CNN/Youtube Republican Debate

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 3:26 AM GMT
    Did anyone watch the CON$ervative governMENt backers debate? I thought they looked like a bunch of fools, nobody with substance, and the audience was hooing, and booing. The whole thing was outta control and looked like a circus show.

    The scary thing is Mitt Romney is a persuasive speaker.

    What did y'all think of the gay service member of the U.S. military? I thought that was great.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 3:54 AM GMT
    I was disappointed as well. I think Ron Paul has a lot of substance, just didn’t get the screen time. Others were minimized as well; mainstream media has picked the nations front-runners for us. I am not going to preach RP's message, he does that best himself, so I suggest looking him up. He doesn’t look at groups, he looks at individuals. I love it.

    Check out the following:

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDlO2Lr_cg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 4:01 AM GMT
    Personally I'm tired of hearing Rudy use NY or 9/11 in every response.

    Mitt is persuasive but overall I think Huckabee stole the "show."

    Ron Paul could be a strong contender but he needs to be a better speaker along w/ tackling topics more effectively.

    Mccain was someone 3-4 years ago I really was looking at but now I think he's lost any appeal I had.

    The others really didn't do anything for me to remember their stances.

    I consider myself down the middle but this year I really don't feel like people are putting their foot down and saying Yes or No to a specific issue.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 29, 2007 2:12 PM GMT
    I watched a little of it as I always do with anything that is political. Of course I was uninspired.

    I heard the gay military member was a plant from the Hillary Clinton campaign, then heard he just went and wanted to ask a question. I think it was great he was there. I about barfed with all the NRA questions.

    For me, the republican race is the "secondary" race
    anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 4:31 PM GMT
    So,

    Rudy can't win the first three primaries which are vital. An untraditional strategy.

    He doesn't hate DA GAYZ ZOMG!

    He is pro-choice

    And now he favorers a written component of getting a gun?

    So he has alienated the religious right and the NRA crowd, the two largest components of Republicans who would vote in a primary. He sounds like a non-candidate to me.

    Mitt Romney is a clown and has no idea what he is talking about. He has a team of advisers who feed him his information and can't say something intelligent on his own. For example, his social security plan is for private accounts. But he says he does not support privatization... wha?

    With Huckabee pulling ahead of Romeny in Iowa polls and Rudy lagging behind in early states it is going to be an interesting race.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 5:17 PM GMT
    Very sad the debate gives a focus to people who don't deserve any title.

    Same on both sides, the two best candidates for either party never get much in the way of mainstream media time.

    Fox News and the others have more power than most people in Washington. Its these media outlets who shape the news so that the ignorant masses vote along the lines the networks want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 5:49 PM GMT
    I agree HndsmKansan all the talk about the NRA and guns was disturbing. The man tossing a rifle to another guy in a youtube video, and Duncan Hunter and his talks about his love for guns and hunting made me think that we really are 2 Americas. Sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 29, 2007 6:04 PM GMT
    About Romney, I think that even in the Massachusetts Republican Primary, he'll come in behind other candidates. We've seen him in action and don't want to subject that to the rest of the country. I even saw in the paper this morning that there's a group of Mass. Republicans who are going across the country on a "truth" mission to tell about how bad Romney is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 3:57 AM GMT
    Well what worries me is his lead in the early states like Iowa and NH.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 4:03 AM GMT
    IMHO, Guiliani is the only Repub. that has a chance in the election this year...and it doesnt look like he will be nominated.

    If the Repugnicans nominate Huckabee, they will certainly lose. People are sick of religion in politics. It's the independents that make or break an election and religion/right wing is soooooo out now.

    Personally, I want Gore. I hope he gets drafted at the convention. If it is Hillary, I will support her, but it will just make the election uglier. Gore would be shoo-in and the world would welcome him and bend over backwards to make him a success.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 4:11 AM GMT
    Gore would make a good running mate for Hillary. He could say he's using the office to help further his goals of environmental awareness.

    Not that painting a communist green makes her any better to me....
    ad37_1.JPG

  • joggerva

    Posts: 731

    Nov 30, 2007 4:40 AM GMT
    Haha, another Clinton/Gore ticket, that'd be interesting.

    Oh, and please try not to quote politicians without considering the context of the quote...Clinton's quote about the common good was taken from a discussion with a group of wealthy Democrats while she was explaining that the Dems would like to repeal Bush tax cuts that the Dems felt favored the wealthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 5:15 AM GMT
    I just want to agree that is sucked that Ron Paul was not given much time to talk.

