PDA

View Full Version : Elections **** Official CNN GOP Debate Thread****


Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 06:06 PM
I'll be staying home tonight watching this online figured why not get a thread going. For those of you who don't have cable you can watch the debate here:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

orange
06-13-2011, 06:46 PM
Livestream here: http://live.cnn.com/

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:12 PM
Bachmann announcing during the debate ROFL

teedubya
06-13-2011, 07:21 PM
You can see here how the media sort of blows past the candidates that the "powers that be" don't want winning the candidacy.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/republican-debate-prep-what-to-watch-for-in-new-hampshire/

They talk indepth about each candidate... except for these guys.

* The Lesser Knowns. Three other candidates will be on the stage Monday night. Representative Ron Paul of Texas is often a crowd pleaser, especially with libertarians. Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, sees Iowa as a place where his conservative views might gain traction, but he could use the New Hampshire debate to present a broader appeal. And Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, is hoping that his second debate performance will boost his name recognition.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:21 PM
Dude is asking about the fractured nature of the party. heh.

He is like...yea im a Republican but not a staunch libertarian or a tea party Republican. How can you represent me as someone who is a Republican but not a crazy asshole?

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:22 PM
This debate fucking sucks.

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:22 PM
Anderson Cooper or whatever his name is needs to shut the fuck up

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:24 PM
We're going to win YAYYY!

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:25 PM
Herman Cain is so vague.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:26 PM
The audience like\dislike level focus groups as this thing goes on love Cain.

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:26 PM
Ron Paul goes over everyones head.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:26 PM
Herman Cain is so vague.

He is about the American people! How can you oppose that ass face?

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:27 PM
Ron Paul goes over everyones head.

The instant focus group things im looking at loved but but didn't like it. Independents more than Republicans.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:28 PM
This is the first time I have seen Pawlenty at length. He sort of comes off like a dick.

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:28 PM
The instant focus group things im looking at loved but but didn't like it. Independents more than Republicans.

How do you love but not like it?

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:30 PM
Bachman starts talking and its the only time Republicans are more positive than independents in the live flow...when she said that quaint bit about the EPA favorable opinions absolutely tank.

orange
06-13-2011, 07:30 PM
Anderson Cooper or whatever his name is needs to shut the **** up

John King.

Herman Cain is so vague.

He reminds me of Aunt Bea - "If the PEOPLE want it, the PEOPLE shall have it!"

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 07:31 PM
How do you love but not like it?

Its on a scale of 1-100. They have shown times of loving things a lot at about a level of 85 whereas Paul's comments they were coming in at about a 70...with a nothing happening base line at about 45-50.

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:32 PM
Its on a scale of 1-100. They have shown times of loving things a lot at about a level of 85 whereas Paul's comments they were coming in at about a 70...with a nothing happening base line at about 45-50.

:(

SNR
06-13-2011, 07:33 PM
If I ran one of these debates, I'd outlaw a list of terms/expressions.

"We live in the United States of America" would be one.

Is a candidate uttered one of these terms, they'd lose the rest of their time, and would get an electric shock and a pie in the face.

HonestChieffan
06-13-2011, 07:34 PM
you all must be the only people watching this.

SNR
06-13-2011, 07:36 PM
you all must be the only people watching this.
I'm just wondering where Direckshun is. If he misses this he won't forgive himself

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:36 PM
This is boring. I can't see a serious candidate among them and really right now it wouldn't take much to beat Obama. That should say something about the crop on the stage.

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:36 PM
Anyone down to get drunk tonight? Lets play a drinking game.

Anytime a candidate doesn't directly answer the question: 5 drinks

Anytime they mention Obama 4

Anytime the word Tea Party is used 3

And anytime you hear John King talking in his fucking microphone while the candidate is speaking it's 2

Anytime the candidate goes over on time it's 1

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:37 PM
oooohhhh behind the scenes video of a primary debate.....must.....use.....self.....control

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:39 PM
Great answer Ron!

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:43 PM
This host is fucking irritating with his constant "yea" or "right" mumbles as a person is answering.

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:43 PM
It's like he asks them a question then starts his mumbles 3 words into it

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:49 PM
This host is ****ing irritating with his constant "yea" or "right" mumbles as a person is answering.

Crack open a beer and embrace it.

SNR
06-13-2011, 07:50 PM
These bullshit human interest this or that questions are proof that politicians are soulless automatons who have no personal spice.

