2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Gavin Luper]

Here is the thing both of you may find it laughable, but that is what you get into in the realm of defining something as a Human Right, you must extend it in some way to all people and all sexualities. You may not like it, you may find it laughable, but for some people that is their life and their love.

No, the most laughable thing for the rest of us, or maybe the most devastating thing, is that you will probably never realise how offensive you are being when you compare the love between two consenting males to a man's fixation on his non-consenting toaster.

[Dark Sage]

Probably the most laughable thing about the GOP right now is how they support the current crop of clowns in the first place. Their front-runner is an admitted adulterer who has been married three times. Bill Clinton was a pariah for his philandering, and his wife is still with him.

[Gavin Luper]

Probably the most laughable thing about the GOP right now is how they support the current crop of clowns in the first place. Their front-runner is an admitted adulterer who has been married three times. Bill Clinton was a pariah for his philandering, and his wife is still with him.

They really are a mess, aren't they? It would be good to see some strong, non-fundamentalist leadership emerge but it doesn't seem likely in the near future.

[Roy Karrde]

No, the most laughable thing for the rest of us, or maybe the most devastating thing, is that you will probably never realise how offensive you are being when you compare the love between two consenting males to a man's fixation on his non-consenting toaster.

Is love not love? It seems rather bigoted to laugh at one person's love just because you do not like it. You, I, and alot of other people may think its weird, but there are people who are in utter love with objects.

The problems is you decided to make marriage a human right, at that moment you must reliably extend the human right to everyone in some form or another.

[Gavin Luper]

Is love not love? It seems rather bigoted to laugh at one person's love just because you do not like it. You, I, and alot of other people may think its weird, but there are people who are in utter love with objects.

The problems is you decided to make marriage a human right, at that moment you must reliably extend the human right to everyone in some form or another.

Marriage requires both parties to consent and say "I do". As a toaster cannot give its consent, your argument is invalid.

Again, let's disengage on the subject of marriage because we are never going to see eye to eye, obviously.

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally I am willing to allow anyone to get married to some one else in which some one can certify on a one or one basis the belief that both understand what marriage ensues. Or in terms of say marriage to a object and not a living thing, in which marriage would not physically harm the living person.

So if a man wants to marry his toaster, the sole provision should be that he doesn't stick his dick into it and electrocute himself? Am I following your brand of logic correctly?

Pretty much, as in reality there are many people out there who are in complete and utter love with objects. Hell I believe a year ago a person was married to a video game character. And in reality as A.I. evolve, such a thing would pave the way for future marriages between a A.I. character and a human.

Wow! I can marry the girl of my dreams (literally) XDDDDDDDDDD

[Asilynne]

Technically, it was an elk. But when you publically kill something that's a symbol of Christmas two weeks before the holiday, it isn't good for your PR.

Since when is an elk a symbol of Christmas? A reindeer technically isn't either, if it was a sacred Christian animal for christmastime then maybe, but really now, anyone who didn't already hate her or wasn't a PETA drone wouldn't even care if she shot an elk in christmastime or any other time :s

[Heald]

[ChobiChibi]

No, the most laughable thing for the rest of us, or maybe the most devastating thing, is that you will probably never realise how offensive you are being when you compare the love between two consenting males to a man's fixation on his non-consenting toaster.

Becki Hudd likes this

[Dark Sage]

Congratulations are in order for Rick Perry. He (and not President Obama) was awarded the "Bum Steer" award by Texas Monthly for the year's biggest gaffe.

Seems that even in Texas, people think he's a fool.

[Roy Karrde]

Congratulations are in order for Rick Perry. He (and not President Obama) was awarded the "Bum Steer" award by Texas Monthly for the year's biggest gaffe.

Seems that even in Texas, people think he's a fool.

Umm why would President Obama get a award that tends to be given to Texas Politicians/Texan related incidents?

[Dark Sage]

I believe it can be given to any politician, not just ones from Texas.

[kurai]

The final debate before Iowa caucuses on January 3rd.

Schedule: 9-11PM Eastern, Thursday December 15, 2011
Venue: Sioux City Convention Center in Sioux City, Iowa

http://live.foxnews.com

Live coverage to follow.

[Roy Karrde]

I believe it can be given to any politician, not just ones from Texas.

The list of events for last year's award were..

* The ridiculous State Board of Education, which seemed hell-bent on convincing the world that Texas is a state bored of education.

* Or the villainous BP, which took a giant leak in our Gulf and on our energy sector.

* Or the hapless Democratic Party, which couldn’t have done worse in Texas if it had renamed itself the Socialists Against Hunting Party.

* Or the listless Bill White, who put voters of all ideological persuasions to sleep with his “Look, Ma, No Excitement!” gubernatorial campaign.

* Or the shameless Rick Perry, who bravely refused to participate in a debate unless his opponent made public his eighth-grade report card

* And let’s not forget the unscrupulous Tom DeLay, convicted

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2011-01-01/feature

The year before that the award list was...

* Jerry Jones spent a billion dollars on a football stadium, but no one would pay to put their name on it.

* Tom Craddick got the boot, Boone Pickens lost some loot, and the eighty-first legislative session bore no fruit.

* Rick Perry talked about secession, while Kay Bailey Hutchison dreamed about succession.

* Tea parties were the rage, literally.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2010-01-01/feature

Yeah not only is Texas Monthly known as a fairly liberal publication, but the awards are given to Texas politicians and events.

[Dark Sage]

Okay, I looked it up, Roy.

True, it only applies to Texas. But this does not change the fact that Perry is the second governor in the history of the publication to recieve this dubious "honor".

[Roy Karrde]

Okay, I looked it up, Roy.

True, it only applies to Texas. But this does not change the fact that Perry is the second governor in the history of the publication to recieve this dubious "honor".

Not too surprising, Texas has only had 7 Governors since they started it, 4 of which were Republican Governors, so for a "Liberal Rag" as it is known in Conservative Texas politics, that isn't too big of a deal.

[kurai]

transcript

21:04:19 <~kurai> Q: Are you the one to beat Obama?
21:04:24 <~kurai> GINGRICH: Merry Christmas.

21:05:28 <~kurai> Q: Governor Romney said you're an unreliable conservative.
21:05:35 <~kurai> Do you have the discipline and focus to be president?
21:05:38 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:05:51 <~kurai> 1) Balanced budget. Welfare reform.
21:05:57 <~kurai> Tax cut.
21:06:15 <~kurai> Laughable to suggest I am not conservative.
21:06:19 <~kurai> 2)
21:06:23 <~kurai> Watch my career and decide.

21:07:01 <~kurai> Kelly Q:
21:07:17 <~kurai> Are you electable?
21:07:29 <~kurai> Will you pledge support for the nominee?
21:07:32 <~kurai> PAUL:
21:07:43 <~kurai> Anybody up here could probably beat Obama.
21:07:47 <~kurai> The challenge isn't all that great.

21:08:45 <~kurai> Kelly Q:
21:08:55 <~kurai> Why do you suck?
21:08:58 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
21:09:26 <~kurai> You can trust me.
21:10:03 <~kurai> Strength in political and personal life.
21:10:08 <~kurai> Accountability.

