I believe it's going to be one of the others...probably a southern governor.

I believe Pawlenty has already taken himself out of the discussion for VP.

Yes, of-course. I just thought this was too perfect to ignore for this article, and I couldn't resist.

Interesting when talking the election with a friend from the range, she said a lot of people up there support Ron Paul.

When listening to Ron it becomes obvious why people like him. He tells the truth and IS SMART unlike other candidates.

Jim, Ron Paul took second in Minnesota with 27 percent, behind Santorum: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72594.html

That was a straw poll which we know means nothing. Paul currently has half of the 40 delegates allotted to MN and will likely win most of the remaining slots making him the winner in MN by a landslide.

Paul, here's a link to a video where RP kicks your hero Keynesian apologist Paul Krugman's posterior in a debate on economic policies. Maybe you can learn something. Hint, you need to take off your blinders first.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/224683-ron-paul-paul-krugman-face-off-in-economic-debate

We will see how the election turns out. You could be right but President Obama could be crushed like Jimmy Carter.

How did "Hope and Change" work out for the USA?

In the 3.5 years of Obama's in office he managed to:

Junk 250,000 usable vehicles AND wasting a couple of BILLION in the process.

Wasted BILLONS on "Green" projects that fail with the spoils going to his supporters.

Give hundreds of automatic weapons to drug cartel causing at lest one US Border patrol agent to be killed.

Unemployment is STILL over 8%, "Hope and Change" didn't work so well.

The main grower of jobs was Government, causing more and more debt.

The national debt has skyrocketed, based on Government program increases.

Obamacare is causing another pending disaster with a HUGE program that unfundable.

Shown our enemies a weak hand causing Russia to threaten a Nuke attack on the USA. Remember how well that worked for Jimmy Carter?

I could go on and on but I "Hope for Change" in the White House and Barrak Obama has great potential working with Jimmy Carter at Habitat for Humanity. No air nailers thou, he might hurt himself.

Slogan for 2012 "Forward", well there is NO REVERSE so "Forward" IS the only direction possible, can't he think of something better than that?

LIST OF OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record 22% of all homeowners are underwater on their mortgages
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record Bankruptcies
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Home Foreclosures
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Numbers in Poverty
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Homelessness
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Numbers on Food Stamps
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record Loans from China
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Fall in Housing Prices/Equity
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Unemployment (really 19%)
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record for number of working men unemployed (1 in 5)
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record for no jobs created in one month (August 2011) √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record Deficits √ And he has just added another $1.5 TRILLION !!! √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record for Spending – Over $6.7 Trillion √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record for number of unemployed blacks (27.9%) √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record Wealth gap between young and old is widest ever √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Servicemen deaths in Afghanistan √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S Record Bonuses for Wall Street Brokers and Bank Managers √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record High Gasoline Prices since the Carter administration √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record Devaluation of the Dollar (Devalued by 19.5%) √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record for No Budget presented to American people (3 Years) √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record for internet snooping on civilians √
OBAMA CHANGE: U.S. Record for most children living in poverty (1 in 5)

Here is a list of President Obama's REAL accomplishments, not just rhetoric, half truths or slander:

http://obamaachievements.org/list

I could have also cut and pasted, but the list is far too long for Patch's comment section.

Susan,
If "accomplishments" are massively expanding the size of government, the national debt and the dependency class, well then, mission accomplished.

To statists anything you can to to diminish freedom, punish producers and enslave the working class is considered an accomplishment. This has been tried before. It doesn't work.

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Wise words. We should consider them.

Al,
Al Anderson
9:49 am on Friday, May 4, 2012
LIST OF OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

None of the items on your list have anything to do with Obama. Bush's failed policies, which Romney wants to return to, caused ALL of them. Caused them all.

It is hypocritical to blame these on Obama. He's cleaning up a mess your guys caused.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The second Obama term will continue the enormous progress he has already made. We're taking this country back from the Tea Party guys and gals who want to destroy the American way of life.

Believe me, I shall not repeat my past mistake of voting for the last Republican....definitely a lesson learned!

Susan, your list ommited one accomplishment, the beer summit at the White House.

That was monumental.

AnaMeShell,

You're a little johnny-come-lately on the "blame Bush" mantra. As was mentioned previously, Obama's administration is little more than an extension of the Bush era. With the exception of Obamacare, his policies are remarkably similar to Bush's, particularly in the area of monetary policy and foreign policy, two areas that probably have a more profound effect than any others.

AnaMeShell,

Can you elaborate on exactly what the "Tea Party guys and gals who want to destroy the American way of life" are doing to implement their evil plan and Obama is saving us from?

