Republican Debate last night (NAGL related)
keithvanhorn
3,855 Posts
Romney looked the most "presidential" if that means anything. All of the GOP candidates are a disgrace and there were some incredibly ridiculous "did they really just say that" moments, like when all the candidates were asked if they believed in evolution. About half said "no" and McCain gave some bullshit answer about how he does, but when he stands on a mountain in arizona he knows god exists. They all said some equally puzzling shit when the topic of stem-cell research came up. Chris Matthews put them under the gun by posing the question as "Which candidate will support Nancy Reagan's position on stem-cell research?" 
They all opposed federal funding except for McCain.The whole night seemed like a contest to see which candidate could say "Reagan" the most amount of times. Tommy Thompson is a horrendous speaker and it is amazing that he has people backing him. It was painful to watch. Guliani did his share of bumbling too and gave a Bush-like answer in response to what his weaknesses were. He said he had some but didn't state what they were.The funniest moment came at the very end when Matthews was doing his standard rapid-fire questioning where he cuts everyone off before they can get a full sentence in. One of the lesser known candidates (i forget his name) tried to end by quoting Benjamin Franklin (i think it was him) and he just couldn't get the words out. Matthews gave him a few tries but then just abrubtly moved on to the next candidate while the camera was still on the dude...looking like he just shit his pants. gotta find that on youtube.
They all opposed federal funding except for McCain.The whole night seemed like a contest to see which candidate could say "Reagan" the most amount of times. Tommy Thompson is a horrendous speaker and it is amazing that he has people backing him. It was painful to watch. Guliani did his share of bumbling too and gave a Bush-like answer in response to what his weaknesses were. He said he had some but didn't state what they were.The funniest moment came at the very end when Matthews was doing his standard rapid-fire questioning where he cuts everyone off before they can get a full sentence in. One of the lesser known candidates (i forget his name) tried to end by quoting Benjamin Franklin (i think it was him) and he just couldn't get the words out. Matthews gave him a few tries but then just abrubtly moved on to the next candidate while the camera was still on the dude...looking like he just shit his pants. gotta find that on youtube.
Comments
This man is the very definition of a carpetbagger. Don't trust him as far as you can throw him. I won't say he's evil, but his disingenuousness is as epic in scale as it is convincing, which is a major problem, as the man is quite charismatic.
His governorship of Massachusetts?
FUCK REAGAN
They give him credit for ending the cold war. His (posthumous) media image is of a man who focused on hope and the positive aspects of American culture.
Those are the two things I hear over and over around all this Reagan fetishism.
The reality is that both Reagan and Clinton were generally effective executives due to the balances of power that existed in the other branches of government during their tenures.
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
Crooks and liars seem to like him.
yes. being a liberal, he was the most appealing to me (on certain issues). i said romney looked the most "presidential", but even among republicans, i think Paul was the clear winner...and not because he was so good, but merely because everyone else was so poor.
don't be fooled by his seemingly liberal positions on habeus corpus, the fourth amendment and iraq. he just believes federal government should be completely hands off. accordingly, i doubt he would favor any programs for the poor and certainly not welfare. he's a survival of the fittest type guy.
Nobody likes laissez-faire government better than the wealthy.
we've had 42 generally effective presidents for all i know. that's my perpective 6 years into the the worst president ever. there have only been 4 presidents in my life. RR and BC two are pretty good compared. it's so sad that i have to thrive on downward comparisons. sad times.
he stared off blankly for a minute while the gears whirred away. then turned and answered ,"yes a business should be able to do as it pleases."
i'm not trying to make a partisan statement when i say i really thought we had advanced past this already.
during the part that i was able to watch there were a lot more questions on personal faith than i thought necessary. i also found in typical debate fashion the answer did not pertain to the question asked. at one point matthews asked one candidate to answer whatever he felt like. guiliani was asked a question and opted to answer a question asked to someone else. most things were rehearsed and felt like a reading of a resume rather than a sincere answer.
And you expected...?
i know it's a fantasy but what is going to change if we keep expecting what we are given?
yea, other nations must laugh at us. although, the gop issues are less about stupidity and more about greed and/or appeasing their fanatical base. what is the explanation for half the candidates saying they didn't agree with evolution???? like that sh*t is up for debate. the same goes for global warming, or even the ridiculousness of opposing stem cell research. yet, with all these gop candidates basically arguing against science....we still have a large percentage of doctors voting republican. its all about $$$$$$$.
I think they are all jack offs with their flag burning and abortion non-issue crusades and McCain being a W follower, but I have to agree with that. God gave us cool stuff to enjoy.
It is no surprise that that you don't understand the reagan legacy when you are so miserably misinformed.
- The deficit and unemployment were both the result of the reagan administration having to confront the stagflation and destruction of the military that had occured under the anti-semite jimmy carter. The true legacy of reagan's economic record is this: the united states was twice as wealthy when reagan left office as it had been when he entered. There is a reason that clinton adopted the economic outlook of the previous republican adminstrations rather than return to the madness of the carter government.
- Homelessness under reagan was in the main the combined legacy of the government home building program(which with typical democratic competency actually destroyed more homes than it created) and rent control(this greatly depressed the supply of rentable properties in urban areas because it made it virtually impossible for landlords to break even let alone make a profit on such properties). The most popular 'liberal' argument, that the rise in homelessness was the result of the number of public housing units authorized by congress falling under reagan, is typical leftist sophistry. It overlooks the fact that such units can take as much as ten years to be built after they have been authorized. If you look at the number of public housing units actually built under reagan they excedde the number built in the 70's by a clear margin.