And that includes John King

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:51 PM
Crack open a beer and embrace it.

I work with a guy that does that....it's flipping irritating as fuck

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 07:52 PM
Dick Morris

#CNNDebate Ron Paul's comparison with Japan on housing is excellent and right on point. I'm coming to like him more
3 minutes ago via web

SNR
06-13-2011, 07:53 PM
I work with a guy
Mmhmmm...
that does that....
Yeah?
it's flipping irritating as fuck
I know

petegz28
06-13-2011, 07:58 PM
Mmhmmm...

Yeah?

I know

bite me....:cuss:

:p

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 08:01 PM
Herman Cain Medicare is in trouble

We need to re-do medicare.

Medicare is in trouble.


Herman Cain.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 08:04 PM
These bullshit human interest this or that questions are proof that politicians are soulless automatons who have no personal spice.

And that includes John King

I don't think we have allowed them any.

We as consumers of politics and voters have gotten up in all of their shit and they have responded by not being able to be real people. They don't have the luxury of being real people because we crucify them for it.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 08:05 PM
Anyone down to get drunk tonight? Lets play a drinking game.

Anytime a candidate doesn't directly answer the question: 5 drinks

Anytime they mention Obama 4

Anytime the word Tea Party is used 3

And anytime you hear John King talking in his ****ing microphone while the candidate is speaking it's 2

Anytime the candidate goes over on time it's 1
Drink everytime they say obamacare....you will get fucked up!

SNR
06-13-2011, 08:10 PM
Ronny's getting all the applause.....

There's going to be none left for the rest of them...

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 08:10 PM
Hermain Cain ROFL

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 08:11 PM
No Sharia law muh fuckas!!!!!!

ChiefaRoo
06-13-2011, 08:17 PM
Romney and Pawlenty are heavyweights without serious flaws. Both have been executives and are leaders.

Bachman and Cain are too inexperienced. Newt is smart as hell but he's a dead man walking. Santorum is too much of a religious social issue guy when we need fiscal conservatives first. Paul has some good ideas domestically but he's a retread, too old and is an isolationist.

SNR
06-13-2011, 08:21 PM
This debate topic is gay

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 08:24 PM
Moderator tees up another opportunity to hit Romney, this time on abortion. Will anyone bite?

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 08:25 PM
Romney and Pawlenty are heavyweights without serious flaws.

http://www.theslipperytruffle.com/log/remoteImage-9.gif

ChiefaRoo
06-13-2011, 08:26 PM
http://www.theslipperytruffle.com/log/remoteImage-9.gif

Really.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 08:27 PM
Really.

I think is is pretty impressive how everyone even Republicans talk about what a dog shit group is lined up here but your perspective is two of them have no serious flaws.

That is fun.

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 08:31 PM
I think is is pretty impressive how everyone even Republicans talk about what a dog shit group is lined up here but your perspective is two of them have no serious flaws.

That is fun.

Fox News said so.

ChiefaRoo
06-13-2011, 08:50 PM
I think is is pretty impressive how everyone even Republicans talk about what a dog shit group is lined up here but your perspective is two of them have no serious flaws.

That is fun.

Most of the people on that stage have far more experience in Govt., business and life than our current President? Most, if a not all of them would be a better Commander In Chief and leader.

It is really fun isn't eh Zach? 13 million out of work, shitty economic growth numbers and guess what? we've got a whole new war we are fighting which our President hasn't given even the Congress the details on.

Where's the Fu****g hope? Is this the change we wanted.

This country is in decline and leaderless.

SNR
06-13-2011, 09:05 PM
Ron Paul gracefully ducked that last question.

His true answer was probably "I wouldn't hire any of these asshole retards in my administration"

Jaric
06-13-2011, 09:05 PM
I think Ron Paul sounded good. Of course, he's telling me what I want to hear so I'm not a good judge of how he comes across.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 09:09 PM
Most of the people on that stage have far more experience in Govt., business and life than our current President? Most, if a not all of them would be a better Commander In Chief and leader.

It is really fun isn't eh Zach? 13 million out of work, shitty economic growth numbers and guess what? we've got a whole new war we are fighting which our President hasn't given even the Congress the details on.

Where's the Fu****g hope? Is this the change we wanted.

This country is in decline and leaderless.