Everything in life is connected and the ship was going this course for some of those "changes" prior to Obama's administration. However, a president is responsible for being the rudder that steers the ship as it traverses through time. Much of the structural damage noted above is due to the poor and fraudulent leadership Obama has provided.

Of comments made by Al and myself, would you consider any them the responsibility of the Obama Administration?

The blame belongs squarely on the Washington machine which is currently headed by Obama. Blaming his predecessors for his first and maybe even his second year's lack of "change" was slightly palatable. It's now his baby and he is heading us toward a cliff. What most of the establishment Republicans fail to acknowledge is Obama is just doubling down on the previous administration's policies. From the wars to monetary policy to entitlement spending this administration is essentially an extension of the Bush era.

For those of you who think electing the next big "R" will change anything, let's see what happens in the next 4 years. The likely scenario if Romney's elected is spending will increase, we will get involved in more foreign military entanglements, more people will become dependent on the government, the debt will increase and we will continue the Fed policies of printing more money to cover it all. It won't matter much then because we will probably all be working for China by then since they'll own us.

Don't believe their campaign rhetoric, look at their record. History is a good guide. Politicians hardly ever do what they say, right or left. Except Ron Paul of course. The old adage "they're all the same", is pretty much true.

.

After quickly glancing through Susan's list ...all I have to say is "I rest my case". Good Grief

Good grief is right! Amazing how blind people can be when they are so fixated on being one-sided vs. looking at things with an open mind.

Susan, your list prepared by the Obma Administration is simply a list of things he wasted money on.

Voters will view his performance from a macro perspective, like is the economy better or worse than before "Hope and Change" came to town.

And now we are to vote for "Forward"??

Guess We'll find out in November won't we?

Marcus,

What's your fixation on Ron Paul all about?

He's not a serious candidate. He's a novelty and a riddle, but he has never been, and will never be, a real candidate.

Paul,

My "fixation" is not on Ron Paul the person. Ron Paul is a spokesman for an ideal. The ideal that this country was founded on and has been largely forgotten in past decades. The era of big government that started 100 years ago with the Federal Reserve Act is coming to an end. We can end it on our terms returning to a constitutional Federal Government of limited enumerated powers or we can stay on the current track and watch it unravel in disaster. No empire has ever survived and they've fallen for different reasons, but we know for sure that those that debased their currency quickly brought about their own demise.

As to him not being a serious candidate, he is one of the last two standing. He's still raising millions and his base is growing. He may not win the nomination, but he is a serious candidate nonetheless.

Jim, it's obvious you did not look at the list in any depth. It was not put out by the Obama Administration, and is not a list of "spending" accomplishments. Open you mind - extreme partisans (both sides) are the problem causers in this country! Get off the soap box, get involved, and try make things better, instead of just bi+@hing about the current administration.

Susan

That list is filled with almost exclusively leftist policies and actions- designed and implemented to placate the Obama supporters (IE vote buying). Anti-Business, Anti-liberty, Anti-Freedom and Anti-future for America. Need I remind you that we are 16T in debt? And that Obama and the Democrats are responsible for most of that? (Bush was a big spender too -- so don't even go there).

Do Democrats even care about the future of this country for our children and grandchildren?

There are many of us who are involved in making changes happen -- and it starts with getting rid of the liar in office as well as any big government Republicans. Period.

Susan,

Will you please point out for us the "accomplishments" you linked to that do not involve more spending or expanding the size of government. If you click on the categories when they expand virtually every one has a "Funding" section.

Oh wait, I see one under "Miscellaneous"

1. Got his daughters a puppy!

Never mind.

Markus, what does the government implement that does not "cost" money? I disagree with your assessment of the entire list and expanding government.

Al, if you knew who I was, you would know I am not an an extreme "leftist", only someone who wanted to counter your post with a real list. I have no interest in discussing political issues with someone so far to one side, they cannot see the big picture.

It is insulting and partisan to insinuate that Democrats (which I am not) don't care about the future of our children and grandchildren or that Democrats are anti-all the things you listed. If you want a real discussion, how about dropping this kind of unhelpful rhetoric designed only to insight anger. Name-calling, slander, and trying to degrade the opposition IS a huge part of the problem in politics in this country. As I said, if you want to help, let's start by bringing the level of the discussion out of the gutter.

Susan,

So you're admitting that whatever the government implements costs money but then you retract it in the same paragraph?

Statistics don't lie. Under Bush's tenure deficit spending exceeded all previous presidents combined. Not to be outdone, Obama has now exceeded all previous presidents in deficit spending. These "accomplishments" aren't free. They're income transfer schemes that cost the taxpayers, the savers and future generations.

The Obama administration is so concerned about seniors and entitlement programs and the "dangers" of privatizing retirement, but they steal their savings right out from under their nose by the insidious hidden tax of inflation and micromanaged monetary systems that keeps interest artificially low. If you're advocating for Obama's "accomplishments", you're advocating stealing from your elderly neighbors and your children.