- Poverty fell under reagan so again your talk of 'scapegoating the poor' is more bullshit.
- Reagan didnt break any federal law
You are not a liberal in any real sense of the word. Youre a 'progressive' aka socialist and accordingly you smear anyone who believes government should fulfill the role the founders originally envisioned.
You are a thunderous idiot. The 'wealthy' are forever urging for subsidies, tariffs on foreign imports and so on. They hate laissez-faire almost as much as you statist control freaks do. Let me remind you that the literal translation of laissez-faire is 'Let do' ie freedom. When you people attack it all you do is belie your stated belief in liberty and reveal a black heart that yearns only for dominion.
Hey bastard, the government doesnt exist to force people to do what you want them to do. To support someones right to make such a decision doesnt mean you support the decision itself, just that you have a sincere belief in liberty. Something that no lefty has. Youre hopelessly naive if you think that making it illegal to fire people because theyre gay is going to stop someone so inclined anyway. They will find some pretext to do it. All such laws succede in doing obscuring what it is they are ostensibly installed to wipe out. Still, superficial results are more than good enough for you dispicable vermin.
Right back at you, sweet cheeks.
And to everyone else, I'd recommend not engaging Dolo in argument. Taking his bait only encourages him.
I actually agree with the above........
The 3 things that jumped out at me during the Republican debate were 1) The incredibly stupid questions that were asked.......2) The incredibly lame attempts at humor by almost all the participants in some attempt to "connect" with the American citizens whom they have virtually nothing in common with..........and 3)The perfect, almost robotic presentation of Mitt Romney who seems to have been created in some sort of political cloning lab.
Fifteen more months of this Sideshow will simply turn more people off to politics and the politicians of our country.
The way I see it, our country has 10% - 20% of it's voters that are either on the far left or the far right. This means about 60% of the voters can potentially be swayed based on a political campaign/candidate. And 10% of these people will decide the election.
Personally I'm not enthralled with the two party system but my vote will go to the candidate most willing to work with their opposing party rather than attack and alienate it. Thus far that person, in my opinion, is Barack Obama.
That being said, the Democrats will have to hone their image in order to win those swing votes. And if they don't, we'll have another Republican president in '08.
Here are what I see as the Dem's problems and ultimate reasons for losing this election unless they can somehow correct them.
1) Each party is represented in a very cut and dry Left/Right division. The people that our media focus on as supposed representitives of each side are the very far left/far right nuts that give them the best soundbites. The Right has windbags like Rush, O'Reilly and other Talk Radio morons while the Left has mock spokespeople like Rosie O'Donnell and the Hollyweird crowd. That middle America swing vote finds it alot easier to hate an idiot who's visual and on primetime "Entertainment/News" TV every night rather than just some talking head who's voice comes out of their radio. These outspoken "celebs" on the Left do more harm to their cause than good but they really don't care because it's all about "them".
2) Religious intolerance and the hypocrasy of the Far Left. The vocal Left go out of their way to display and promote religious tolerance towards every religion in the world except the one that is most prominant in our own country. Their perceived(and in some cases real) hatred towards Christianity hurts them with those swing vote folks.
3) The Big Corporation - The far Left is very vocal about hating "The Big Corporations" yet almost everyone in that middle 60% voting block either works for, or knows someone that works for a Big Corporation. People are less likely to vote for a party that projects a threat to the very thing that economically supports them, their friends and their family.
4) Politics and the MTV generation...... Used to be that a band/artist was judged on their musical content, not their looks. MTV changed all of that and this same ideal is effecting politics. Go back and make a list of your 3-4 favorite or most effective Presidents....chances are they were FUGLY. Seems like now the candidate with the best hair/looks has an unfair/unfounded advantage. Mitt Romney is a very suitable "electronic" candidate.....a better looking Max Headroom. If Hillary runs be prepared for a barrage of those pre-1990 homely-ass photos of Hillary. They will carry more weight than any REAL issue. Many politically uninvolved voters will vote on looks/feelings as opposed to content.
5) The Left's inability to woo "swing voters" and their penchance to alienate them. In the bizarre microcosm called SS we even see this phenomenom. There are really only three vocal posters here that do not fall in line with far left political beliefs. And while all three are very different and have VERY different views, the folks on the left throw them all into the same group and label them "enemy". Quite frankly I view this inability to get beyond a "you're either with us or against us" mentality the epitome of ignorance. For example, how anyone could read the many hateful exchanges between Dolo and myself, and see that I have been outspoken about my initial support for Barack, yet throw Dolo and I into the same "box", demonstrates the inability to recognize any views beyond a very narrow one.
There are many other factors that will either hurt or help the Dems but I believe the 5 above will have the most impact. They have a year and a half to right this ship, I don't see it happening.
Disagree all you want, these are my opinions and not something I cut and pasted from some website.
Pardon any typos....it's early in the morning after a late night.
IRAQ.
Yep.....ignore all that other stuff and just focus on Iraq.....sounds like a plan for victory.
Slipping, bro.
Thought this was interesting. Leave him out of the vote and now he's on top. HA!
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?s=e5e67a202715f39830968864ee3f7498&threadid=297134