21:10:20 <~kurai> Wallace Q:
21:10:35 <~kurai> Support Gingrich because he will be tougher than you against Obama. Why you?
21:10:37 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:10:40 <~kurai> Let's step back.
21:11:17 <~kurai> Government doesn't create jobs. I spent my career in the private sector.
21:11:23 <~kurai> I can debate Obama based on this.

1:11:57 <~kurai> Wallace Q:
21:12:10 <~kurai> Can you appeal to independents over Obama?
21:12:13 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
21:12:43 <~kurai> In me, they may not always agree with me, but I said what I meant, and meant what I said.
21:12:47 <~kurai> I was an action person.
21:13:06 <~kurai> I spent 50 years as a real person, and now 5 years [in Congress].

21:13:17 <~kurai> Cavuto Q:
21:13:38 <~kurai> You're not a great debater. Obama is. Why don't you suck?
21:13:42 <~kurai> PERRY:
21:13:55 <~kurai> I'm getting to where I like these debates.
21:14:01 <~kurai> We'll talk out our differences, which are great.
21:14:13 <~kurai> Tim Tebow.
21:14:21 <~kurai> He doesn't have the right throwing, mechanisms.
21:14:33 <~kurai> We were the national champions in job creation back in Texas.
21:14:40 <~kurai> I hope I am the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucuses.

21:14:46 <~kurai> Q:
21:14:59 <~kurai> Can you energize the base?
21:15:01 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
21:15:07 <k0n> we getting screwed
21:15:10 <~kurai> I am the consistent conservative in this race.
21:15:16 <~kurai> I'm not going to pander, contort myself.
21:15:28 <~kurai> I'm not going to sign those silly pledges, or show up at a Donald Trump debate.
21:15:33 <~kurai> This nation has been downgraded.
21:15:43 <~kurai> We are getting screwed as Americans.
21:15:46 <~kurai> Two deficits.
21:15:49 <~kurai> Economic.
21:15:51 <~kurai> Trust.
21:16:01 <~kurai> People in this country don't trust their institutions of power any more.
21:16:05 <~kurai> Congressional term limits.
21:16:11 <~kurai> Lobbyist/congress separation.
21:16:17 <~kurai> Wall St: Banks that are too big to fail.
21:16:23 <~kurai> Fix economic + trust deficits.
21:16:35 <~kurai> We're too good as people to be in the hole we're in; we deserve better.

21:16:45 <~kurai> Q:
21:16:54 <~kurai> Threat of another shutdown. What to be done?

21:16:57 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
21:17:03 <~kurai> Go out and bring people together.
21:17:27 <~kurai> We need a president who believes in them.
21:17:34 <~kurai> Bottom-up. Free markets; free people.
21:17:35 <k0n> these talking points are getting stale
21:17:37 <~kurai> PERRY:
21:17:39 <k0n> bring me some ron paul
21:17:49 <~kurai> You would think this president would have learned how to work by now.
21:17:55 <~kurai> Executive experience needed.
21:18:04 <~kurai> Supercommittee.
21:18:15 <~kurai> what [he just fumbled his prepared remarks and implied that he sucks]
21:18:22 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:18:39 <~kurai> Respect of the legislature.
21:18:45 <~kurai> Common ground with democrats.
21:18:55 <~kurai> A leader that knows how to lead.
21:19:06 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:19:12 <~kurai> Reinforcing what Romney just said.
21:19:16 <~kurai> Salinsky radical.
21:19:21 <~kurai> The constitution can't work.
21:19:40 <~kurai> Bipartisanship.
21:19:48 <~kurai> PAUL:
21:19:54 <~kurai> Main problem is govt/debt too big.
21:20:01 <~kurai> Cut spending, get people together to do this.
21:20:05 <~kurai> lol
21:20:07 <~kurai> he is speaking at like
21:20:12 <k0n> welfare vs warfare
21:20:13 <~kurai> 180% his normal speed
21:20:16 <k0n> i know
21:20:18 <k0n> it was nuts
21:20:23 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
21:20:30 <~kurai> Call all members of congress together.
21:20:39 <~kurai> No new taxes.
21:20:40 <~kurai> TEA.
21:20:49 <~kurai> Government can not spend more than it takes in.
21:20:50 <~kurai> lol
21:20:54 <~kurai> Follow the constitution.
21:21:11 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
21:21:16 <~kurai> Leadership is action, not words.
21:21:33 <~kurai> Flat tax proposal. We got one done.
21:21:40 <~kurai> Health care reform without mandate.
21:21:47 <~kurai> I got 80% of the vote.
21:21:53 <~kurai> Lessons in leadership.

FIRST BREAK

[Roy Karrde]

D-A-M-N

The response Gingrich gave on impeaching Judges should show everyone why Obama would get his ass kicked in a debate with him. The man knows not only his history but can give DAMN good answers.

[kurai]

21:27:27 <~kurai> This section: D.C. Culture
21:27:55 <~kurai> Q: You should give back the millions of dollars you made bankrupting companies and laying off employees. Your belief in creative destruction of capitalism means you suck.
21:27:57 <~kurai> Do you suck?
21:27:59 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:28:08 <~kurai> Obama will level the same attack.
21:28:12 <~kurai> Some businesses fail.
21:28:22 <~kurai> Overall, we created jobs.
21:28:33 <~kurai> In the real world - the president hasn't lived in - not every business succeeds.
21:29:16 <~kurai> This president doesn't know how the economy works.
21:29:20 <~kurai> I've created jobs.

21:29:57 <~kurai> Q: You said you liked Freddie Mac model. Recently, you said people profiting from FM should go to jail.
21:30:02 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:30:13 <~kurai> Barney Frank was in power when he directly profited.
21:30:16 <~kurai> I was a private citizen.
21:30:26 <~kurai> You read what I said out of context.
21:30:31 <~kurai> I worked for habitat for humanity.
21:30:52 <~kurai> We should help as many Americans as possible who are capable of buying homes.

21:31:02 <~kurai> Q:
21:31:20 <~kurai> You are all over Iowa TV. You accuse Gingrich of being corrupt. What about free enterprise?
21:31:22 <~kurai> PAUL:
21:31:29 <~kurai> He has a different concept of free enterprise.
21:31:35 <~kurai> FM is a government agency.
21:31:48 <~kurai> Government sponsored is a mixture of business and government.
21:31:52 <~kurai> Some people think this leads to fascism.
21:32:05 <~kurai> Austrian School shoutout.
21:32:22 <~kurai> We indirectly bailed out Gingrich.
21:32:26 <~kurai> Not free market enterprise.
21:32:27 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:32:36 <~kurai> Government Sponsored Enterprise can do good.
21:33:03 <~kurai> The idea that anything that has ever touched government [is bad] [is wrong].