Markus, I just reread my first two statements and you are right that they contradict each other, my apologies. I guess I am trying to say that no President can govern without spending, and I disagree with your assessment that all President Obama achievements have expanded government, and have been unnecessary spending increases.

If you really believe that I am advocating stealing from my elderly neighbors and my son, then we have nothing further to debate. Derogatory implications about those in a discussion lowers the level of debate and is unnecessary.

Believe it or not, I agree with some of what you say and don't dismiss your opinions because I disagree with other opinions you may have. In politics, no one can be right all the time, and no one can be wrong all the time, it's a shame that so many believe they know better than everyone else, as this tunnel vision only blocks compromise, and is the biggest problem we have in politics right now.

The thing is Susan, it wasn't meant to be derogatory. Using analogies to point out an observation is not derogatory, it's simply a deduction. If you support policies that have a dire effect on people, what other conclusion would a reader come to? It's not meant to offend, but to make you think.

A lack of compromise is not the problem we have today. Compromise is the problem. Striving for compromise in politics was anathema to the founders. The system they created was designed for consensus. That is why there are two legislative houses and 3 branches of government. It's supposed to be hard to pass laws. Compromising to "get things done" is reprehensible. Much of our bad laws on the books were passed with razor thin margins or enacted/upheld by activist judges. Obama has not been shy about using his executive power to "get (unpopular) things done". Getting back to a constitutional form of Federal Government that recognizes it has limited enumerated powers would be a good start.

Markus, You call it an analogy to point out a deduction, yet that would mean one must agree with YOUR deductions. This would include "dire effect", "income transfer schemes", "stealing their savings", "micromanaged monetetary systems", and "stealing from elderly neighbors and children". We both know fully well that these are (inflammatory) statements to try and prove your point. I feel they are unnecessary, especially when applying these same deductions to those who may support the current administration...which, by the way, does not mean a person supports EVERYTHING the administration does. I am sorry you disagree, but not everything is clearly black or white.

Markus, I have one more question: Using your analogy and deduction system, could one say that anyone supporting President Bush was advocating for thousands of soldiers dying in Iraq?

"could one say that anyone supporting President Bush was advocating for thousands of soldiers dying in Iraq?"
Yes. What other conclusion could you come to?

You seriously do not see the flaw in this type of logic?

Susan,
The logic is not flawed. The logic is this. You know your candidate advocates for A, B, C and D. You are in favor of A, B and C, but not D but you support him anyway for whatever reason, he is the lessor of two evils, etc. You may not like D, but you are implicitly supporting D by supporting that person. To arrive at any other conclusion would be flawed logic.

So one should only support the "perfect" candidate that represents all of our views and beliefs? At a minimum, this is unrealistic. More importantly, people's views and beliefs are so different, this simply would never happen.

My problem with your deduction theory is the word or idea that I would "advocate" for something a leader represents simply because I agree with something else this leader represents. This is not a reality of life, you will almost never agree with someone 100 percent. You call it picking the lesser of two evils, and this is probably correct, but that doesn't mean I advocate for all the "evils" of one side.

"So one should only support the "perfect" candidate that represents all of our views and beliefs?"

That would be nice in a perfect world however as you mentioned that is unrealistic. We have all been in a position where we've had to settle for less than perfect. There is an old adage "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" attributed to Voltaire, "The best (or perfect) is the enemy of the good." I'm merely pointing out that when you compromise there are consequences.

By supporting Bush even though you disagree with his foreign policy are you not at least to some small extent culpable when a soldier dies because you voted for the guy? What if you were the deciding vote? Think about that. By supporting the big government machine that continues to exponentially expand by debasing the currency are you not to some minor degree responsible for the dire consequences it has on certain segments of the population?

Actually, I'm not pointing at you or anyone in particular without pointing at myself as well. I can be accused of the same thing. It is a bit of a dichotomy.

IF this thread is up after election it will be updated with results and reminder of your guess as to the outcome.

Later Gator.

Can't say I "Hope" you are right. The latest test of Barrak's performance was the 2010 election, how did that work?

The question is have the lives of Americans improved since then?

IF millions of you are working like the Dickens this year, rumor has it your numbers are much lower than in 2008. Soooo you will need to work harder to make up the difference from the 2008 effort to the 2012 effort.

Remember Cravaak, a friend who lives on the Range told me Oberidot had a billboard near Virginia that basically said the Congressional seat he occupied was HIS! Well you know the rest of the story.

Work real hard now, everyone living off the taxpayers are relying on your effots to make their lives rewarding, thanks a lot Bud.