Well I am glad you have moved on from the ridiculous notion that those guys don't have serious flaws...I mean there wasn't much defense for that. LMAO

I personally don't count on the President to have a direct effect on my life and see the POTUS abilities to create jobs to be overblown.

If I thought there was a candidate better than Obama in this field I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or her. I don't really see that.

Captain Obvious
06-13-2011, 09:12 PM
Flawless. All of them.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 09:14 PM
Flawless. All of them.

http://images.wikia.com/mk/images/3/35/Sub-Zero_Flawless_Victory.jpg

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 09:29 PM
Well I am glad you have moved on from the ridiculous notion that those guys don't have serious flaws...I mean there wasn't much defense for that. LMAO

I personally don't count on the President to have a direct effect on my life and see the POTUS abilities to create jobs to be overblown.

If I thought there was a candidate better than Obama in this field I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or her. I don't really see that.

R........

SNR
06-13-2011, 09:30 PM
R........
...on Paul?

SNR
06-13-2011, 09:34 PM
Robert Gibbs has said the word "mess" approximately 8,342 times in the past 5 minutes

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 09:42 PM
Robert Gibbs has said the word "mess" approximately 8,342 times in the past 5 minutes

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

HonestChieffan
06-13-2011, 11:20 PM
http://cbullitt.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/obama2012.jpg?w=468&h=462

orange
06-13-2011, 11:21 PM
Is it my imagination, or did Michelle stick a fork in this debate two minutes in? Was anything else even said after that?

orange
06-13-2011, 11:34 PM
Is it my imagination, or did Michelle stick a fork in this debate two minutes in? Was anything else even said after that?

Apparently it's not just me that thinks so. Mitt Romney's team:

Romney's team was already absorbing the spin: He and Bachmann won, Pawlenty missed a shot...

... Something else I noticed in the spin room was a surge of interest in Michele Bachmann. Her campaign team was swarmed (she skipped the room herself), and the very first thing DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse mentioned when asked about the debate was that "Bachmann's apparently burning up Twitter."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/?GT1=38001

SNR
06-13-2011, 11:35 PM
Is it my imagination, or did Michelle stick a fork in this debate two minutes in? Was anything else even said after that?She certainly swung her penis pretty hard tonight

Chocolate Hog
06-13-2011, 11:36 PM
Apparently it's not just me that thinks so. Mitt Romney's team:

Romney's team was already absorbing the spin: He and Bachmann won, Pawlenty missed a shot...

... Something else I noticed in the spin room was a surge of interest in Michele Bachmann. Her campaign team was swarmed (she skipped the room herself), and the very first thing DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse mentioned when asked about the debate was that "Bachmann's apparently burning up Twitter."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/?GT1=38001

This article was pretty favorable toward your boy RP.

|Zach|
06-13-2011, 11:47 PM
She represented herself quite well tonight IMO.

ChiefaRoo
06-14-2011, 12:11 AM
Well I am glad you have moved on from the ridiculous notion that those guys don't have serious flaws...I mean there wasn't much defense for that. LMAO

I personally don't count on the President to have a direct effect on my life and see the POTUS abilities to create jobs to be overblown.

If I thought there was a candidate better than Obama in this field I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or her. I don't really see that.

The Govt. Doesn't create jobs there Jr. It sets the table to let business create jobs. The Obama admin. Is hostile towards business.

Obama is not a capitalist. He's not even experienced in fiscal theory and business creation that has severed the USA for over 200years. That's the difference.

The Rick
06-14-2011, 07:30 AM
A couple of thoughts I had after watching it:

Bachmann is like a better, smarter version of Sarah Palin. Still not a big fan, but she's at least tolerable.

Romney seemed to be pandering to the audience in nearly everything he said. Very disappointing that he's currently the front runner and makes me question the intelligence of the people responding to polls.

Pawlenty impressed me. Maybe I just had low expectations after everything I've read about him, but he mostly came across as genuine with good, somewhat original ideas. He was more charismatic than I anticipated.

Paul came across as maybe the smartest guy in the room for the most part. Too bad he talks over the heads of most people. He just doesn't seem to have the ability to connect with the vast majority it would take to win the nomination or get elected.

I was also somewhat impressed with Cain. He's definitely playing the "fresh face", non-politician card effectively. He's also a good speaker who conveys his points and ideas well to the majority. He could be a dark horse candidate...

