Ron Paul may emerge a winner. Bachmann will be eliminated tonight and Romney seems fake to me so he won't gain any traction at all. Perry sounds too much like Bush so as soon as opens his mouth he has lost the general election. He may gain Republican voters but he will lose the general. Huntsman may be the sleeper. Isn't he debating tonight?
I think you're dead right. If Paul is in full attack mode, he'll destroy Perry and expose him as a dependent of the Federal government. He'll attack Romney on health care and paint him as a closet socialist.
Paul is folksy, he is NOT a Wall Street type, he has what might be termed "isolationist" views, and in the main, has been true to his principles. No flip-flopping for this guy, where both Perry and Romney change their tunes faster than a juke box.
If Paul performs well, the media almost certainly must acknowledge the fact that he is a major player who appeals to the G.O.P.
I love the way you Liberals think you know everything about the Republican electorate. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell. Perry is not trying to win over Democrat votes. He needs to win the primary first and worry about the general later. If Perry can maintain a hold on the base and win maybe 1/3 of the so-called Independents in the general, he will win. Obama is in over his head and frankly I believe deep down he really wants to get the hell out of D.C. The only reason he is running again is out of an obligation to the powers that he owes for being there in the first place. Those high rollers that put him in that position hasn't received the total payout yet.
You can believe what you want but this is just politics and they all are politicians.
Paul has preformed quite well before, the media will NEVER acknowledge Ron Paul, Paul is not a beltway a$$ kissing corporate owned swine, which is a requirement for the corporate owned media's acknowledgement.
Red meat lovers, corporations, the wealthy will have enough to be happy for tonight. As usual, expect Ron Paul to lay it straight but that would not endear him to GOP/TP. The don't like it straight, the truth.
Interesting speculation about President Obama's enthusiasm for the coming campaign.
I don't get the impression that being POTUS is as much fun as he thought it'd be.
Also, the way the economy is shaping up, the only way he can possibly be reelected is by running the most negative campaign imaginable to demonize his eventual GOP opponent...a campaign that's the polar opposite of the 2008 "Hope And Change" theme.
No rainbows and unicorns from Axelrod and Plouffe for the Obama 2012 effort.
There aren't likely to be many adoring Will i am campaign videos complete with messianic "Oh-Ba-Ma" chanting by empty-headed actors and musicians...we're past that sort of nonsense, aren't we?
This time around, we all actually know what the reality of an Obama Presidency looks like.
Obama wins even at the stagnant state of things in the country. sooner or later, GOP would elect someone and the difference in which direction the country goes would be more highlighted. The GOP crop has not shown anything that would make your head swell and look at Obama as finished. The problem is what they're offering.......the same old Tax cut and what's not.......Europeans countries that adopted austerity measures are beginning to doubt if it's a better solution. The electorate is more aware now than ever. Your going to go out and prove to them that Govt. is bad for them but good for the corporations and rich.
In no way did I intend to imply that President Obama cannot be reelected.
When you have somewhere around $1 billion to spend on negative campaign ads (Obama's job performance rules out a "Morning In America" type of effort, doesn't it?), you've got a fighting chance to win.
But this will be very, very different from 2008.
Much darker, and very, very downbeat in tone.
We'll see whether Obama warms to this sort of a campaign.
Mitt Romney has the answers, the expertise, the leadership and the wisdom to lead our country back to excellence in all areas like it once enjoyed. Mitt truly loves this country and would never do anything other than build it up and every decision he will make will be for the country's benefit. Rick Perry is a fake in everything. His mouth utters what conservatives want to hear but his heart is all about greed and personal ambition. He is a hypocrite, a globalist, a progressive, and a liar. The only one he is just slightly better than would be Obama, but that is just because he is not smart enough to do the damage Obama is capable of.
I agree that Obama may not have the fight in him to run a strong re-election campaign. He is rolling over so often these days, I just don't see it.
