechanism in place, there would probably still be slavery and women would not be able to own property. I don't see the SCOTUS determining this form of amending as Constitutional.

Would that we could have some honest Americans willing to commit themselves to service as representatives just long enough to pass this through the legislature. At it's inception, the Tea Party movement seemed to embrace such an idea. Of course, then they became the bastardized versions of what they told the public they had planned and simply became republican fundies on steriods.

The Contract proposed is a GREAT idea. The method of delivery, not so much.

M I N O R I T Y........Yes you can!

Do your homework. Look at the accomplishments of Jon Huntsman in Utah. He is everything we are looking for. He knows how to get the job done. He has foreign policy experience and leadership experience. Look him up and see what he has done. Great family man and has business savy too.

Common sense. What you are saying is true. And it's why he'll never get anywhere in the GOP.

News Flash! Democrats who post here don't like the Republican candidates! Stop the presses! :-))

It's more than clear that a lot of republicans are not happy with this line-up of lowlifes... They must be sitting, slack-jawed right now, looking at this TRAIN WRECK list of names, saying "this is all we have? this is what we have become?"

pretty sad times for the GOP.

I wouldn't leave my kids alone with ANY of these pieces of crap.

No.

Sadly no, I would love some GOP candidate to give Obama a good run for his money, he's been to complacent, he needs a signal that says "Manu up "bama!"

That's just me though.

Where is Chris Christie when he is really needed. Christie/Bachmann 2012

Chris Christie is nothing but a bully. We have enough Tea Partiers and Republicans playing that role now. Besides, he's going to explode.

George King

Where is Chris Christie when he is really needed.

At the Union HQ's eating their babies for breakfast?

Ha

Joyce: Please, can't the Republican Party do any better than this?

They don't have to. it's just Obama they have to beat.

Can you believe that screwball Obama said this the following:

"When I said 'change we can believe in' I didn't say 'change we can believe in tomorrow.'" - BH Obama

Not to worry, Joyce. Joe the plumber could beat Oblama this time around. In conversations with friends and co-workers, who have never voted republican (union members included), I haven't found one person who says he will vote for Oblama this time around. SEIU, his favorite special interest group, and filled with open communist worshipers, has them leaving the democrat party at least until this clown in the White House is left in the dustbeat of the USSR downfall.

As a former Republican I will be voting for Obama if the best the Republicans can come up with is some nutjob fundie like Perry, Bachman or Palin.

When Bachman's biggest claim to fame is she got the 'lightbulb freedom of choice' passed that's scary time!

Im not even going to say it!

"When I said 'change we can believe in' I didn't say 'change we can believe in tomorrow.'" - BH Obama

"You have to pass the bill to see what's in it." - N. Pelosi

"I did not have sex with that woman." - B. Clinton

Gawd, the Dems are so delusional, they think we will buy that crap!

Crystal, in case you haven't been keeping up, your comments are getting about 2 votes to 14 of those that do not agree with.

awww - maybe somebody should go vote for crystal so we can put her into Charlie Sheen mode (Duhhhh... Winning...")

fayse, canary, how many voted for your post? :-)

That was her home state this is no surprise ! and all the people here calling people dumb for their vote?

1st and 2nd place are the one's addressing the debt , this is not dumb ,this is the most biggest problem we have in this country ,we can not have growth with the debt keep going up, every time they raise the debt the dollar goes down in value , America will not be able to keep up with this inflation , our debt will put us in a depression . wages will not go up with the prices !!

So Obama is dumb because he has ignored our biggest problem for 2 1/2 years?! He has raped this country..

after SHRUB gave him a stacked deck and loaded dice of an economy to work with, we're LUCKY it is as good as it IS. I do fault him for not totally disengaging from BOTH AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ and bringing the troops HOME NOW (not LATER - NOW)

Shrub's legacy - 6.5 TRILLION $$$ pounded into sandy RATHOLES. Where would we BE economically had we NOT invaded IRAQ on a LIE?

Crystal is snorting Crystal.

