New Hampshire Debate

  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 14, 2011 1:53 AM GMT
    OK. So, I was totally on board with what some of these people were saying...UNTIL they began showing exactly how socially backwards they are? This is why I could not in good conscience vote Republican. Until they begin coming closer to center with their social views, I can't take their other views seriously. How can one be "smart" in national econimics or foreign policy and yet be so medieval in their social views. Yes, the economy needs serious work, but there are other issues that are important as well. I believe all of these issues are ALWAYS of equal importance, which is why I can't take a Republican candidate seriously. Reverse the repeal of DADT? Gimme a freaking break.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 14, 2011 2:10 AM GMT
    For each of them, apparently, their #1 qualification is that they have made a lot of babies.

    Michele Bachmann is a smarmy, obnoxious cow.
    She's in favor of eliminating the EPA, along with eliminating clean air, clean water, and unpolluted land.

    Ron Paul said that marriage licenses should be issued by the CHURCH, not by local governments.

    Tim Pawlenty actually said that Sara Palin is qualified to be President of the United States.

    I was impressed with many of Herman Cain's answers.

    While I would never vote for a Republican for President, I was most impressed with Newt Gingrich. He was the smartest, most credible, and most well informed of the group.

    Did any of them offer a plan for creating jobs, THE #1 CONCERN OF THE VOTERS ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 2:22 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidWhile I would never vote for a Republican for President, I was most impressed with Newt Gingrich. He was the smartest, most credible, and most well informed of the group.

    Well Gingrich was once the Speaker of the House, until he abruptly resigned from the House, so I suppose he should be the most experienced of that pack in national politics.

    But virtually his entire senior campaign staff resigned last week, over dissatisfaction with the way he was running his Presidential foray. Canceling public appearances so he could take a previously unscheduled luxury cruise in the Greek isles with his latest wife may have been the final straw that broke his staff's back. Difficult to work FOR a guy who won't work WITH you.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43343808/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/senior-gingrich-aides-resign-campaign-en-masse/
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 14, 2011 2:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    Did any of them offer a plan for creating jobs, THE #1 CONCERN OF THE VOTERS ?


    Yes they did, Webster-the-Devil. It was just beyond your comprehension abilities.





    No.
    If they had, you would have provided the details of their plan.
    But, instead, you provided a stupid response.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 14, 2011 2:27 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    Webster666 saidWhile I would never vote for a Republican for President, I was most impressed with Newt Gingrich. He was the smartest, most credible, and most well informed of the group.

    Well Gingrich was once the Speaker of the House, until he abruptly resigned from the House, so I suppose he should be the most experienced of that pack in national politics.

    But virtually his entire senior campaign staff resigned last week, over dissatisfaction with the way he was running his Presidential foray. Canceling public appearances so he could take a previously unscheduled luxury cruise in the Greek isles with his latest wife may have been the final straw that broke his staff's back.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43343808/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/senior-gingrich-aides-resign-campaign-en-masse/





    Since I follow politics pretty closely, I was aware of that. The problem wasn't that he wouldn't make a good candidate. He simply didn't want to do all the hard work that is required, such as making a million speeches and traveling to most of the states, repeatedly, for the next year and a half. And, his campaign staff knew that he couldn't win unless he was willing to do that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 2:30 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidRon Paul said that marriage licenses should be issued by the CHURCH, not by local governments.


    I absolutely agree with Ron Paul on that. Leave marriages to the religious/spiritual. The government should only be issuing Civil Unions when/where relevant. Such as for legal purposes.
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 14, 2011 2:34 AM GMT
    I think Romney had a presidential air about him, but I really didn't hear anything new from him.
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 14, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    Did any of them offer a plan for creating jobs, THE #1 CONCERN OF THE VOTERS ?


    Yes they did, Webster-the-Devil. It was just beyond your comprehension abilities.





    No.
    If they had, you would have provided the details of their plan.
    But, instead, you provided a stupid response.



    The plan:

    Get the government out of the way.

    Quite simple, really.


    Republican candidates ALWAYS say this, but do they ever really do it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 2:38 AM GMT
    No, the Republicans want just as much to control our lives through legislation as the Nanny Democrats.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 2:42 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    BeingThePhoenix said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    Did any of them offer a plan for creating jobs, THE #1 CONCERN OF THE VOTERS ?