Santorum? Meh. Didn't really stand out to me.

Newt just came across as old and living in the past. Nothing really original about him.

jiveturkey
06-14-2011, 08:14 AM
I really wanted Cain to scream "The rent is too damn high!" at some point.

Outside of that I pretty much agree with everything The Rick said.

When Palin speaks I want to chew my own head off. When Bachmann spoke I was able to listen.

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 08:21 AM
you all must be the only people watching this.

Hey the circus is in town. Time to get to work!

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 08:23 AM
A couple of thoughts I had after watching it:

Bachmann is like a better, smarter version of Sarah Palin. Still not a big fan, but she's at least tolerable.

Romney seemed to be pandering to the audience in nearly everything he said. Very disappointing that he's currently the front runner and makes me question the intelligence of the people responding to polls.

Pawlenty impressed me. Maybe I just had low expectations after everything I've read about him, but he mostly came across as genuine with good, somewhat original ideas. He was more charismatic than I anticipated.

Paul came across as maybe the smartest guy in the room for the most part. Too bad he talks over the heads of most people. He just doesn't seem to have the ability to connect with the vast majority it would take to win the nomination or get elected.

I was also somewhat impressed with Cain. He's definitely playing the "fresh face", non-politician card effectively. He's also a good speaker who conveys his points and ideas well to the majority. He could be a dark horse candidate...

Santorum? Meh. Didn't really stand out to me.

Newt just came across as old and living in the past. Nothing really original about him.

I think you had the Newt and Paul comments reversed. Paul is as dumb as a tree stump where Newt even though I'm not a fan is a pretty smart guy.

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 08:28 AM
She represented herself quite well tonight IMO.

Oh please let the R nominee be Bachmann. The comedy would be fabulous. She could pick Palin as her running mate and I'd be glued to the news for months. Hell I might even start watching TV again.

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 08:31 AM
These bullshit human interest this or that questions are proof that politicians are soulless automatons who have no personal spice.

And that includes John King

Read my comments about Americas quest for spiritual and sexual purity as a test for our leaders. We got exactly what we are looking for.

patteeu
06-14-2011, 08:44 AM
Romney and Pawlenty are heavyweights without serious flaws. Both have been executives and are leaders.

Bachman and Cain are too inexperienced. Newt is smart as hell but he's a dead man walking. Santorum is too much of a religious social issue guy when we need fiscal conservatives first. Paul has some good ideas domestically but he's a retread, too old and is an isolationist.

I agree with all of this. Romney and Pawlenty are both solid. I'm sure you'd agree that even the inexperience of Bachman and Cain is preferrable to the experience our current POTUS has acquired over the past 2.5 years.

Really.

Zach likes to pretend that he's open to the right kind of Republican candidate, but it's pretty clear that he can't get past Obama's smile.

Jaric
06-14-2011, 08:45 AM
Zach likes to pretend that he's open to the right kind of Republican candidate, but it's pretty clear that he can't get past Obama's smile.
To be fair, it is a pretty dazzling smile.

patteeu
06-14-2011, 08:47 AM
To be fair, it is a pretty dazzling smile.

Indeed.

The Rick
06-14-2011, 08:47 AM
I think you had the Newt and Paul comments reversed. Paul is as dumb as a tree stump where Newt even though I'm not a fan is a pretty smart guy.
Yes, I do think Newt is a pretty smart guy. I don't know, he just seems...washed up? Like he's simply trying to relive the glory days of 1995 or something. Hard to describe...

alpha_omega
06-14-2011, 08:59 AM
That was the worst moderated debate of any kind i have ever seen.

patteeu
06-14-2011, 09:03 AM
This is boring. I can't see a serious candidate among them and really right now it wouldn't take much to beat Obama. That should say something about the crop on the stage.

You grew up with mostly Republican Presidents so, even when democrats controlled Congress, there were lots of powerful and well-recognized Republicans in both the Congress and the executive branch. As Bush left office on the heels of Republicans losing Congress, many of those familiar faces disappeared too. Republicans in Congress were pretty much irrelevant for the first two years of our Obama dark age and many of the most senior found it to be a good time to retire. That's part of the reason why this year's field seems different than 1988 or 1996 or 2000. But if you go back and look at those fields, they weren't all that different. The truth is that the GOP bench is deeper than the dems because of all the Republican governorships there have been in the past few years. There are a few notables who haven't entered this time around (Barbour, Bush) and a couple of bright younger guys (Ryan, Christie), but that's a testament to the overall quality of the pool of talent, not a case of the B-team taking the field while the A-team bides it's time.