TxChristopher -- An independent study that came out about two months ago indicated that after tallying everything up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since their start has cost the country 3.7 Trillion dollars. Another way of putting it... exactly what everyone is looking to cut from the deficit.

No country goes to war without raising taxes. How do you expect to pay for it?

Think about it...

Why isn't Dr. Ron Paul's name in bold like every other candidate? Your time is up establishment. Dr. Paul and the people are coming for you :)

keeping a low profile with his head down (if he's smart - and for sure, he's smarter than his brother the SHRUB)

Another Bush protecting the family wealth in saudi

Certainly better than the two-face liar in the WhiteHouse!

She had an air conditioned tent and some band playing live.

Soooo: She had free pizza, free tee shirts, a band, AND an air conditioned tent.

Doesn't sound like Iowans are too stupid to me.

I think Michelle would pick Sharon Angle as her running mate. Just the laughs would pick up the spirit of this country.

I thought it would be Bachmann/Palin in the losing seat come 2012. Christie can be the official food taster.

You also had to vote for her to see Randy Travis.

its all mirrors and lights if this really means anything I would be amused at best.

Obama is a joke, Bachmann is a joke.

Ron Paul speaks truth, and the truth hurts.

a straw poll is about as informative and binding as a newsvine poll (both are worthless - and the straw poll is the "more worthless" of the two)

yeah - I'd really like it if the US could go to the Brit method - 90 days of TOTAL campaigning.

Jen...not to worry; she'll eventually "Palin" her way out of consideration/contention.

blah blah blah NO NEW TAXES; CUT TAXES blah blah blah Gays can be reformed; repeal ROE-WADE blah blah blah god told me to run blah blah blah (the blah blahs are just "slightly more meaningless" blatherings from Michelle who apparently can't be "blathered" facing REALITY)

16,000 people do not make an election WOW am I impressed like a horses assl

james....Did you just call yourself a horses(sic) ass? If you say so, who am I to disagree.

bachmann is not fit for congress let alone the white house. she is more suitable for the jerry springer show

The country is not doomed... After all we survived 8 years of W. Bush. We can do it again, but there will be a cost associated with it.

bachmann is Obamas dream opponent

particularly in a DEBATE - she'd get tongue tied after the first question

Yup, Iowans do pick some of the most " out of the ordinary " They did go for Barry Obama

M4716960

Amazing how a small section of the population gains so much coverage!

Sounds like the Tea Party.

candidate thats about it winner NO

"Why would I stop a country ran by lunatics from getting nuclear weapons?"

If you don't understand what he meant by that you got a long way to go.

First off i would like to start by saying You Sir. Cyllarus is a complete idiot.

Second i would like to say what right do we have as AMERICANS to impose our belifs on other countries, especially middle eastern?

Every country around them has nukes, they have had nukes. Russia has nukes, should we fight them?

Youre a hypocrite and you disgust me

Russia is by no means as crazy as Iran. And I never said we have to fight them but if they feel they need to keep egging us on, that's probably how its gonna end up. Also, i ask you what right do they have to impose their beliefs on us, because that's what they're trying/ want to do.

I'm an American, it's our job to make sure our country stays the dominant power in the world, just like every other countries citizen has the responsibility to try to make their country the best. Iran has every right to try to get nuclear weapons, but we have every right to try to stop them, because its not good for us. I refuse to apologize for being American. If you are so worried about Iran being more powerful, why don't you forfeit your citizenship and move there.

Refer to the last sentance of my last post.

You are no "American"
You are another robot that bought into this war propoganda that says WE should police the world.

Iran has every right to obtain a nuke, its just what they do with it is what the question imposes.

So why dont you pack up your USA USA shirts along with your George Bush hats and move to North Korea where you will fit in with the Comis

Geez Bestadamire,

I think his point is that NOBODY should be encouraged to have nuclear weapons. Chill dude!

Im chill, as an ice cube. I just find the quote "If you are so worried about Iran being more powerful, why don't you forfeit your citizenship and move there." A little immature and reminds me of 5th grade when i said i like popcorn and my little cousin said "If you like it so much, why dont you marry it".

