Anyone watching the GOP debate?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
bluefrog said:
I read it at radicalsocialistmuslimliberal.net. That's where I get all my news.

It definitely looks like Perry is pissed off.
Click to expand...

I wasn't there, but I heard from people who were there...
 
PapaG said:
And Obama looks like a deranged nutball in this photo. It must mean he was being a deranged nutball at that moment.

OBAMA-DEMONIC.jpg


What a non-story.
Click to expand...

that totally needs to be photoshopped!
 
so if i vote at all it likely wont be obama, keep me posted on these debates, im too busy to schedule tv time
 
Haha I got my next T-Shirt now.

:lol:

Perry is a fucking G, it would be so badass if he really was talking smack.
 
Last edited:
maxiep said:
IMO, Romney won the debate. Perry got knocked around a little and needs to bone up on foreign policy. Bachmann toned down her act, but is losing traction to Perry. I don't think Brian Williams or the guy from Politico could wrap their heads around Paul's ideas. Cain didn't impress. Santorum seemed knowledgeable, but didn't have much of a chance to mix it up. Huntsman was better, but too little, too late. Gingrich was great, calling a spade a spade, but it's clear that he's not expecting to win anything.
Click to expand...

I think Romney beat around the bush on a pretty important topic, Social Security. It is pretty obvious Perry is right but he made a political mistake, and needs to refine his rhetoric on Social Security. Either of these people are more charismatic than Barry.
 
The government regulates minutiae, and is redundant.

julius said:
people wanted to buy the chevrolet pickup, and chevrolet knew it was dangerous. people wanted to buy the mustang yet it wasn't safe.

If people aren't TOLD about it, how will they know about it? And if car companies didn't have to tell us or make their cars safe, they wouldn't.

I could understand if you thought FROM THIS POINT FORWARD cars could self regulate. I just disagree. They'd be making cars w/more HP, more gaudy and not safer.
Click to expand...

Dude your position is psycho, simple as that. Everyone found out about the Toyota recall for example, they got owned in the stock market after that.

Not only are cars SAFER in a completely free market, companies have already invented self-driving cars that crash into each other at a lower rate. GOVERNMENT, says we can't use them for some arbitrary reason.

What a moronic example, lol buddy read some basic libertarian literature. Even we believe in Environmental protection, but not BS mandates that have been disproven a thousand times.

You and barfo probably still think the FAA is the only way to keep planes from crashing into each other. Petty worthless regulation is how we screw ourselves in this country.

barfo said:
Yeah, seriously. Do you really think seat belts require semiconductors?

barfo
Click to expand...

LOL, I'm sure no one would notice a car without seat belts. Nice job disproving yourself.

Corporations can't make you buy anything, stop bitching.
 
Last edited:
Well, another day, another Republican debate.

My favorite line from tonight was Rick Perry saying that to buy him it takes more than $5000.

And the audience booing Ron Paul, that was amusing.

Edit: I forgot about Huntsman referencing Kurt Cobain at the beginning... that's the debate equivalent of Wu dressing in a tiger suit.

barfo
 
Last edited:
Nobody else watched?

More commentary from me, then:

Huntsman: I want to like the guy, I think he actually has a brain, and some useful experience, but he's just too smarmy, and says some pretty strange things (Cobain, treason). Needs to quit hanging out at the tanning salon with Boehner.

Cain: If I were a photoshop wizard, I'd fix up a video of him taking a huge bong hit just before saying that America is too uptight. If you look at his tax plan from another angle, it's the 666 plan. The tax plan of the beast.

Bachmann: Pure evil. Might go Tanya Harding on the other candidates, or anyone else who gets in her way. The woman has no redeeming features whatsoever.

Romney: I don't want to like him, but I sort of do. He's clearly smarter than most of the people on stage, and seems to be enjoying himself up there. He's got absolutely no ideology to get in the way of constructing the best possible answer at any given time. Despite being smart, he kind of reminds me of a big friendly dog. He just wants to please you so that you'll feed him (the presidency). Woof!

Perry: Dumb-ass Aggie (as if there were any other kind). That deer-in-the-headlights look he gets when they ask him questions reminds me of GWB. I love it that he didn't deny he could be bought, just wanted to argue the price. Guess that's honesty, of a sort.

Paul: Again, I want to like the guy, I think it is good to have someone tilting at windmills. But he's just not very good at it. If you are Ron Paul, and you get booed by the Tea Party - game over.

Gingrich: Who cares. He's not even really running, and in fact is mostly trying to prop up the frontrunners instead of knocking them down. He's just lobbying for a job in the Romney or Perry administration. He's not devoid of brains, but he sure as hell is never going to be President, and he knows it and accepts it.

Santorum: Jesus, what a creep. Aside from Bachmann, the candidate I'd least like to have as my next door neighbor. Sanctimonious asshole.

And there you have it. Which will I vote for? I just can't decide.

barfo
 
One thing that I thought I'd misheard, but here someone else quoted it:

"I'm a mom of three children, and to have innocent little 12-year-olds being forced to have a government injection through an executive order is just wrong," Bachmann said.
Click to expand...

Only 3 kids? What happened to the others?

Of course, 'government injection' is pretty funny too.

barfo
 
jlprk said:
Hilarious and insightful comments from the British. Read from the bottom up.
Click to expand...

That was, indeed, a lot of fun.

barfo
 
Compare the Economist to this stupid summary from CNN. Only Democrat Paul Begala has any useful conclusions. The rest are Republicans who want to stay neutral.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/13/gop-debate.analysts/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

I think I'll start getting more of my American political news from the British media. I already do on war coverage. War crime incidents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are covered in Britain, but the media covers them up here.
 
hey barfo,

What did Paul say that got him boos from the crowd? Do you agree or disagree with what he said?
 