21:33:05 <~kurai> Q:
21:33:16 <~kurai> You accuse Gingrich of peddling influence to help companies he lobbied for.
21:33:26 <~kurai> Hard evidence?
21:33:28 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
21:33:34 <~kurai> We know that he cashed paychecks from FM.
21:33:38 <~kurai> $1.6 million.
21:33:46 <~kurai> He is defending the continuing practice of FM.
21:33:51 <~kurai> buffering
21:34:20 <~kurai> He was being paid to convince senior republicans to keep the scam going.
21:34:27 <~kurai> They need to be shut down.
21:34:30 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:34:34 <~kurai> That's just not true.
21:34:38 <~kurai> That's factually not true.
21:34:44 <~kurai> I never lobbied for FM.
21:34:49 <~kurai> I tried to help defeat the housing act.
21:34:59 <~kurai> While I was speaker, I never tried to slow down reform.
21:35:05 <~kurai> this seems to not be on topic
21:35:07 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
21:35:19 <~kurai> Politifact came out and said that every part of this is true
21:35:31 <~kurai> Not technical lobbying to still be peddling influence.
21:35:39 <~kurai> Aiding the scam of FM.
21:35:54 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:35:59 <~kurai> 1) My policy is to break up FM.
21:36:16 <~kurai> 2) Unequivocally, I have never changed my position because of any kind of payment.
21:36:26 <~kurai> I only chose to work with people whose values I shared.

21:36:31 <~kurai> Cavuto Q:
21:37:30 <~kurai> Gingrich, you just responded this morning: w/ Paul Ryan, Ron Wyden to find an update to medicare options. Earlier on, "right-wing social engineering". Do you have a consistency problem?
21:37:32 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:37:38 <~kurai> What can we do as a policy?
21:37:49 <~kurai> A free society should make big decisions with the support of the people.
21:38:02 <~kurai> When you're going to have a major change, you have to communicate.
21:38:19 <~kurai> Endorsed today.
21:38:32 <~kurai> [ a bipartisan plan for medicare ]
21:38:34 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:38:40 <~kurai> Today was a big day.
21:38:44 <~kurai> Spending crisis is extraordinary.
21:38:53 <~kurai> National balance sheet.
21:39:02 <~kurai> Obligations that we have no funding behind.
21:39:11 <~kurai> Today, solution:
21:39:25 <~kurai> prospect of dealing with something that had the potential to crush future generations
21:39:31 <~kurai> Bipartisan Care For Americans.

21:39:34 <~kurai> Q:
21:39:53 <~kurai> We are on the brink of another shutdown due to out of control spending. Haven't you contributed to that problem, supporting local earmarks?
21:40:10 <~kurai> You said "if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that" - a responsibility to get them money
21:40:11 <~kurai> PAUL:
21:40:20 <~kurai> It's a mixed question.
21:40:37 <~kurai> If the government takes money from you, you take your deductions.
21:40:44 <~kurai> We have every right to apply for it to come back.
21:40:48 <~kurai> Earmarks are out of control.
21:41:00 <~kurai> Executive branch slush fund.
21:41:11 <~kurai> Messed up budgeting.
21:41:21 <~kurai> I never voted for an earmark. But I do argue for those I represent.
21:41:53 <~kurai> I don't complain about earmarks. If everyone did what I did, the budget would be balanced.
21:41:57 <~kurai> Protect the process.
21:42:01 <~kurai> Responsibility of congress.
21:42:09 <~kurai> I wouldn't be looking for more power [as president].
21:42:19 <~kurai> I don't want to run the world, the economy, police individuals.
21:42:23 <~kurai> Constitution.

21:42:27 <~kurai> Q:
21:42:44 <~kurai> You said the only way to stop spending is to get congress to stop spending.
21:43:03 <~kurai> You conducted policy that led to loan bailouts. Aren't you guilty?
21:43:05 <~kurai> PERRY:
21:43:13 <~kurai> Don't believe everything you read in A-A Statesman.
21:43:20 <~kurai> Those programs worked as they were supposed to work.
21:43:23 <~kurai> Some loans will fail.
21:43:32 <~kurai> I want to go back [to an earlier question].
21:43:37 <~kurai> How do you overhaul DC?
21:44:01 <~kurai> Part-time congress. Pay in half. Time in half. Staff in half. Let them get a job like everyone else.
21:44:08 <~kurai> Balanced budget amendment.

21:44:17 <~kurai> Q: They worked 151 days.
21:44:21 <~kurai> How many?
21:44:23 <~kurai> PERRY:
21:44:28 <~kurai> 140 days every other year, like in Texas.

21:44:29 <~kurai> Q:
21:44:40 <~kurai> China tariffs on US cars.
21:44:50 <~kurai> How to respond to such a childish move?
21:44:52 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
21:44:56 <~kurai> It is complicated.
21:45:01 <~kurai> [list of stuff]
21:45:14 <~kurai> Invite a few dissidents to the US embassy.
21:45:21 <~kurai> That's what matters to the Chinese people.
21:45:28 <~kurai> Upswell of change and reform.
21:45:34 <~kurai> Long-term relationship.
21:45:37 <~kurai> Not just transactional.
21:45:39 <~kurai> Shared values.
21:45:52 <~kurai> 21st century: two relationships that matter. US. China.

21:46:04 <~kurai> Q:
21:46:20 <~kurai> Americans have capital parked overseas. Would you support a tax holiday to bring it back?
21:46:22 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
21:46:26 <~kurai> Made in the USA plan.
21:46:38 <~kurai> If overseas, it can come back at 5.5%.
21:46:45 <~kurai> 0% if invested in plant/equipment in US.
21:46:57 <~kurai> [local shoutouts]
21:47:07 <k0n> what free market.
21:47:08 <~kurai> Cut corporate tax on manufacturers to zero.
21:47:35 <~kurai> Repeal ObamaCare. Every single regulation that costs businesses money.

21:47:42 <~kurai> TWITTER Q:
21:47:55 <~kurai> Over the next 10 years, in what sector will jobs be created?
21:47:57 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:48:02 <~kurai> Free market will decide that.
21:48:06 <k0n> what free market.
21:48:33 <~kurai> I think manufacturing's going to home back.
21:48:37 <~kurai> High-tech.
21:48:41 <~kurai> Energy.
21:48:52 <~kurai> Open the energy resources: drill.
21:49:09 <~kurai> This is going to be an American century.

21:49:11 <~kurai> Kelly Q:
21:49:40 <~kurai> You have proposed to subpoena judges to testify about their decisions. Impeachment, abolishment of courts.
21:49:46 <~kurai> Alters checks and balances?
21:49:53 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:49:59 <~kurai> Courts have become dictatorial.
21:50:10 <~kurai> NEWT DOT ORG
21:50:32 <~kurai> Radically anti-American judges. One Nation Under God is wrong? They shouldn't be in the court.
21:50:58 <~kurai> Federalist Papers. [historical examples]
1:51:44 <~kurai> Jefferson quote: Supreme Court Supreme?: That would be an oligarchy.
21:51:53 <~kurai> As a historian, I may understand this better than lawyers.