While he does, in fact, still owe the powers that got him elected in the first place, do not underestimate someone else who wants to stay in the White House.
His wife.
She is loving the life of Riley that has been thrust upon her. I believe she has a lot of power in their marriage and if she wants the President to fight, he will do his best. Very soon, I expect to see Michelle in full campaign mode, trying to win back the voters with "Give us 4 more years, please....."
Of course you're not, American Girl. You're still mesmerized by the great Democratic messiah, and will vote for him despite his abysmal failure to accomplish anything... besides adding $4 trillion to our debt.
No, we will not vote for those who made it impossible for the great Democratic messiah, as you refer to him, to do what is right for our country, our economy and our people. We wil not vote for those who would rather see this country fail, and work toward that end, than to see a President succeed. You just keep right on following your corporate masters, spidey!
Perry's "handlers" told him to leave the guns at home. You watch, the swagger, the drawl, all that will be dialed back. Romney doesn't need to do anything except give Perry a long rope and let him hang himself. Bachmann, who can't keep a staff, may be the loose cannon she really is. Ron Paul is the only real, honest person there, but is too radical. Cain is just right-wing tokenism. Huntsman looks sane compared to the rest, but in reality is far-right of center just like everyone else.
The real winner would be the one who has a jobs plan other than more tax cuts for the "job creators" (A.K.A. corporate welfare and making the rich even richer). Romney and his repatriation amnesty--how about repatriating JOBS! I double dare them, I dare them all to get real.
Oh heck no Drive By - Obama 2012, cause he has adopted all of Bush's hits.
And tomorrow the hit will just keep coming.
Payroll tax holidays for the worker bees and the employers. That's a "big f'ing deal" for self employed folk.
So was the whole cuts taxes and regulations a secret part of Obama's campaign platform, or is he really just making all this up [by which I mean imitating Bush in all respects] as he goes along?
Let's give a big shout out to "corporate welfare." Man, corporate welfare rocks. I know this cause Obama loves him some more corporate welfare.
Romney is a good speaker but he appears very contrived. He scares me. He refuses to answer anything about his support from the Mormon Occult. Americans will not vote for a man who wears super natural undergarments and wears another space suits in secret rituals in Mormon Temples.
Who has the most to gain? Obama does, the candidates rhetoric contrasted with the performance of the republican controlled house, leaves people two choices, and you can see how they feel about the Ryan plan and no taxes the more they bash him, with no action from Congress the less people blame the president who can not legislate a single thing. Republicans in the house make Obama a clear choice for most people even if they feel it is the lesser of two evils. Republicans can rail all they want about Obama their own grannies will not vote for them when it gets down to it and they remember they are going to lose SS and medicare, they already proved that in NY26. If they stay with the current plan of more of the same and Congress continues to sit on it's thumb they help Obama.
We'll hear what your boogeycrops have to offer tonight. Needless to say, tax cut and how govt. is bad for the poor and middle class but good them, the rich and the corporations. That's a tough sale, guy.
Silverspud -- Bachmann is truly ignorant (or a liar). Not only has oil production in the US gone up during President Obama, it is at the highest levels in history. But the real kicker is, no matter how much oil is produced in or off US shores, it will go on the global market to be sold, enriching only the oil companies. Barrels of oil produced in the US are not marked "USA" for our consumption only. The president has also tapped into reserves to bring the price down, but that's a temporary supply and demand tactic at best used to teach speculators a lesson.
Paul-4048005 - The Mormon faith (and undergarments) is no more disconcerting than the International Coalition of Apostles that sponsored Perry's Prayer Meeting. They too believe in modern revelation. And of course the Seven Mountains (business, government, media, arts and entertainment, family, religion and education) transforming all to reflect their puritanical beliefs -- mixing religion into politics. The Evangelicals and the Rapture, C Street and The Family, take your pick. We would be a theocracy if they had their way.
The Democrats are true Christians who care about the poor, the elderly, and the planet. But they adhere to Separation of Church and State. With the Teapublicans becoming more of a religious Party, the safe bet is to vote for Democrats--just on that basis alone.