    Yes they did, Webster-the-Devil. It was just beyond your comprehension abilities.





    No.
    If they had, you would have provided the details of their plan.
    But, instead, you provided a stupid response.



    The plan:

    Get the government out of the way.

    Quite simple, really.


    Republican candidates ALWAYS say this, but do they ever really do it?



    It better happen soon, because without solid 5%+ growth in GDP each year for the next decade, there won't be enough money to even pay the interest on the national debt, let alone fund social security, medicare and medicaid.


    The Republicans treat the US like a hedge fund they can't wait to cash out of. They are singularly the least patriotic group in the country.
  • BeingThePhoen...

    Posts: 1157

    Jun 14, 2011 2:45 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    BeingThePhoenix said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    Did any of them offer a plan for creating jobs, THE #1 CONCERN OF THE VOTERS ?


    Yes they did, Webster-the-Devil. It was just beyond your comprehension abilities.





    No.
    If they had, you would have provided the details of their plan.
    But, instead, you provided a stupid response.



    The plan:

    Get the government out of the way.

    Quite simple, really.


    Republican candidates ALWAYS say this, but do they ever really do it?



    It better happen soon, because without solid 5%+ growth in GDP each year for the next decade, there won't be enough money to even pay the interest on the national debt, let alone fund social security, medicare and medicaid.

    Agreed. I am certainly for a much more "trim" government, but I can't remember anyone actually getting "government out of the way".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 2:55 AM GMT
    The problem with the Repubs is that they think that cutting taxes for the rich and then kicking back and allowing the free market to do whatever the hell it wants, is a responsible "economic policy".
    It's not.

    The Repubs have been implementing their "economic policy" for the last 30 years and the historical record shows that it creates unsustainable yearly budget deficits, an exploding National Debt, and recessions.
    And the only segment of society that's profitted from their "economic policy" is the richest 1-2%.

    The historical record also shows that their "economic policy" doesn't create jobs - and the main economic problem we face today is creating jobs.
    Bush who implemented their "economic policy" (aka - tax cuts for the rich) only created 3 million jobs during his 8 years in office.
    Clinton - who raised taxes on the rich - created 23 million jobs during his eight years in office.
    We need Clinton-style job creation to recreate the millions of jobs lost as a result of the Bush recession.

    And we sure as hell don't need a Repub in the White House making those failed Bush tax cuts permanent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 3:19 AM GMT
    ConfederateGhost saidNo, the Republicans want just as much to control our lives through legislation as the Nanny Democrats.


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your right and what's so dangerous about them is that they would attempt to legislate morals and christianity to bring us "back to god" if given the chance. They are playing to the far right and the TBaggers




    Also above, rickrick made some great points about what these republicans economic plans are, which is more of the same as Bush, we've had 10 years of those tax cuts and they sure as hell haven't created jobs, yet this group of repub candidates want to continue those mistakes.



    I really liked what Ron Paul said about ending these damn unecessarry wars, now and spend our money here at home. He also made a great point that all we are accomplishing is making more enemies while solving no problems.

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 14, 2011 3:31 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said
    Did any of them offer a plan for creating jobs, THE #1 CONCERN OF THE VOTERS ?


    Yes they did, Webster-the-Devil. It was just beyond your comprehension abilities.





    No.
    If they had, you would have provided the details of their plan.
    But, instead, you provided a stupid response.



    The plan:

    Get the government out of the way.

    Quite simple, really.






    Pardon me while I Google a picture of a big squawky parrot to post, here.
    "Get government out of the way" is the standard Republican answer.
    The Republicans had 6 years, controlling every branch of government. Gee, maybe that's how our economy went into the toilet.
  • okologische

    Posts: 471

    Jun 14, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    I wish there was such a thing as being socially liberal and more conservative economically.......but instead we have to pick one or the other.....#politicsblow
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 3:37 AM GMT
    It's called a "Millenial"

    notwendig72 saidI wish there was such a thing as being socially liberal and more conservative economically.......but instead we have to pick one or the other.....#politicsblow
  • okologische

    Posts: 471

    Jun 14, 2011 3:54 AM GMT
    thanks confederate ghost....hahaha but i mean that could actuallly be president....i love third parties but they just cant win
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 3:57 AM GMT
    ?