21:52:04 <~kurai> Q:
21:52:39 <~kurai> 9th circuit activist court: do you agree that it should be abolished? what if democratic president aimed at right-leaning?
21:52:41 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
21:52:49 <~kurai> Are the courts following the constitution?
21:53:04 <~kurai> pres+congress taking their authority back.
21:53:16 <~kurai> Final arbiter of law as the courts? It isn't.
21:53:27 <~kurai> Founding intention of courts as the least powerful [lawmaker].
21:53:35 <~kurai> The people need to hold on to their representation.
21:53:52 <~kurai> Commend Iowans for getting rid of state sc for their stance on marriage.
21:54:02 <~kurai> Only appoint to SCOTUS based on original intent.

21:54:04 <~kurai> buffering
21:54:28 <~kurai> buffering
21:54:52 <~kurai> BUFFERING
21:54:53 <~kurai> ok

21:54:55 <~kurai> Q:
21:55:02 <~kurai> Do you agree to abolishing courts entirely?
21:55:07 <~kurai> PAUL:
21:55:18 <~kurai> Congress can get rid of misbehaving/unethical judges, the procedure is in place.
21:55:24 <~kurai> To subpoena judges is questionable.
21:55:30 <~kurai> Abolishing courts is open to retaliation.
21:55:46 <~kurai> If you just get rid of courts, that opens a can of worms.
21:56:02 <~kurai> Congress subpoenaing judges is an affront to separation of powers.

21:56:02 <~kurai> Q:
21:56:21 <~kurai> To be careful in appointments: you nominated D/I in Mass.
21:56:23 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:56:33 <~kurai> I don't get to appoint in Mass. I get to nominate.
21:56:49 <~kurai> I ensured they would follow the rule of law.
21:56:59 <~kurai> Prosecutorial experience.
21:57:11 <~kurai> Legacy of SCOTUS.
21:57:18 <~kurai> Critical importance to conservative principles.
21:57:25 <~kurai> Don't believe in congress overseeing justices.
21:57:31 <~kurai> Congress has less credibility than justices.
21:57:33 <~kurai> But
21:57:35 <~kurai> We the people.
21:57:45 <~kurai> The ability to pass new amendments, get rid of justices.

21:57:50 <~kurai> Q:
21:57:57 <~kurai> Favourite justice.
21:58:01 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
21:58:25 <~kurai> stuff about partial-birth abortion
21:58:34 <~kurai> And it's Thomas.
21:58:39 <~kurai> PERRY:
21:58:48 <~kurai> no longer having life terms
21:58:50 <k0n> they need to install zapping machines
21:58:53 <k0n> to shut them up at the bell
21:58:59 <~kurai> unaccountable legislators with robes
21:59:03 <~kurai> alito, roberts, thomas
21:59:07 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
21:59:11 <~kurai> roberts, thomas, alito, scalia
21:59:13 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
21:59:17 <~kurai> likes scalia, but all 4 also
21:59:21 <~kurai> PAUL:
21:59:25 <~kurai> they're all good, all bad
21:59:32 <~kurai> our country divided freedom a long time ago
21:59:36 <~kurai> economic/personal liberty
21:59:40 <~kurai> it's only one issue
21:59:43 <~kurai> No name.
21:59:45 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
21:59:51 <~kurai> scalia
21:59:54 <~kurai> thomas
21:59:56 <~kurai> roberts
21:59:58 <~kurai> alito
22:00:01 <~kurai> They're all marvelous.
22:00:02 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
22:00:11 <~kurai> We have rule of law = optimism for America.
22:00:15 <~kurai> Most countries don't have this.
22:00:16 <~kurai> [?]
22:00:22 <~kurai> Roberts.
22:00:23 <~kurai> Alito.
22:00:27 <k0n> lol
22:00:32 <~kurai> BREAK

[Roy Karrde]

kurai I'm not the mod here, but can you please avoid posting the chats? It doesnt really contribute to anything and is more annoying to scroll through. And its really going to be hell on cell phone browsers.

[kurai]

I'm going to go ahead and ignore you since you're "not the mod here" and it is a transcript directly on topic.

22:05:08 <~kurai> Q: Iran may be less than 1 year away from a nuclear weapon.
22:05:31 <~kurai> Left of Obama on Iran?
22:05:32 <~kurai> PAUL:
22:05:37 <~kurai> It would be a much better policy.
22:05:46 <~kurai> No UN evidence.
22:05:59 <~kurai> It's another Iraq coming.
22:06:03 <~kurai> War propaganda.
22:06:11 <~kurai> Greatest danger is overreaction.
22:06:41 <~kurai> Lessons of the Cold War.
22:06:59 <~kurai> Q: The question was based on the premise of solid evidence.
22:07:08 <~kurai> PAUL:
22:07:29 <~kurai> All they're doing is promoting their desire. Israeli Def Min said that he would want one too [if Iran].
22:07:47 <~kurai> People with nuclear weapons are treated with respect.
22:08:00 <~kurai> We don't need another war.
22:08:06 <~kurai> Q: One more time.
22:08:44 <~kurai> PAUL: "When are we, the West, going to bomb Iran"? Why wouldn't they try to send us threats?
22:08:52 <~kurai> Sanctions are an act of war.
22:09:04 <~kurai> We ought to use diplomacy.

22:09:10 <~kurai> Q:
22:09:24 <~kurai> You have a different thought. Iran as trainer of jihadists.
22:09:28 <~kurai> Are these acts of war?
22:09:31 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
22:09:37 <~kurai> They've been at war with us since 1979.
22:09:51 <~kurai> It is ruled by the equivalent of al Qaida
22:10:16 <~kurai> MAD would not work on Iran: their principle is martyrdom.
22:10:36 <~kurai> They don't hate us because of what we do.
22:10:52 <~kurai> We should use covert action, missile strikes.

22:11:07 <~kurai> Q:
22:11:28 <~kurai> We asked for our drone back. They won't. Obama as weak and timid.
22:11:34 <~kurai> Are Obama's actions inviting war?
22:11:35 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
22:11:40 <~kurai> Absolutely.
22:11:47 <~kurai> A strong America is the best ally peace has ever known.
22:12:08 <~kurai> An American Century.
22:12:14 <~kurai> Leader of the Entire Free World.
22:12:21 <~kurai> Shrink our military?!
22:12:24 <~kurai> He's wrong.
22:12:34 <~kurai> Strengthen our economy, value, families - our military.
22:12:48 <~kurai> A strong military does not create war.
22:12:55 <~kurai> A strong military prevents people from trying to test us.

22:13:06 <~kurai> Q:
22:13:20 <~kurai> Are there circumstances to send troop back into Iraq?
22:13:23 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
22:13:36 <~kurai> Obama was given victory in Iraq, but is intentionally choosing to lose the peace.
22:14:02 <~kurai> Paul has a dangerous answer for American security.
22:14:05 <~kurai> massive applause
22:14:19 <~kurai> We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will use nuclear weapons on Israel
22:14:39 <~kurai> The Iranian Constitution: Our mission is to extend jihad across the world.

22:14:47 <~kurai> PAUL:
22:15:10 <~kurai> Obviously I want nuclear weapons reduced. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims - all Muslims are the same?
22:15:21 <~kurai> They don't come here to kill us because we're prosperous.
22:15:31 <~kurai> The CIA has explained it: they want to do us harm because we're bombing them.
22:16:05 <~kurai> Wild goal of another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing.