What was so strong about this 1996 field (besides the name recognition of the Senators), for example?

Bob Dole, U.S. Senator from Kansas
Pat Buchanan, conservative columnist from Virginia
Steve Forbes, newspaper and magazine publisher from New York
Lamar Alexander, former Governor of Tennessee
Phil Gramm, U.S. Senator from Texas
Alan Keyes, former U.S. ECOSOC Ambassador from Maryland
Richard Lugar, U.S. Senator from Indiana
Bob Dornan, U.S. representative from California
Arlen Specter, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania
Pete Wilson, Governor of California

patteeu
06-14-2011, 09:10 AM
BTW, one interesting thing about that 1996 field of GOP hopefuls is that Dick Lugar's main issue emphasis was on the threat of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. I'm no a big Lugar fan, but we would have been better off if more people had heard (and taken seriously) his warnings about those gathering threats.

ROYC75
06-14-2011, 11:49 AM
Zach likes to pretend that he's open to the right kind of Republican candidate, but it's pretty clear that he can't get past Obama's smile.

Oh no you didn't. Question the Great Zach? LMAO

Chocolate Hog
06-14-2011, 01:41 PM
BTW, one interesting thing about that 1996 field of GOP hopefuls is that Dick Lugar's main issue emphasis was on the threat of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. I'm no a big Lugar fan, but we would have been better off if more people had heard (and taken seriously) his warnings about those gathering threats.

Pat Buchanan should have won in 92 and 96.

Chocolate Hog
06-14-2011, 01:43 PM
I think you had the Newt and Paul comments reversed. Paul is as dumb as a tree stump where Newt even though I'm not a fan is a pretty smart guy.

Hilarious. I'm sure Paul sounded dumb to you because you didn't understand what he was saying. Then again you're the same guy who wrote to president Clinton asking that he give a bonus to people in government who actually do their jobs LMAO

SNR
06-14-2011, 01:57 PM
I think you had the Newt and Paul comments reversed. Paul is as dumb as a tree stump where Newt even though I'm not a fan is a pretty smart guy.:spock: Are you serious?

Brainiac
06-14-2011, 02:32 PM
Bachmann is like a better, smarter version of Sarah Palin.

That is EXACTLY what I thought when I watched the debate. She is who everybody thought Sarah Palin was (or at least she seems to be after a single debate).

patteeu
06-14-2011, 04:45 PM
Pat Buchanan should have won in 92 and 96.

Define "should have".

Chocolate Hog
06-14-2011, 05:21 PM
Define "should have".

Pat is a brilliant conservative wish I would have been old enough to vote for him. I think he's a great leader.

patteeu
06-14-2011, 06:38 PM
Pat is a brilliant conservative wish I would have been old enough to vote for him. I think he's a great leader.

I liked him. I would have voted for him over GHWBush or Bill Clinton, but in reality he wasn't much of a factor (except possibly as someone who wore Bush down so Clinton could beat him). Ron Paul might be more relevant than he was.

Calcountry
06-14-2011, 08:03 PM
It's like he asks them a question then starts his mumbles 3 words into itNo wonder Zach and the rest of you libs were watching this, it was moderated by CNN.

NewChief
06-14-2011, 08:09 PM
No wonder Zach and the rest of you libs were watching this, it was moderated by CNN.

Pete is a liberal now? ROFL

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 08:37 PM
Hilarious. I'm sure Paul sounded dumb to you because you didn't understand what he was saying. Then again you're the same guy who wrote to president Clinton asking that he give a bonus to people in government who actually do their jobs LMAO

Way to remember things way incorrectly. Don't you have like a muscle to try to flex or something?

Seriously, sit on the sidelines for a few years, listen let your intellect make it up to the 90s and you may very well have something to add to the conversation. Till then its really best if you don't make further comments.

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 08:39 PM
Pat is a brilliant conservative wish I would have been old enough to vote for him. I think he's a great leader.

He is an epic fool. He shot himself right in the foot with the Gods Own Party crap. The funny thing is he almost seems liberal compared to the current crop of R's

Chocolate Hog
06-14-2011, 09:56 PM
Dave Lane ladies and gentlemen.....