You all should head over to some of the other websites. The bloom is off the rose - I'm not talking about the obvious poll numbers, which are horrible, or the even worse economy numbers.
It's gotten way worse for Obama, from those that used to support him. Economic reality has caught up and beaten down all the Hope and Change talk - all the unicorns are dead, all the fairy dust used up.
Perry and Romney will speak, but let's face it - all eyes are on Obama tomorrow night and we already know he has nothing to offer.
[You all should head over to some of the other websites.]
So, Spanky...just what DOES Glenn Beck have to say? Could it be, perhaps, that he cheered the August jobs report? Classy guy, much like yourself, right Schpanky?
Yes, it is official, you have become insignificant...maybe if you head back to FoxNation and The Blaze, your BFF's will take you back. I'm sure they are thrilled that you're here, hanging around MSNBC "spreadin' da woid"...
...mediocrity, my friend...mediocrity...keep reachin' for those stars!
I know my vote would be for Ron Paul in 2012. But the powers that be will not let him in the White House. We live in a 2 party dictatorship, and its apparent with every election. If you dont like either, your always told"pick the lesser of the 2 evils". That is not a vote then,its a forced decision. I would like to see on the ballots of the future,would be a check box for "none of the above". At least then the public and the government would truly know the pulse of the nation.But as in the case with Gore vs. Bush, the ballots were so tainted, we will never know who was(or is) the winner. I for one will make my vote and stay in the hills till the dust settles.
Forrest - If I didn't know better, your post sounded a little desperate. You may not have meant it that way, but if you are hinging your bets on Obama being the lesser of the two evils, might I remind you that it's not democrats or republicans that will choose the next president. Us independents will make the final decision. If it were left up to just the democrats, Obama would be a shoe in without a doubt. If it were left up to just the republicans the unknown republican would be a shoe in. It's not going to work that way this time. If Obama is going to win, he will have to completely win over the independents... and vice versa for the pub.
I find it rather par for the course that the democrats will get behind Obama... and this board is rife with democrats/liberals. It may appear on this board that Obama is going to win, but since the cards are stacked in Obama's favor here, this is not a good proving ground. All the bravado in the world will not help him from this board... and polls indicate that he's losing support big time.
Hey Brianb it is not desperation just my call, I hear you with his dropping poll numbers but they are still way better than Congress, and I just think more people will hold Congress responsible just the way they did with democrats in the last election. Whether or not republicans believe it, I think many people, dems and indys feel that the president has been hamstrung by this Congress, and don't hold him totally responsible, as he can't legislate, I tell you this though I'm glad I don't try to make a living predicting these things. All in all in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. It was not desperation but honesty when I said he may just be seen as the lesser of two evils and sometimes in politics that is all you need.
All we ever get to vote for is the lesser of two evils. Think it's done deliberately? McCain vs Obama, Kerry vs Bush, Bush vs Gore. Looking back on Kerry and Edwards and now the legal actions against Edwards, wouldn't it have been great if Kerry had gotten elected. Would we know about Edward's mistress and love child? Misappropriated funds?
Seems that once they get elected all the criminal malfeasance gets swept under the carpet.
What an informative post Wayne Hall. Leaves about as much guess work as choosing between types of soda. The debate will be forgotten as soon as it's over. Onward to Thursday night, the most exciting night of all. I can't wait to see and hear what's going to happen.... I'm all pumped up in anticipation. The long awaited night will arrive with all the pomp and circumstance that can be expected! I hope to see new plans and possibly a new game emerge. When the Saints take the field, I will be whooping it up big time!
It doesnt matter if Romney and Bachmann pulled out video of Perry committing murder, the right-wing lemmings will still fall for his love fest. This guy has more baggage than any candidate I've ever seen, and it doesnt matter a lick. Let the voter beware. You'll get what you vote for in Perry. He's a panderer, who's just out to self promote and run his own get-rich-quick agenda for he and his Bush cronies. It will be Bush the Third, and we see how the previous ones have both led us into recessions.