22:16:18 <~kurai> Q:
22:16:24 <~kurai> Statehood at the UN.
22:16:29 <~kurai> Would US leave the UN?
22:16:32 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:16:35 <~kurai> Reduce our reliance on it.
22:16:48 <~kurai> Israel is being bombed.
22:17:01 <~kurai> Obama would say "maybe we could communicate more".
22:17:14 <~kurai> UN camps, that we have funded, have been training grounds for terrorism.
22:17:24 <~kurai> Terrorism Textbooks through the UN, funded by the US.

22:17:39 <~kurai> Q:
22:17:43 <~kurai> Huntsman, do you agree?
22:17:46 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
22:17:55 <~kurai> Serves a good purpose for peacekeeping.
22:18:00 <~kurai> I hate the anti-Americanism.
22:18:04 <~kurai> We need to update fp.
22:18:10 <~kurai> Cold war mindset.
22:18:17 <~kurai> Fix our core at home.
22:18:25 <~kurai> Project Values of Goodness

22:19:08 <~kurai> Q:
22:19:23 <~kurai> UN report on Syria. Thousands killed. When should US intervene?
22:19:24 <~kurai> PERRY:
22:19:30 <~kurai> I've called for a no-fly zone over Syria.
22:19:33 <~kurai> They are Iran's partner.
22:19:38 <~kurai> We have to stand firm with our ally, Israel.
22:19:43 <~kurai> No space between US and Israel.
22:19:47 <~kurai> Obama has bungled fp.
22:20:10 <~kurai> Leading from behind.
22:20:27 <~kurai> We should have destroyed or retrieved the drone.
22:20:31 <~kurai> Obama was weak and did nothing.

22:20:34 <~kurai> Cavuto Q:
22:21:01 <~kurai> Energy issues. Rejected payroll tax cut exemption to Keystone pipeline.
22:21:09 <~kurai> How to force the issue?
22:21:11 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:21:14 <~kurai> You know... Neil...
22:21:21 <~kurai> I've been standing here editing.
22:21:31 <~kurai> Concerned about not appearing zany.
22:22:24 <~kurai> Utterly irrational to say I will veto middle cut tax cut to protect left-wing environmental extremists in SF so we can be more vulnerable to Iran.
22:22:47 <~kurai> Q: You didn't answer the question.
22:22:49 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:22:55 <~kurai> They should attach it, force him to veto it.

22:23:23 <~kurai> Q:
22:23:51 <~kurai> The delay stands to threaten jobs. [up to 100,000] vs. Environmental costs. Would President Huntsman say land trumps jobs?
22:23:52 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
22:23:55 <~kurai> Balancing act.
22:23:59 <~kurai> Fuel our future.
22:24:11 <~kurai> Get rid of oil import addiction.
22:24:23 <~kurai> Relationship with Canada.
22:24:54 <~kurai> We have more natural gas than SA has oil. Convert transportation/manufacturing/power generation

22:25:14 <~kurai> Q:
22:25:33 <~kurai> If you were President, and drilling moratorium, how long is acceptable?
22:25:36 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
22:25:43 <~kurai> We needed to find out what the true cause was.
22:25:51 <~kurai> Obama jumped to conclusions.
22:25:58 <~kurai> Moratorium on accessing American oil.
22:26:06 <~kurai> Keystone is extremely important.
22:26:35 <~kurai> Radical environmentalists threatened Obama's campaign.
22:26:40 <~kurai> Campaign over jobs.
22:26:48 <~kurai> Keystone online immediately.

22:26:52 <~kurai> Q:
22:26:59 <~kurai> Special treatment of Solyndra.
22:27:25 <~kurai> As Texas gov, you have afforded the same attention to the oil industry. 2003 tax cuts to natural gas - $7 billion in tax savings.
22:27:31 <~kurai> Are you guilty of industry favoritism?
22:27:34 <~kurai> PERRY:
22:27:42 <~kurai> Today is the 220th anniversary of the signing of the bill of rights.
22:27:46 <~kurai> I like the 10th amendment.
22:27:56 <~kurai> That's how our founding fathers saw our country set up.
22:28:10 <~kurai> State-based competitive tax policy.
22:28:23 <~kurai> Wind energy also supported.
22:28:28 <~kurai> DC should not pick winners and losers.
22:28:42 <~kurai> You need 50 states competing with each other.
22:28:51 <~kurai> BREAK

[kurai]

22:34:17 <~kurai> Q: Operation fast and furious.
22:34:35 <~kurai> PERRY:
22:35:02 <~kurai> To defend America against Hamas use of Mexico, it is time for this country to have a real conversation about a new Monroe doctrine.

22:35:04 <~kurai> Q:
22:35:08 <~kurai> Same?
22:35:11 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
22:35:24 <~kurai> I would also fire AG, this shouldn't have started in the first place.
22:35:53 <~kurai> Jihadist training camps in central and South America.
22:35:59 <~kurai> This president has ignored this threat.
22:36:11 <~kurai> Obama has embraced Chavez, Ortega, others.
22:36:16 <~kurai> Promote our values and interests.
22:36:24 <~kurai> Prevent the spread of terrorism.

22:36:25 <~kurai> Q:
22:36:45 <~kurai> Illegal immigrants must return before applying for legal status - also not going to round them up. Why would they leave?
22:36:47 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
22:36:55 <~kurai> Identification cards for legal immigrants.
22:37:17 <~kurai> The employer must check the validity.
22:37:32 <~kurai> Corporate sanctions for not checking.
22:37:52 <~kurai> People who come here illegally, you must get to the back of the line.
22:37:57 <~kurai> I want those who want to come here legally.

22:38:01 <~kurai> Q:
22:38:04 <~kurai> Is that realistic?
22:38:06 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:38:39 <~kurai> Once you have something like e-verify working, you have something. Someone who has been here a long time ought to have some kind of citizenship certification.
22:38:50 <~kurai> I would propose cutting off federal aid to any sanctuary city.
22:38:56 <~kurai> Complete & Control the Border.
22:39:04 <~kurai> Fundamental change in behavior.

22:39:07 <~kurai> Q:
22:39:20 <~kurai> A recent poll showed 66% support path to citizenship for illegals.
22:39:31 <~kurai> Moderate approach needed to defeat Obama?
22:39:32 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
22:39:35 <~kurai> Speak based on values.
22:39:39 <~kurai> Pro-growth. Limited government.
22:39:44 <~kurai> You don't need to pander.
22:39:58 <~kurai> This president has so screwed up this economy, there's nobody coming any more.
22:40:04 <~kurai> Lowest in four decades.
22:40:14 <~kurai> Deal with the people here, but legal immigration is an engine of growth.
22:40:21 <~kurai> Half of Fortune 500 founded by immigrants.
22:40:44 <~kurai> Look at DHS. Remake border crossing/immigration. An economic opportunity.