So sorry if i get a little irritated from that silly remark. Its ridiculas.

How about every nuclear country should be encouraged to disarm?

What I was trying to say is that you seem to have forgotten what country your home is in. I don't think we should be the police force of the world, but I do believe we should protect OUR interests wherever that may take us.

The "move there" comment was meant to make you see that your opinions almost seem like you want Iran to get stronger. it seems to me that people today think that because we're the greatest country in the world, we need to sit on our hands and make sure we don't do to much to stop the people doing their best to change that. By the way, you have very thin skin.

Thin skin? Try thin computer moniter. You know nothing about me in real life.

And i did not forget where i live. I live in the United States of America.

But think about it. Wouldnt it make sense for Iran to try and get nuclear weapons? They are attacked by Iraq, Pakistan ( who has nukes ) and other countries. Not to mention the fact that Iran hasnt attacked anybody for over 100 years. Wait, they have NO airforce, NO navy, and an army that could fit in my local hockey arena. So for us to be so uptight about some middle eastern country about getting a weapon that we have THOUSANDS OF is being a total hypocrite.

To actually see Iran as a threat is blasphemy.

Which is exactly what the latest START treaty is all about Marky.....the one that the GOP fought against so hard. Nuclear in any of its forms (power generation, medical, or weaponry) is a danger to the citizens of the world....in more ways than one, but mostly from the extremely long term safety hazard it poses in waste handling and storage.

"blasphemy" ?? Bestadamire . out of context.

True RetREMF

Sorry for my slang

What i meant to say was, To see Iran as a threat would be ridicules.

I never said it didn't make sense, I said I don't want them to get them. I have never heard of Iran being attacked by Pakistan. And they haven't attacked anybody through conventional means but they support several terrorist groups.

Also captain misinformed, if you can fit 545,000 soldiers in your local hockey rink, you have a larger than normal hockey rink to say the least. They have roughly 1,000 aircraft and 350 helicopters. Their navy contains 19 subs, 3 destroyers, and 5 frigates. Besides Israel, they are now the most powerful power in the region.

You also don't understand that I don't mind being a total hypocrite when it comes to this matter. I don't like Iran, they don't like us, hence I want them as weak and powerless as can be. That is how it works.

On a side note I thought liberals were all anti religion, so why are you calling me a blasphemer. Also, I doubt church law says anything about me seeing Iran as a threat.

Bestadamire, you must have one huge hockey arena to hold over 500,000 . And oh by the way, Iran does have a Navy and an Air Force. And it is complicit in killing Americans.

OK! Go prevent Iran from getting weapons I dare you! It will be another endless, unconstitutional war that will go on forever wasting millions of dollars, thousands of lives will be lost for a cause that worries no one but the politians who are more concerned over thier Military Strength than the same thing they were sworn to protect.

THEN after years of ongoing efforts to stop Iran, it will be a complete failure and the end result would us making another enemy and being known ONCE AGAIN as budging in other countries business.

Then i would be sitting here, trying not to say I told you so.

do you realize that our casualties in the Middle East are pathetically low. open a history book and look at American casualties in WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, or any other war you see fit. also it worries me that you aren't concerned with our enemies getting nuclear weapons. I guess you'll only worry about it for a few seconds when you're wondering what that is in the sky, then you'll be blown away and it won't bother you anymore. Do you not make the connection between military strength and protecting the U.S., cause it doesn't sound like it and I find that hilarious/saddening.

And we don't have to drag the war out, we can destroy anything of importance military wise, withdraw and watch the hyenas around Iran do our job for us. I'm also incredulous of the fact that you still don't see that it would be our business. Iran is already our enemy so I don't see how invading them would make them our enemy. Afghanistan was made our business when they killed 3,000 civilians.

Final note, I didn't need that long, weak, attempt at a comeback. You could have just said I forfeit, your right, though I doubt you'd say that. Maybe just I forfeit.