Dave Lane
06-14-2011, 10:13 PM
:spock: Are you serious?

Yes

SNR
06-14-2011, 10:37 PM
YesBanyon, gobowe, ClevelandBronco, and numerous others on this board are hardcore critics of Ron Paul. These posters are also probably some of the more intelligent on this forum (well, gobowe WOULD fit that category if he would try being sober more often).

But I don't think you'll find any of these guys questioning Ron Paul's intelligence. Ron Paul has a keen mind that can reason and eloquently word his arguments without dumbing them down to "GOD BLESS DA MERICUN PEOPLE!!!11". He thinks for himself, doesn't give a shit what his party thinks about him, and isn't afraid challenge anything. Also, have you read any of his books? He's an EXCELLENT writer. Oh, and he also graduated medical school from Duke University.

But I get it. You disagree with him. That makes him "dumb as a tree stump." Oh hey, good point. I guess you win.

go bowe
06-15-2011, 12:38 PM
sober is overrated...

Otter
06-15-2011, 12:58 PM
sober is overrated...

[High fives GoBowe and SNR]

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul's every word he's the ONLY honest person standing up on that stage. But hey, we've had hope and change and Bush for 8 years before that.

Ron Paul would be a lousy president, right?

go bowe
06-15-2011, 01:08 PM
[High fives GoBowe and SNR]

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul's every word he's the ONLY honest person standing up on that stage. But hey, we've had hope and change and Bush for 8 years before that.

Ron Paul would be a lousy president, right?

not so much lousy as limited...

most of his proposals would require congressional action...

but he would have a significant impact on fp, which would be refreshing and no doubt very entertaining...

all in all, i think ron would be an ok president, better than some we've had that's for sure...

Chocolate Hog
06-15-2011, 06:17 PM
Go Bowe has a drug problem? That explains alot.

patteeu
06-15-2011, 06:19 PM
Go Bowe has a drug problem? That explains alot.

Drug problem? Did his connection get busted?

|Zach|
06-15-2011, 06:21 PM
No wonder Zach and the rest of you libs were watching this, it was moderated by CNN.

Oh you.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-16-2011, 12:19 AM
Who won last night's Republican presidential debate on CNN?

It's a question a lot of pundits have been asking -- and there seems to be some consensus forming among the analysts: Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

But judging by the reaction of the audience in New Hampshire, a different candidate carried the night and he's a candidate many analysts are saying emerged as a loser.

That candidate? Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

An analysis of audience reaction shows Paul was applauded twice as much as any other candidate on stage.

Throughout the two-hour debate, Paul was applauded 11 times. Romney, Bachmann, and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty were each applauded five times. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich and businessman Herman Cain were each applauded four times. Former Pa. Senator Rick Santorum was applauded the least amount of times: Three.

After a slow start, Paul earned applause throughout the debate, on a variety of issues, including his opposition to "government assistance to private enterprise," his belief that people should be able to "opt out" of Medicare, his views on the separation of church and state, and his opposition to the United States' various wars.

"I'd bring them home as quickly as impossible," he said of U.S. troops. "And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan. I’d start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars."

Romney scored with the audience for his opposition of "too big too fail" economic policies, for his comments about scaling down the war in Afghanistan and for his attacks on Obama. Bachmann earned applause when she announced her candidacy for president and when she called Obama "a one-term president." Pawlenty scored applause with his comments about right-to-work legislation and when he praised the Christian faith. Cain was cheered for his comments regarding government bailouts, his statement regarding the strength of the GOP field and his opposition to Sharia law. Gingrich also pleased the crowd on this issue and for his comments on securing the border.

In terms of other audience reaction, Romney earned the most laughs: Twice his comments brought the crowd to laughter (though one was a slip-up about the Taliban). Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, and Pawlenty each earned laughter from the crowd on one occasion.

I thought each candidate had his moments. Gingrich gave the best intro; Cain overall was the best orator; Santorum was the most combative on the president's economic policies; Romney was the most presidential; Paul the most principled; Bachmann perhaps the most exciting; and Pawlenty perhaps the nicest (he refused to criticize Romney to his face). Even Santorum showed he can have a sense of humor.

