Well, that’s a surprise to me given some of the concepts and notions you embrace here. I would have said you’re a social liberal with a moderate fiscal bent. And an independent, unaligned voter… can’t forget that, eh?

I was taking exception to your posit that if the USA is attacked on a scale rising to the 9/11 event, the political enviroment would usher in Palin, Coulter and Tancredo. That just sounded so rbottoms-ish it was comical. Is Coulter even a Republican? I think not. I think she’s one of your types: independent conservative.

2012 will usher in Romney and his team. And just like all good venture capitalist business leaders, they’ll slice and dice the fed bureaucracies, constrain the judiciary to a proper role, put Congress on a diet –or a spit, it’s up to them how they respond to real executive leadership– and let the world know that America Resurgent & Glorious is back in biz.

Ever see Romney on a horse? He looks 10x better than Ronnie in his fake brown boots and jodhpurs astride a white –gag me– steed.

And I say that Tom Tancredo and Ann Coulter are part of the FAR right wing–close to the lunatic fringe.

I’m not the only one who believes that

Ann Coulter was FIRED by the National Review, after a column she wrote after 9-11 in which she advocated that the U.S. should forcibly convert Middle East Muslims to Christianity by armed force.

Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth (Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO):

“Health plans covered by union contracts would not be subject to the 40 percent tax until 2018 [!!!]– a transition period union leaders said is comparable to those offered to other private insurers. The threshold for taxing other plans will be adjusted by 1 percent above the annual rate of inflation, and plans involving large numbers of women or the elderly will get breaks as well, Trumka said”

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/14/health.care.negotiations/index.html

IOW, the vast majority of Americans (those who don’t make over $500,000 a year) will continue to get their tax-free group health care plans from their employers.

And premiums will continue to rise sharply (up over 500% in the last 30 years).

One thing we conservatives agree with the liberals about, is that no serious attempt to control health care costs can be made as long as we’re reduced to tinkering with the minority of Americans who don’t get group health insurance. That’s only 15% of the population. You can’t reform the system, if you’re limited to fiddling with just 15% of it.

I’m sorry… weren’t you the one asking people not to confuse you with rbottoms? That sounds like vintage rbottoms farLeft screeding.

BlankHead, never afraid to advance the next silly idea, offers: “The most serious cost containment mechanism – public option…”

Oh my God, that almost takes the cake over the last one: “Obama’s very centrist agenda”.

52% of American voters don’t think Obama deserves a 2nd term. Centrist? Mainstream president? Nope.

21% of American voters think Obama and the Democrats do NOT have the consent of the governed. Centrist? Mainstream agenda? Nope.

Spinning the public option as a “cost containment” mechanism is like asking Tiger Woods for tips on marital fidelity or Blago for tips on ethics or Obama on how to spend other peoples’ money.

Always making the funny, BlankHead. You are a joke a thread.

No, I think you’re absolutely wrong. There is nothing in Obama’s background that suggests, for example, that he would nationalize the banks. But your belief that he would certainly goes a long way towards explaining why you think he’s radical.

Americans also saw that the only real cost-containment feature in the bill–taxing of overly generous “Cadillac” plans–was gutted when the unions raised a stink about it.

This is silly. That certainly didn’t “gut” anything … since the provision would have gone into effect immediately for non-union plans, and after a time period (to allow current union contracts to expire and be renegotiated) it would have gone into effect for union plans as well.

The most serious cost containment mechanism – public option to compete with private plans , was stripped however. I’ll grant you that.

Obama has indeed escalated the war in Afghanistan. With one hand.
But with the other hand, he has promised to start withdrawing troops in 2011. Which is telegraphing to the enemy that they should just withdraw into the mountains–and launch a new offensive against NATO in late 2011 just as they’re withdrawing.

If the Afghanistan war is worth fighting, then there cannot be a calendar deadline placed on it. How long to defeat the enemy? As long as it takes but no longer.

Like Carter’s decision to deploy the MX ICBM, I believe that Obama loathed the decision he had to make on Afghanistan, but was forced into it for his own political preservation. If terrorists were to strike America on a scale anything like 9-11 during his administration, Obama knows that his administration would be toast. And in 2013 we would have President Sarah Palin with Secretary of Homeland Security Ann Coulter and Attorney General Tom Tancredo.

When you’ve lost Sinz54… you’ve lost the game, set and match. Even he doesn’t buy it and that’s saying a lot.

By the way, on global warming caused by man faux-issue poll stats? Rasmussen, today, released the most accurate assessment of voter sentiment on that very issue… only 35% of American voters think man has caused global warming.

What was that point you made about how to define “very centrist Obami agenda”? If a solid majority of Americans “favor something it’s centrist”?

Yeah, you go with that.

Bzzzzzzzzt. Another loser notch in the pistol grip for you BlankHead. Maybe the conservatives are right to stick a fork in the global warming hoax.