Iran already has weapons and plenty of them - missles to reach Europe - so it's too late to close the stable gate on that horse. You make a quantum leap from perceiving and/or acknowledging Iran as a threat to "another endless, unconstitutional war that will go on forever wasting millions of dollars, thousands of lives will be lost for a cause that worries no one but the politians." That Iran is pursuing nuclear capability is a foregone conclusion. You seem to argue that they are justified and/or the attainment of such capability is irrelevant. You are of the same opinion as Ron Paul but very few others would agree.

Just for the heck of it, google Iranian state sponsored terrorism.

So Cyllarus, you suggest destroying anything of military use of the Iranians, and sit back and watch them suffer?
Sometimes i wonder why i even try and make my point on msnnbc against a hard headed "AMERICAN" makes me sad.

And Ret i am aware that Iran has already obtained missles and whatnot , i am just argueing the fact that America has NO right to march in there telling THEM what to do.

We would object to it here, they are going to object to it over there.

And if your calling the millions of Paul supporters "very few", you are either blind or ignorant.

Well Bestadamire, you wanted a short effective war plan so I gave you one. If you want to make sure those poor american hating, female abusing, drug addicted people don't suffer then we're going to have to stay for a while. You gonna have to choose one.

Please understand that if your looking for someone to blame for how long this war has lasted, blame the Afghhanis that don't want to stand up for themselves. After WW2 we stayed in Germany, but instead of letting us take care of everything for them, they started rebuilding their country. The Afghanis would rather just sit back and let us do the work for them. They'll go back to where they started when we leave.

Sometimes I wonder why I even try and make my point to a traitor in all but action. Makes me sad.

If all of Ron Paul's supporters have the same grasp on logic, I'm not surprised. Besides Ron Paul's supporters are probably behind him because of economic reasons, not his foreign policy "wisdom."

Exactly how many would "the millions" be?? Please cite a couple sources that put Paul supporters in "the millions". Uhm the plural makes that a minimum of 2, but generally that kind of reference implies many. Any sources will do . Thanks. Oh btw, we know 4,671 are in IA, where could the rest be? Only 1,995,329 more to make that minimum of millions with an 's'.

China is launching a new aircraft carrier, now do you know where our money is going and are you going to just stick your head in the sand and let them take over? I for one want to be militarily secure. Besides what other military offers the aid that we do during a crisis? Japan, Indonesia, Haiti, etc.

Bestadamire has quit, he knew he was thrashed and ran away. No point arguing, he won't respond.

Feisty,

2nd place is not a "shellacking."

marlen101917

Is this the same Bachmann that wants to slash benefits for our disabled veterans and eliminate the minimum wage (while maintaining the tax breaks for the rich and corporations)?

Marlen, it doesn't take a genius to know that the minimum wage is a meaningless, arbitrary number that should not exist. You can raise the minimum wage to $50 or $100 an hour and it will not improve anyone's lot in life. You cannot debate the fact that the minimum wage is useless.

minimim wage is only useless to the rich, it is quite important to the poor.

Cyllarus, i actually went to work instead of sitting here argueing with you. I have my beliefs, you have yours.

Good day.

Rick

I agree their are a litter.......of losers. So why not pick the crazy one.

Actually, Rick Perry really scares me. Bachmann will win New Hampshire too. These primaries are all about the base. At some point when it gets serious, the general election republicans will surface and Romney will nudge out her and Perry. Unfortunately, neither side has any new ideas and new ideas are what's needed to deal with this economy, which has made a fundamental shift over the last 30 years. The jobs that were lost aren't coming back and we are now a predominant service economy. The last 50 years manufacturing was 20-25% of our GDP on average, not it's less than 10% and the middle class was born out of that economy and the middle class will die in this new economy if core problems aren't addressed and it's not just about cutting taxes or paying down the national debt, the economic problems we face now are much more complicated than the solutions that either party is offering right now. If we don't implement a sustainable new model that isn't just isn't about short term remedies, we will not be able to sustain a viable recovery.

Romney will win New Hampshire. He lives there. If he doesn't, he's in big trouble.