What's strange, though, is how uniformly pundits' opinions have been in favor of Romney and Bachmann -- and how different their reaction is to that of the audience in New Hampshire. (A poll of so-called "GOP Insiders" revealed party establishment minds believe Paul finished last. View that poll here.)

Now, I realize Paul's supporters tend to be louder and more enthusiastic than other candidates' and the amount of applause is hardly a scientific way to judge a debate. But to not even consider as a potential debate winner the person who was applauded more than twice as much as any other candidate strikes me as strange.

Maybe it shows a vast separation between the media and the beliefs of grassroots GOP activists? Maybe it shows that Paul's supporters are simply more enthusiastic, though not larger in number? I don't know.

What I do know is this: People don't cheer things they don't support. They don't laugh at jokes that aren't funny. They don't cry during movies that aren't sad.

Paul's large advantage in applause shows that a number of Republicans want smaller government, less foreign wars, no financial bailouts and freedom in their personal lives. He may not be the favorite in the GOP race, but the pundits could at least acknowledge the vocal and growing support within the Republican party on these issues.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story?track=rss

Dave Lane
06-16-2011, 12:28 AM
Ok I'll change my quote to his ideas and thoughts are dumb as a tree stump. He obviously as some modicum of intellect it's just like the synapses don't connect or something. He has the absolute most ass backward retarded view of how to run a country I've ever see.

I grant his views are simplistic and they sound pleasing at first blush, but any analysis into the long term really exposes them as fatally flawed.


Banyon, gobowe, ClevelandBronco, and numerous others on this board are hardcore critics of Ron Paul. These posters are also probably some of the more intelligent on this forum (well, gobowe WOULD fit that category if he would try being sober more often).

But I don't think you'll find any of these guys questioning Ron Paul's intelligence. Ron Paul has a keen mind that can reason and eloquently word his arguments without dumbing them down to "GOD BLESS DA MERICUN PEOPLE!!!11". He thinks for himself, doesn't give a shit what his party thinks about him, and isn't afraid challenge anything. Also, have you read any of his books? He's an EXCELLENT writer. Oh, and he also graduated medical school from Duke University.

But I get it. You disagree with him. That makes him "dumb as a tree stump." Oh hey, good point. I guess you win.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-16-2011, 12:32 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/321784546.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1308203224&Signature=rqRALDtr9JZNmmKHT7d%2FuqTMdn0%3D

SNR
06-16-2011, 12:59 AM
I grant his views are simplistic and they sound pleasing at first blush, but any analysis into the long term really exposes them as fatally flawed.Would you care to share your homework with us? If you do, we might be able to have an actual conversation.

Otter
06-16-2011, 04:58 AM
not so much lousy as limited...

most of his proposals would require congressional action...

but he would have a significant impact on fp, which would be refreshing and no doubt very entertaining...

all in all, i think ron would be an ok president, better than some we've had that's for sure...

I know, between Barry's business acumen, ability to push socialism down the throats of the US Citizens and smile while he shits on our back and bankrupts the country is gonna be some tough shoes to fill.

The TV won't tell people to vote for RP anyway so no need to worry.

We're fuckin doomed.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 07:46 AM
He has the absolute most ass backward retarded view of how to run a country I've ever see.
Following the constitution is "Ass backward retarded?"

orange
06-16-2011, 05:27 PM
Following the constitution is "Ass backward retarded?"

The government follows the constitution for the most part, and when there's any doubt, there's always a suit and a ruling.

Insisting that all these rulings are wrong and that only you are reading the Constitution correctly - that's "Ass backward retarded."

Oh, and the Gold Standard. ABR.

Jaric
06-16-2011, 06:12 PM
The government follows the constitution for the most part, and when there's any doubt, there's always a suit and a ruling.

Insisting that all these rulings are wrong and that only you are reading the Constitution correctly - that's "Ass backward retarded."

Oh, and the Gold Standard. ABR.

Which government? I sure as hell hope you aren't talking about ours.

orange
06-16-2011, 06:26 PM
Which government? I sure as hell hope you aren't talking about ours.

And there it is, the Ron Paul platform in a nutshell.

"Everyone else is wrong, I'm right! Only I know the Constitution!"

Jaric
06-16-2011, 07:10 PM
And there it is, the Ron Paul platform in a nutshell.

"Everyone else is wrong, I'm right! Only I know the Constitution!"