    Not only that! But WTF about mccain there! It infuriated me that he even said that stuff to RP (About isolationism), and you could see RP fuming.

    And Huckabee's dodge of what would Jesus do infuriated me. What a total douche.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 5:23 AM GMT
    Hillary is a COMMUNIST? What is this, 1954? THERE ARE NO COMMUNISTS ANYMORE.

    Jeez, this is all the right wing-o-sphere can come up with? A slur that was lame when your granddaddy was a pup?

    And the reason Ron Paul didn't get more airtime is that the other candidates weren't allowed to put on their tinfoil hats.
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Nov 30, 2007 6:01 AM GMT
    Of course they're not going to let Ron Paul speak. If he had a hot wife, he would be the Republican Dennis Kucinich -- short, scrappy, no-chance-n-hell-of-winning-his-party's nomination, but full of admirable ideas that sound both a little crazy and make a little sense at the same time. BRAINSTORM: how about a Kucinich/Paul 08 ticket.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 6:03 AM GMT
    Better men in tinfoil hats than women who take free money from crooks and change their polices with the wind.

    Perhaps communists was a rough term. Would modern socialist work for you better? Perhaps you have another term for taking away our right to choose and violating the constitution to take away from everyone and use it for universal healthcare and 401K's?

    I guess it would depend on your view on the use of taxes. Personally I'd rather stick to original intent and see taxes used for powers directly listed, not whatever the whims of the current executive leader wants.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 7:07 AM GMT
    Alright Trance, then we'll just get rid of the education department, the various transportation departments, the EPA, the National Parks, the FAA...well hell, let's just go back to how it was before the Great Depression where the government spends just enough money for the national defense, and then let money concentrate in the hands of the wealthiest few while the rest suffer. I mean, that was such a great time in American history, right? I mean, we were "following the Constitution," right?

    We'll just ignore that 16th Amendment to the Constitution that allows for government to levy income taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 1:36 PM GMT
    We would also have to get rid of the Police dept, Fire dept, and libraries.

    Socialism = good + fair.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 4:14 PM GMT
    The 16th amendment violated the principles of the founders. The fed wasn't intended to just willy nilly spend money as it pleases on whatever the popular topic of the day is.

    I'm not going to begin on the corruption problems the EPA has had the last decade or so. Nobody's getting rid of national parks, they just become state parks, because its within the powers of the state to declare and maintain land for recreation and tourism.

    Education, and the EPA are all examples of agency's where the power should reside in the states. Individual states know what is best for their state, not a one size fits all from Washington. Because after all, No Child Left Behind has been such a smashing national success hasn't it?

    Do you know the mission statement for the NSA? Nope, because its a national secret. I don't support the NSA or CIA or any agency above oversight and kept secret for national security. The power here belongs within the US military, fully answerable to congress.

    Its all about reduction of power. I for one am not supporting a nanny state that cradles you from birth to grave. This is a country founded on socially responsible citizens, but you would rather just give it all up and let the big fed control your lives.

    Socialism = citizens who just hand off responsibility for their own lives to the power on high.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 5:03 PM GMT
    You cannot use No Child Left Behind as an argument against socialism. It was Bush pushed republican idea which leaves EVERY child behind. No Child Left Behind should be abolished and we should have some serious education reform in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 5:11 PM GMT
    hippie4lyfeI thought they looked like a bunch of fools, nobody with substance, and the audience was hooing, and booing. The whole thing was outta control and looked like a circus show.


    Really? I thought they just looked like Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 5:11 PM GMT
    No Child Left Behind illustrates the problem with national education.

    Rather than letting the states and the teachers in each state determine their own education policy we have a group of fools determining policy for the whole nation.

    edit:

    On blame, I blame the president as well as those who voted to approve the bill:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) - 12/18/2001 No Child Left Behind Act - Yes


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 5:17 PM GMT
    wut do u men? r kids r growng up smart! thay r the best n the werld!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 6:16 PM GMT
    States' Rights? Easy for you to say, Trance. You live in Connecticut, who'll watch your back on your rights.

    Try living in Texas (or Idaho, or South Carolina, or Alabama) and see how States' Rights work out for you.

    Stop being so selfish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2007 6:23 PM GMT
    I agree with RuggerATX, I am not for a big brother establishment by any means. But we do have a federal government and it should be there to protect us.

    If we go solely based on states rights. Sodomy would be still be illegal in likely 30+ states. I'm sure most of you enjoy your sodomy very much, so that would be a good thing for states not to decide LOL.