Denny Crane said:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...medina-claims-rick-perry-was-democrat-and-al/
Click to expand...

a visitor from another planet might read her statement to mean Perry was improbably Gore's national campaign manager. Instead, he was Gore's Texas chairman. We rate her statement Mostly True.
Click to expand...

It says that during Gore's 1988 presidential campaign, Perry was Gore's state chairman, but not his state campaign manager. What's the difference?

I'm guessing that the former goes out and gets the contributions and the latter plans the strategy, including how to spend it.
 
Denny Crane said:
hey barfo,

What did Paul say that got him boos from the crowd? Do you agree or disagree with what he said?
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't entirely clear what he was saying, but he seemed to be saying something along the lines of "9/11 was at least in part a reaction to US policies in the middle east". I'd agree with that, if that was what he was saying.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Well, it wasn't entirely clear what he was saying, but he seemed to be saying something along the lines of "9/11 was at least in part a reaction to US policies in the middle east". I'd agree with that, if that was what he was saying.

barfo
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he was saying. If you agree with it, he must be nuts.

I agree with it, too.
 
BrianFromWA said:
was WTC 93, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

If you are asking me, I'd say first that I know a lot less about WTC 93 than I do about 9/11, for obvious reasons. That aside, my guess is yes.

barfo
 
You guys asked the reasons for boos. See 9:32 and 9:44.
----------------
9:44: Santorum's view is that America is under threat because America is just so awesome. Paul actually seeks to understand the motives of terrorists and gets roundly booed.

9:43: As much as I like Ron Paul's ideas, I do wish he was more coherent.

9:42: Gingrich offers absolutely no evidence that the terrorist threat to America is "underestimated". Ron Paul gets it right. America's habit of occupation and nation building endangers it.
...
9:34: Come in as a Coolie, that's the American Way...

9:34: States' rights is Perry's answer to everything. It's like Newt and the phrase "the people". Does he think the Tea Party can be bought so cheaply? I'm offended!

9:34: Hurrah Chinese Exclusion Acts.

9:33: Crikey. Now Bachmann is defending the quota-based, pre-1960s immigration system. It worked great before America started letting in brown and black people. Perry is actually showing some sense, stick and spine on immigration.

9:33: I'm increasingly wondering whether Perry didn't just lose the debate by giving any opponent a perfect TV commercial with that short clip of "if you're suggesting I can be bought for $5,000"...

9:32: Rick Perry just gave me whiplash.

9:32: Boos for Perry over his kindness to immigrants. He also is against cancer. Bloody softie!

9:31: Santorum is averaging one swipe at Perry per question at the moment. But he delivers his jabs too fast, turning them all into glancing blows.

9:31: Yikes. Did Santorum just conflate illegal immigrants and Latino voters? And then suggest that having English as the official language would attract Latinos? Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that will work.

9:31: "Aviation assets" with "real-time information". Somebody saw a Power Point.

9:30: Note the military jargon in Rick Perry's answer, too, Orange.

9:29: There we go! Texas Ranger recon teams!

9:29: No storm troopers, Rick? Are you sure?

9:28: Notice the question: "What would you do to REMOVE the illegal immigrants..." It presumes deportation and wants to know how, not whether.

9:26: I sense a game of one-upmanship coming along, on the subject of the border fence.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/09/republican-nomination-0
 
barfo said:
If you are asking me, I'd say first that I know a lot less about WTC 93 than I do about 9/11, for obvious reasons. That aside, my guess is yes.

barfo
Click to expand...

I ask b/c I see the opinion that somehow our actions in the Middle East were the "cause" for 9/11. While I don't completely discredit that, it doesn't mesh with the historical record.

In 1990, the only reason we were in the Middle East was to protect Saudi Arabia (and Israel, to an extent) from being overrun by Saddam and to take Kuwait back. Afterward, we should have removed Saddam from power. But we caved to Middle Eastern and UN pressure and didn't take Baghdad, didn't arrest Saddam, didn't scour the countryside rounding up human rights offenders and the like. We just went home (for the most part), aside from patrolling UN no-fly-zones.

Less than two years later, someone tried to knock over one WTC into the other with a car bomb in the basement. All we had done up to that point was respond to the aid of one of our Middle Eastern allies, push back the bully on the block, and leave him in power at the request of Middle Eastern nations. And still, the WTCs were targeted by terrorists.

IMHO, it's not a good idea to paint the US and its policies as the blame for 9/11. I don't think the Clinton administration did a whole lot to sour Middle Eastern relations b/w 1993 and the planning of 9/11 (in fact, not retaliating when our planes patrolling the no-fly-zone was cowardly and stupid --to use Maris terms--), but the philosophy among some is that if we'd been more isolationist/more accepting of Islam/bashed Israel more then we wouldn't have brought 9/11 upon ourselves. When in reality it was just evil people attempting to harm others.
 
That was a complete history. So while the US fluttered its innocent eyelashes in the Mideast, big bad Arabs who didn't like their friends being sent off to be tortured by European colonial powers were just bad, bad men who are just big meanies. We don't aggress, we protect.

Destroying every installation that defensively turned on its radar when our fighters flew by wasn't tough enough. It was cowardly to only kill everyone in the radar station because that didn't constitute retaliation, though you forgot to say what more retaliation you would have done. You wrote a great history there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top