22:40:45 <~kurai> Q:
22:41:11 <~kurai> You have changed your position on abortion, gay rights, guns. Are you principled?
22:41:13 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
22:41:18 <~kurai> I take exception to your list.
22:41:33 <~kurai> I am firmly in support of non-discrimination against homosexuals. But not supporting gay marriage.
22:42:14 <~kurai> In Mass, I'm going to keep pro-choice laws in effect. I could not sign on to human embryo experimentation expansion. Firmly pro-life.
22:42:20 <~kurai> Sometimes I'm wrong.
22:42:39 <~kurai> Always supported the second amendment.
22:43:34 <~kurai> Q: In 1994, you supported AWB, 5 day waiting period. Also in 2004.
22:43:36 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
22:43:44 <~kurai> I do not believe in discriminating based on sexual orientation.
22:44:17 <~kurai> In 1994, and throughout, I oppose same-sex marriage.
22:44:23 <~kurai> Protect sanctity of marriage, of life.

22:44:37 <~kurai> Q: Santorum, you have campaigned on social issues. What of Romney?
22:44:41 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
22:45:34 <~kurai> In Mass: Only the Gov., legislature can change marriage laws. Romney chose to go with the court, ordered people to give gay marriage licences. He personally did so.
22:45:44 <~kurai> I've had a strong, consistent track record.
22:45:52 <~kurai> We're talking about the basic values of our country.
22:46:00 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
22:46:04 <~kurai> That's a novel view.
22:46:34 <~kurai> The supreme court determined that ssm was required. Not up to me to make a choice - I led the effort for constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman in Mass.
22:46:52 <~kurai> Champion of protecting traditional marriage.

22:47:11 <~kurai> Q: You criticize Gingrich's view on life.
22:47:14 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
22:47:22 <~kurai> The republican party can't get the issue of life wrong.
22:47:26 <~kurai> It's that crucial to our party.
22:47:38 <~kurai> Gingrich had the opportunity to defund PP - but he did not take it.
22:47:57 <~kurai> He would campaign for republicans who were in support of partial-birth abortion.
22:48:05 <~kurai> Is it a virtue to tolerate infanticide?
22:48:20 <~kurai> As president, I will be 100% pro-life, from conception to natural death.
22:48:22 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:49:03 <~kurai> Sometimes, Bachmann doesn't get her facts very accurate. I had a 98.5% voting record for right-to-life. The only issue was not liking my first welfare reform - which is the only thing in 20 years (and it didn't even have anything).
22:49:14 <~kurai> I believe life begins at conception, against embryo experimentation.
22:49:15 <~kurai> Q:
22:49:24 <~kurai> or not
22:49:26 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
22:49:42 <~kurai> This isn't just once. It is outrageous to say that I don't have my facts right. I'm a serious candidate.
22:49:58 <~kurai> Gingrich said he would actively support republicans who supported pba.
22:50:13 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:50:21 <~kurai> I wouldn't go out and try to purge republicans.
22:50:26 <~kurai> That's no way to run the country.

22:52:02 <~kurai> Q: We're running out of time.
22:52:12 <~kurai> Reagan's 11th commandment. No speaking ill of another R.
22:52:26 <~kurai> How to balance winning the nomination without weakening the eventual nominee?
22:52:28 <~kurai> SANTORUM:
22:52:33 <~kurai> Responsibility to vet the candidates.
22:53:05 <~kurai> Ability to fight the good fight.
22:53:06 <~kurai> PERRY:
22:53:14 <~kurai> I think it was the chairman who said that.
22:53:29 <~kurai> NFL player said: if you don't get your tail kicked every now and then, you're not playing at a high enough level
22:53:31 <~kurai> Thank you all.
22:53:33 <~kurai> ROMNEY:
22:53:35 <~kurai> We can handle it.
22:53:43 <~kurai> Nothing has been said that won't be heard from Obama.
22:54:03 <~kurai> Every day, remember that time and time again, it's president Obama we must talk about.
22:54:05 <~kurai> GINGRICH:
22:54:18 <~kurai> It's clear that I operate on the basis of talking about big solutions.
22:54:23 <~kurai> Correct errors about me.
22:54:35 <~kurai> These are all friends of mine: any of them better than Obama.
22:54:38 <~kurai> Beating him is our goal.
22:54:40 <~kurai> PAUL:
22:55:06 <~kurai> The media has a responsibility and we have a responsibility - maybe the media has messed up, we have had to do more in these debates.
22:55:17 <~kurai> Some things are below the belt - demagougery.
22:55:23 <~kurai> We should expose problems.
22:55:26 <~kurai> BACHMANN:
22:55:38 <~kurai> Reagan famously asked if we were better off today than before 4 years of Carter.
22:55:44 <~kurai> Today, the same condition wrt Obama.
22:55:51 <~kurai> Who will continue the Reagan legacy?
22:55:56 <~kurai> I think I will be the best one to do that.
22:55:58 <~kurai> HUNTSMAN:
22:56:00 <~kurai> I worked for Reagan.
22:56:05 <~kurai> He would say debate is good.
22:56:12 <~kurai> Rigorous debate will lead to greater trust.
22:56:32 <~kurai> This kind of debate will elevate the trust in whoever ends up as the nominee.
22:56:33 <~kurai> END

[kurai]

What sorts of first impressions can we draw from this debate?

Romney and Gingrich are clearly playing the centre role - high frequency of discussions about them from the moderating team, high criticism of their remarks by other candidates. It is difficult to speculate whether people will buy their explanations on bipartisanship or take a hard-line against them. Gingrich was able to present himself as a serious, knowledgeable leader with proven policy victories in the past. Romney, in turn, provided his private sector experience in contrast to Obama, while defending his ability for negotiating with the Democratic party.

Bachmann openly presented her case for sincere and serious consideration of her candidacy, lamenting the dismissal of her factual criticism of the other candidates. At the same time, this appears to be a strategy only applicable to someone approaching from the rear of the pack. She served well in criticizing Gingrich's pro-life credentials and his association with FM influence - but this is not enough to present yourself as a contender for the top.

In this debate, it seems that Santorum pulled back a lot from his usual reliance on citing his experience, instead using his participation in local Iowa townhalls to buttress his potential. He presented his social credentials, but not much else (he seems to have strange and dangerous opinions on Iran?).

Similarly, Perry has moved towards using down-country charm and blue-collar references (and direct criticism of Obama) to remain in the game. A lot of Perry's time was spent defending his policies in Texas - but this was largely as a result of moderator dialogue, rather than defending the centre position, which does not seem promising.

Ron Paul. He was ignored for essentially the second half of the debate. Nothing said between 22:15 and 22:55. He was able to present his foreign policy platform - it seems to be strong, but readily divisive based on audience reaction. It may be problematic that his approach appears to be more geared to a presidential campaign than a primary competition (in which he can be sniped at for failing to live up to 'American values'). His criticism of Gingrich was devastating. Paul seems to be a wildcard third-place contender: will the time spent attacking Romney and Gingrich open a door for serious attention over the long run?