    You said you wished there was a way to be both socially progressivee and economically fiscal. It's not called Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian. It's not even a political typology. It's a new existence.

    Just call yourself a millenial.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 4:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    The Republicans treat the US like a hedge fund they can't wait to cash out of. They are singularly the least patriotic group in the country.


    Yes, and the Republicans are also not nice. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Eh... my (not) in-laws are pretty nice people.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Jun 14, 2011 5:25 AM GMT
    I actually liked the debate for what it was...

    Winners: Romney, Santorum

    Middle of the road: Cain, Pawlenty, Paul

    Losers: Bachman, Ginrich

    I put party differences aside and feel the winners gave me more of a real answer from what they reall thought than what they think people wanted to hear. Close in putting Cain there but I could definitely see a Romney/Cain(Santorum) ticket next year being a variable offensive to Obama.

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 14, 2011 5:49 AM GMT
    If Santorum is anywhere near the GOP ticket I will definitely be voting for Obama. I can't stand that man. That said, I was pleasantly surprised and appreciated the gentler tone of the GOP debate. I thought Romney was by far the most Presidential and came out of it pretty much unscathed. The surprise for me was Michelle Bachman...I thought she held her own and came off very well. Perhaps that is because expectations were not as high for her as they may have been for others. I really like Ron Paul, quirky as he is, as he says was he means, and I believe he means what he says. I would be thrilled to see Howard Cain as a V.P., but I just don't see him as the President, though I like him a lot. Gingrich, intelligent as he is, for some reason scares me. He just seems angry. Tim Pawlenty bores me to death. I hope John Huntsman does the next debate, as I think he will bring a refreshing new face to the GOP scene that is sorely needed. I too was disappointed that none of them seemed to lighten up a bit on the social issues. This is where I think John Huntsman will bring a refreshing voice to the GOP landscape.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 14, 2011 5:56 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    The Republicans treat the US like a hedge fund they can't wait to cash out of. They are singularly the least patriotic group in the country.



    You're soooooo not as intelligent as you think you are icon_rolleyes.gif Democrats are no more "patriotic" than Republicans -- they both just have different philosophies. They ALL love this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 6:08 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    The Republicans treat the US like a hedge fund they can't wait to cash out of. They are singularly the least patriotic group in the country.



    You're soooooo not as intelligent as you think you are icon_rolleyes.gif Democrats are no more "patriotic" than Republicans -- they both just have different philosophies. They ALL love this country.



    I agree with you about the fact that both parties love America.
    But couldn't you just have posted that without throwing in a lame and pointless personal attack on Christian's intelligence?
    He didn't attack you, so why do you have to attack him?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 14, 2011 6:15 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    I agree with you about the fact that both parties love America.
    But couldn't you just have posted that without throwing in a lame and pointless personal attack on Christian's intelligence?
    He didn't attack you, so why do you have to attack him?



    So let me get this straight (Wait, hold on, I'm so GAY I can't even see straight. But, I digress...LOL) So, it's okay for Christian to make a blanket statement like "Republicans are the singularly least patriotic group in the country", which is a huge insult to a very large group of people that love this country, but GOD FORBID someone calls Christian on his "Know It All" attitude???? Sorry, that wasn't a "personal attack", it was merely an observation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 14, 2011 6:27 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    rickrick91 said
    I agree with you about the fact that both parties love America.
    But couldn't you just have posted that without throwing in a lame and pointless personal attack on Christian's intelligence?
    He didn't attack you, so why do you have to attack him?



    So let me get this straight (Wait, hold on, I'm so GAY I can't even see straight. But, I digress...LOL) So, it's okay for Christian to make a blanket statement like "Republicans are the singularly least patriotic group in the country", which is a huge insult to a very large group of people that love this country, but GOD FORBID someone calls Christian on his "Know It All" attitude???? Sorry, that wasn't a "personal attack", it was merely an observation.




    Nice try - but nope.
    Christian posted his opinion, without personally attacking you.
    You posted your opinion, and launched an unprovoked personal attack on him.
    That's what happened.