I'm pretty sure the issue isn't "knowing" the constitution, but simply choosing not to ignore it because it makes certain actions difficult.

Jenson71
06-16-2011, 08:31 PM
I'm pretty sure the issue isn't "knowing" the constitution, but simply choosing not to ignore it because it makes certain actions difficult.

What makes you think the government is ignoring it?

Jaric
06-16-2011, 08:41 PM
What makes you think the government is ignoring it?

It's possible it's ignorance, but I think they deserve more credit than that.

Jenson71
06-16-2011, 08:56 PM
It's possible it's ignorance, but I think they deserve more credit than that.

Yeah, they do. And if you had committees that specifically studied the constitutionality of your measures and worked with attorney generals, I'd give you a little more benefit of the doubt.

Congressmen begin their terms by swearing to uphold the Constitution as best they can. There's no reason to believe they don't take that oath seriously.

What oath do you take? Anything? Why should I believe that you take the Constitution anymore seriously than they do?

SNR
06-16-2011, 10:25 PM
The government follows the constitution for the most part, and when there's any doubt, there's always a suit and a ruling.

Insisting that all these rulings are wrong and that only you are reading the Constitution correctly - that's "Ass backward retarded."

Oh, and the Gold Standard. ABR.Ron Paul isn't for going back to the gold standard, necessarily. Ideally he'd like competing currencies-- anything to freeze up the printing of money as a means of solving debt

SNR
06-16-2011, 10:31 PM
Yeah, they do. And if you had committees that specifically studied the constitutionality of your measures and worked with attorney generals, I'd give you a little more benefit of the doubt.

Congressmen begin their terms by swearing to uphold the Constitution as best they can. There's no reason to believe they don't take that oath seriously.

What oath do you take? Anything? Why should I believe that you take the Constitution anymore seriously than they do?The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Thankfully we've fixed that problem since then. Now when we want to bomb somebody, we just start doing it and claim it's because the president is commander in chief. True, no wars are being declared, but what the hell do you call all these invasions? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq x2?

That's one example that Ron Paul is talking about. Sure all these wars are legal according to our interpretations of the law, but is that right? Do you think falls in line with the intent of the law?

Jenson71
06-16-2011, 11:57 PM
The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Thankfully we've fixed that problem since then. Now when we want to bomb somebody, we just start doing it and claim it's because the president is commander in chief. True, no wars are being declared, but what the hell do you call all these invasions? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq x2?

That's one example that Ron Paul is talking about. Sure all these wars are legal according to our interpretations of the law, but is that right? Do you think falls in line with the intent of the law?

Congress typically authorizes military actions. Plus, they retain the power of the purse to fund these operations.

The Constitution certainly says that Congress has the power to declare war. It does not say that military force may only be used in the event that Congress formally declare war. It doesn't even say what it means for Congress to declare war. It simply says, "Congress shall have the power to . . . declare war."

Yes, I think when Congress authorizes military action and continues to fund it, the intent of the law (that Congress have oversight of when the executive can use military forces in his capacity as CIC) is being followed.

Here's the point: this whole "FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION" mantra is code for "I prefer less federal government policies and taxes!" Just say that instead of trying to throw this weight around that says nobody except you and the people you politically agree with have special insight on what the Constitution says, is about, can be interpreted.

go bowe
06-17-2011, 12:35 AM
Go Bowe has a drug problem? That explains alot.yes billay, you're like a drug to me, i must have you my sweet...

go bowe
06-17-2011, 12:37 AM
Drug problem? Did his connection get busted?how'd you know?

it's tough to score out there when you're over 60... :huh: :huh: :huh:

orange
06-17-2011, 06:38 PM
Romney, Bachmann, Cain Lead The Pack Among GOP Primary Voters

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney continues to lead the race for the Republican nomination, but Michele Bachmann has surged into second place following her Monday night entry into the campaign.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary Voters, taken following the candidates’ Monday night debate, shows Romney earning 33% support, with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann a surprise second at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain is in third place with 10% of the vote.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich picks up nine percent (9%) support, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul with seven percent (7%), ex-Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at six percent (6%) and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum also earning six percent (6%). Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who did not participate in the debate but is expected to announce his candidacy on Tuesday, gets two percent (2%) of the vote. Eight percent (8%) prefer some other candidate.....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/romney_bachmann_cain_lead_the_pack_among_gop_primary_voters