If Huntsman does not increase his polling numbers beyond the 2-3% cap, he is rapidly going to fall into the 'running for VP' category. He does not attack other candidates, but presents a rational and academic stance to every question - he has the credentials and ability to reach the top, but the time is not yet right.

[tron]

If Huntsman does not increase his polling numbers beyond the 2-3% cap, he is rapidly going to fall into the 'running for VP' category. He does not attack other candidates, but presents a rational and academic stance to every question - he has the credentials and ability to reach the top, but the time is not yet right.

I think in a general election Huntsman could take down Obama. He doesn't drive off moderate voters like the further right candidates do and could appeal to moderates who aren't happy with Obama. Unfortunately I don't think he stands a chance for the nomination against these other numb skulls because he isn't radical. People who attend debates and primary voters tend to be to the far end of the spectrum and will select who they think is the best REPUBLICAN rather than who can win a general election.

[kon]

Ron Paul 2012

Too bad they shut him off after Bachmann pissed him off about Iran

Ron Paul 2012

[Eusine]

Being from Canada, I do not follow the U.S. Republican leadership race often. But from what little I have seen from coverage thanks to kurai and others, I can safely say that America is in trouble if it elects a Republican president, the degree of the trouble only depends on which one is elected.

If I had to choose, I would say Ron Paul seems the best one of this sour bunch of candidates. He at least has some solutions that could be implemented instead of just pandering to corporate and special interests like the others.

Also, off-topic, but it's good to be back again, though I can't use my old account, sadly.

[DarkestLight]

o.O This convo jumped from marriage to the debates. Yo I'm really tired of everyone saying Newt will kill Obama in debates. Seriously? Newt's been around for over 30 years, and he STILL has done nothing to actually prove ANY of his FDR praiseworthy speeches?

Yo you know what....what has Newt DONE in his career? He's been in politics for like 40 years. I know he balanced the budget in like 97 or some shit. I know he was the Speaker of the House and was around for what...3 presidents pre Obama (Reagan, First Bush..Clinton..right) ...

OK, take it back, he's done a bit of stuff. Fine. Ignorance on my part. New point. If he really thinks he can make a difference, then DON'T become the President :O Become the person that helps to pass the bills that helps the reform this nation needs. :/

He did good then, and I honestly don't think Obama would think it bad, but they'd probably would work better together than apart....:/ But there's just too much weird "OMG I NEED TO BE THE PRESIDENT TO GET THIS SHIT DONE". Conversely, Obreezy's agenda is taking too long for the common person because everything happens in 4 years [/sarcasm]. I honestly think that the American people are so wound up in a sense of entitlement that no one is ever going to get it right.

Cause no matter what...you don't finish growing until you finish GROWING. Same with the nation. You don't fix a nation until it moves in a direction to be fixed. We moved in a direction,and now everyone wants to stop and go in a different way when we haven't even seen what the hell can happen-cause people assume its gonna end bad. It might. But we'll never know because people are effing scared to go all the way.

We're so damned eager for immediate results (thank you better technology) that we forget that time is needed for these things to take effect. Now its hard to think of a year out. Back in 97, I could DREAM about 99. Now I'm like "FUCK WHERES Friday!" :/ The whole "trouble in the nation" is the same way. Balance the budget need to happen in seconds or the Govt will SHUT DOWN OMFG. I've heard that term more times this year than I have lost skin cells :/

Tossout: The DoucheyMcDoucheBaggerson that's the Speaker of the House now, OMFG I wanna punch him in the throat cause he SOUNDS unintelligent.

Side question: Roy-opinion on Rush Limbaugh? Like/Dislike, and why?

If this post made no sense I apologize. I'm in a wired mood and I just typed my thoughts out in a row as they came out of my head.

[tron]

o.O This convo jumped from marriage to the debates. Yo I'm really tired of everyone saying Newt will kill Obama in debates. Seriously? Newt's been around for over 30 years, and he STILL has done nothing to actually prove ANY of his FDR praiseworthy speeches?

I would be very interested in seeing debates between Newt and Obama. Newt is considered the "idea guy" of the Republican party, and he is generally regarded as brilliant to the GOP establishment. However people seems to forget that one of the biggest factor in Obama winning the 2008 election was because he is a fantastic, if not amazing, public speaker. I doubt he would just roll over to Newt in any debate.

[Roy Karrde]

o.O This convo jumped from marriage to the debates. Yo I'm really tired of everyone saying Newt will kill Obama in debates. Seriously? Newt's been around for over 30 years, and he STILL has done nothing to actually prove ANY of his FDR praiseworthy speeches?

Yo you know what....what has Newt DONE in his career? He's been in politics for like 40 years. I know he balanced the budget in like 97 or some shit. I know he was the Speaker of the House and was around for what...3 presidents pre Obama (Reagan, First Bush..Clinton..right) ...

Lets see took part in the Republican revolution, and was a key part in it in 1994. Brought about Contract With America and got it passed. Brought about not only a Balanced Budget, but actually a surplus. Brought about the first real Entitlement reform and got it passed a Democratic President. That is some pretty heavy stuff.

OK, take it back, he's done a bit of stuff. Fine. Ignorance on my part. New point. If he really thinks he can make a difference, then DON'T become the President :O Become the person that helps to pass the bills that helps the reform this nation needs. :/

He did good then, and I honestly don't think Obama would think it bad, but they'd probably would work better together than apart....:/ But there's just too much weird "OMG I NEED TO BE THE PRESIDENT TO GET THIS SHIT DONE". Conversely, Obreezy's agenda is taking too long for the common person because everything happens in 4 years [/sarcasm]. I honestly think that the American people are so wound up in a sense of entitlement that no one is ever going to get it right.

It doesn't help that Obama ran a campaign of bringing Hope and Change to the White House. He in reality has done neither. If people are fed up with how long everything is taking, then maybe we should start by looking at the idiot who raised everyone's expectations in the first place.

Cause no matter what...you don't finish growing until you finish GROWING. Same with the nation. You don't fix a nation until it moves in a direction to be fixed. We moved in a direction,and now everyone wants to stop and go in a different way when we haven't even seen what the hell can happen-cause people assume its gonna end bad. It might. But we'll never know because people are effing scared to go all the way.

We're so damned eager for immediate results (thank you better technology) that we forget that time is needed for these things to take effect. Now its hard to think of a year out. Back in 97, I could DREAM about 99. Now I'm like "FUCK WHERES Friday!" :/ The whole "trouble in the nation" is the same way. Balance the budget need to happen in seconds or the Govt will SHUT DOWN OMFG. I've heard that term more times this year than I have lost skin cells :/

We have around 9% unemployment, with far larger underemployment, a deficit that is spiraling out of control, and a foreign policy that is quickly alleinating our few allies left. The direction we are moving in, is one of utter failure.

Side question: Roy-opinion on Rush Limbaugh? Like/Dislike, and why?

Can't stand him or Hannity, I can appreciate what they did with Talk Radio, and how popular they have made it. But I cannot stand his style, or some of his insane views. Only time I even listen to Rush is when they have Mark Davis on, who is the only real Conservative Radio Host I even listen to.