A socialist just ousted Sarkozy in France. Kinda tells you something about how well that austerity thingy is working out in Europe (NOT). Countries that implemented austerity programs are falling back into severe depression. It's not working.

The biggest mistakes Obama made involve caving in to the Republicans, not making the stimulus big enough, and not getting a public option through with the healthcare reform.

Praise the Lord and help our brothers and sisters. Universal healthcare is what Jesus would do.

Jim, Bud,

It's typical for majorities to lose seats in the mid-term. Believe it or not, Barack wasn't on the ballot in 2010!!!

I don't know if you noticed, Bud, but no one likes Romney, and he doesn't inspire anyone like Barack does. We're gonna CRIPPLE Romney at the polls on November 6, and I mean we're gonna destory him, worse than we beat McSame.

Talk to ya in 6 months, Bud.

Name one (1) US Federal Government program that is solvent. And does that matter?

The military. That's one.

Paul,

Please point us to the Bible passage about universal health care.

Luke 10:33-34 "..But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. (34) He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him."

Matthew 25:40 "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Matthew 10:1 "He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness."

Matthew 12:15 "Many followed him, and he healed all their sick."

Paul, Edward and Susan,

Jesus summed up all of the commandments into two.

Luke 10:27 And he answered, “ You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

These are all personal admonitions to VOLUNTARILY help your neighbor. Nowhere in any of the passages you listed does He advocate taking from your neighbor with means to give it to the one with no means. In Acts 4 the believers willing gave of their OWN possessions to the needy, not SOMEONE ELSE'S. The Good Samaritan gave of his OWN possessions and put him on his OWN donkey, he did not take them from another traveler.

You can use the Bible to argue that individuals and churches should engage in the altruism you're advocating. You simply can't make the argument that FORCED charity is a Biblical principle. Your arguments are weak and superficial. They sound good to a casual reader, but a serious study of Scripture will not yield the conclusions you've come to.

So my question to any of you is, if you see someone in need, do you take from your OWN possessions and give it to them? If your neighbor needs help paying his doctor bill do you voluntarily pay it? If your neighbor needs clothing do you take him to the store and buy him clothes?

What you're advocating is tantamount to going to your other neighbor with a gun and saying, "Help our neighbor". Hardly Biblical.

Markus, so was God "commanding" or asking you to volunteer? I would cinsider His commandments as commands, in other words, do it or else.

A gun, really?

I'll be honest with you, I do not relate religion or scripture to ObamaCare or any other type of governing, I simply thought they replied to your request rather well. As far as other issues, I try to apply some common sense....which I am sure you could argue with me, and point out the error of my ways all week long. There is no going backward to fix a broken system, we have to take what we have and try to make it better. The difference here is our definition of "better".... and we can agree that we will never agree on that definition.

"A gun, really?'

What happens when you don't pay your taxes? Does the IRS send you nice reminders and then write it off when you don't pay? No, they take it by force. Government has a monopoly on force. If you don't comply, they will ultimately come with guns.

If you thought they responded to my request rather well then you are obviously not a serious student of the Bible either. Skimming the Bible for a few choice verses that are contextually inaccurate is lazy and disingenuous.

Putting the Bible aside for a moment since our form of government is not a theocracy but a constitutional republic, what I want to know is where in the list of enumerated powers is congress even authorized to levy taxes to pay for health care?

Someone not willing to provide for their own health care, food, housing, heat or insulation for their home, etc, (the list could literally go on for pages ad nauseum) and is willing to hire a congressman or senator to force me to pay for it is a thief plain and simple. That might offend your delicate sensibilities, but frankly it's frustrating when those who are seemingly intelligent continually refuse to see things as they really are instead of some weird abstract reality where everything somehow gets better by adding more government. It has never happened. Thoreau articulated it very succinctly, "That government is best which governs least".

As I said, I am sure you could tell me the error of my ways all week....but not change my mind. Thanks for your opinions, I'm out.

God is concerned about our hearts. He knows our hearts better than we know them ourselves. New Testament commands are directed at the individual. We have a choice as whether to obey them or not at our peril. The government deciding who is needy and who is my neighbor is a little suspect. I can look around at my real neighbors and decide who is in need and help them as I see fit. That is true charity. Forced charity is not charity at all. It is oppression.

<sarcasm on>

Helping to cure the sick? No way. Keep government out of that one, but telling people who they can or can't marry should definitely be government's role.

Get with the "Christian" program.

</sarcasm off>

Edward,

I have advocated that the government get out of the marriage business altogether letting people freely associate with whom they choose. So nice try attempting to paint me as a hypocrite.

Are you going to tell us with a straight face now that the Bible endorses homosexual "marriage" now as well as commanding the government to confiscate my money to pay for your health care?