I would be very interested in seeing debates between Newt and Obama. Newt is considered the "idea guy" of the Republican party, and he is generally regarded as brilliant to the GOP establishment. However people seems to forget that one of the biggest factor in Obama winning the 2008 election was because he is a fantastic, if not amazing, public speaker. I doubt he would just roll over to Newt in any debate.

You kind of answered your own question, he is a fantastic if not amazing public speaker. In other words he can deliver words written by some one else in a amazing manner. When he has to think on his feet, he tends to deliver alot of "umms" and goes off on wild tangents.

Team Obama in 2008 did not turn down McCain's offer for numerous debates around the country because they thought him being a great public speaker would win him the debates. They turned it down because when he doesn't have the words written out infront of him, he has problems.

[DarkestLight]

We have around 9% unemployment, with far larger underemployment, a deficit that is spiraling out of control, and a foreign policy that is quickly alleinating our few allies left. The direction we are moving in, is one of utter failure.<----

Quick note. Don't you think in the History of America, that this current scenario should have happened more than once before? I mean, in a grander scheme, isn't what we do in a political sense always going to lead to this turn of events that spirals a nation out of power, just becasue of teh sense of ebb and flow that is part of any government.

Europes debt crisis is horrid IIRC, and they dont have repubs and Dems, but they have political parties and its just a hot mess over there. Fact is, no matter who you elect, this had been a problem created by men from both sides of the cloth, pre 97 :/ That surplus budget was in fact due to a bit of dealings that inevitably led to where we are now :/ This is why I can't honestly vote based on reform ideas.....they don't have a true clue what their actions will do.

[Roy Karrde]

Quick note. Don't you think in the History of America, that this current scenario should have happened more than once before? I mean, in a grander scheme, isn't what we do in a political sense always going to lead to this turn of events that spirals a nation out of power, just becasue of teh sense of ebb and flow that is part of any government.

We had it in the late 1970s, and in turn Carter ( Who gets compared to Obama alot ) was replaced by Reagan, who basically brought us back from a terrible economy. Right now I think the job creators are so upset with Obama, it will take a change in the Presidency to bring about confidence in America.

Europes debt crisis is horrid IIRC, and they dont have repubs and Dems, but they have political parties and its just a hot mess over there. Fact is, no matter who you elect, this had been a problem created by men from both sides of the cloth, pre 97 :/ That surplus budget was in fact due to a bit of dealings that inevitably led to where we are now :/ This is why I can't honestly vote based on reform ideas.....they don't have a true clue what their actions will do.

I wouldn't say the Surplus budget led to the problems now, as the problems now are created by a Democratic Congress that spent heavily in the latter half of the 2000s, a Republican President who took us to two wars with out paying for it. Entitlements that are spiraling out of control. And money thrown at the economy to try to bail it out.

Most of those things were started in around 2002 and onward.

Now yes Europe has a horrible debt crisis, partly because they are further down the Entitlement slope of death than we are. But who ever is elected President is going to have to deal with those Entitlements and soon, or we will be having many of Europe's problems.

[tron]

Now yes Europe has a horrible debt crisis, partly because they are further down the Entitlement slope of death than we are. But who ever is elected President is going to have to deal with those Entitlements and soon, or we will be having many of Europe's problems.

People have been saying entitlements need reform for years and nothing gets done about it. Whoever gets elected will just kick the can down the road just like everyone before him. And if anyone, Republican or Democrat, tries to put forth a solution it will just get blocked by opposition in the house or senate.

[Roy Karrde]

People have been saying entitlements need reform for years and nothing gets done about it. Whoever gets elected will just kick the can down the road just like everyone before him. And if anyone, Republican or Democrat, tries to put forth a solution it will just get blocked by opposition in the house or senate.

Thing is President Obama could have passed major reform in the first year of his Presidency, but instead he went after a failure of a Health Care Reform plan that will probably be overturned as unconstitutional.

And really with the spiraling cost of Entitlements, it will have to be dealt with soon, and I would say one of the best candidates to bring about the reform, is the guy who passed reform back in the 90s.

[Dark Sage]

Something I just read in the news makes me downright angry.

Newt Gingrich has just signed a contentious anti-gay marriage pledge, in which he promises that, if he becomes President, he will opppose gay marriage and push for the support of an Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In other words, he wants to defend the sacred bond of traditional marriage.

Quite an interesting stance, giving that he is a three-time adulterer who has been divorced twice. Taking such a stance makes him...

...well, I'll come right out and say it. It makes him a hypocite.

I dare anyone to deny it.

[Roy Karrde]

Something I just read in the news makes me downright angry.

Newt Gingrich has just signed a contentious anti-gay marriage pledge, in which he promises that, if he becomes President, he will opppose gay marriage and push for the support of an Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In other words, he wants to defend the sacred bond of traditional marriage.

Quite an interesting stance, giving that he is a three-time adulterer who has been divorced twice. Taking such a stance makes him...

...well, I'll come right out and say it. It makes him a hypocite.

I dare anyone to deny it.

I don't think anyone cares, if 2008 showed us anything it is that past history does not matter to the voters. I mean we elected a President who was friends with a known terrorist and a slum lord. Place that against a man who has had three marriages and there is really no comparison.

People want ideas on how to get us out of this economic malaise that we are stuck in, not innocuous crap about some one's personal history.

[Dark Sage]

Roy... Don't tell me you actually believe the idiotic things people have accused Mr. Obama of?

I suppose you believe the whole "birther" crap too?

Edit: I notice you didn't deny that he was a hypocrite.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy... Don't tell me you actually believe the idiotic things people have accused Mr. Obama of?

I suppose you believe the whole "birther" crap too?

I believe in facts, in that case I do not believe the Birther crap, I do believe he had past connections with Tony Resco and Bill Ayres as both have admitted to it.

Edit: I notice you didn't deny that he was a hypocrite.

If we start calling politicians hypocrites then we pretty much have to label all of them hypocrites.

[Dark Sage]

Yes, he had past connections with two crooks.

By the same reasoning, can we say every single person in every government in the Middle East who had past connections with Osama Bin Laden guilty of crimes against humanty? I ask because there were a lot of them before he became the mastermind of 9/11.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, he had past connections with two crooks.

By the same reasoning, can we say every single person in every government in the Middle East who had past connections with Osama Bin Laden guilty of crimes against humanty? I ask because there were a lot of them before he became the mastermind of 9/11.

Every single person in every government in the Middle East? Now if those people had connections with Bin Laden after he became a terrorist such as Obama knowingly became connected with Ayres after he become a terrorist, I would say those people are connected with terrorist, not guilty of crimes against humanity as that seems to be a stretch. Not to mention I am not saying Obama is now guilty of crimes against humanity for his connection, that is silly. Just saying that no one cares about his past connections.

[Dark Sage]

You misquoted me. I didn't say every single person in every government in the Middle East.

I said every one who had past connections with Bin Laden.

Should we judge a man by the company he keeps? Maybe sometimes, but not always. I had a friend in high school who ceased being a friend in my senior year. He's in prison now, doing time for rape and aggrivated assault. Does that make me a bad person because I used to know him? I don't think so.