It creeped me out to see Perry on a video clip saying "gun control? Yeah, I'm in favor of gun control. I always use both hands." Ugh. What a psychopath. So sick considering how much gun violence we've seen in the US and Mexico.
Oh yeah Amy. Gun control. This is another of life's dillemas that liberals haven't thought through to the end. Guns don't kill people Amy - people kill people. In the hands of responsible people, guns are safe. Irresponsible people are the problem. The liberal's solution - remove all the guns and all will be well with the world. What a wacked out solution. I own 2 weapons... a pistol and a shotgun. Neither have hurt a soul. I don't even use them to hunt with. In fact, if a burglar broke into my home, I probably wouldn't even fire the shotgun... just racking it sends a signal to whoever would be on the receiving end to escape as quickly as possible.
With what liberals propose, removes all the protection I need in my home from anyone that would choose to come in to rob from me. How is this fair to me and do I sould out of control?
I dont even know why these debates are relevant to this MSNBC or the progressive posters. They are campaigning to win the GOP nomination and pander to win their votes. You guys spend your time personally attacking them, wouldnt vote for them under any circumstance including being the best candidate for President so why do you bother watching? If as you say, their positions are so wacko, have no chance at being successful etc, then no one will vote for them anyway and Obama has it in the bag. Not sure why he is losing by 10 points in the states that will decide the election but I assume you guys attribute that to the low IQ of the voters not Obama's failed policies to date.
Your astonishment at why people dont get Obama's brilliance and dont understand that if we give him more time the world will be a happy place, is the same astonishment we fiscal conservatives have that states like Illinois, California and NY continue to vote for him in such large numbers when those states are the guinea pigs for Obama's policies with a greater historical record. The high tax, pro union, high government regulation and interference states are really performing well dont you think? Every time I hear someone complain about Walker and Kasich, I want to say are you kidding me come to Illinois if you want incompetence.
Kirk - the liberals think Obama is brilliant because he has the same ideology as they do. They can't possibly look beyond the shortsighted 30 second thought process... (Not all liberals are included in this). Some simply don't think at all. They have been programmed to follow after the emotional whim and logic escapes them.
MSNBC has nothing better to do than chase after all the republican candidates. With Obama securely lodged in as the dem candidate, without the republicans there'd be nothing to talk about. What is so great is reading how the democrats are offended at conservatives pointing out the failures of Obama... as if they weren't doing the exact same thing about Bush. I love the indignation because it shows exactly how hypocritical they are.
With your logic, we ought not to have meth illegal. After all, it's not the meth that breaks into old peoples homes to steal stuff to buy more meth. It's the people who do it, right?
The old west is over, so put your six-shooter back on the wall and go back to sleep before the drool lets it slip out of your hand and shoot off your toe.
Hi yo Siiver, away!
Oh, BTW, Bush really did screw up everything he thought about. It is a matter of indisputable history, not some phony, made-up politics to undermine an effort to fix the manure pile left by Dubya.
Tex, I am confused over that analogy? Your example is not even close to being the same logical conclusion. I think we do lock up the person for breaking into the home regardless of whether they are on meth. In fact, I think your example is exactly what he is illustrating in that if a person misuses meth, they will get put in jail just as the person who sells meth or an illegal gun. You might want to try again. With 250 million guns in possession any attempt at outlawing ownership is just plain stupid and the crime statistics in cities like Chicago etc illustrate that prohibiting gun ownership at this point only benefits the criminals. A better solution is putting in place reasonable gun laws that prohibit certain types of bullets, automatic weapons, clips that hold more than a certain number of bullets etc.
Fielden, well I own 4 guns (1 shotgun and 3 handguns) and the shotgun is for pheasant and duck hunting mainly in the great state of Iowa and southern Illinois. Yes I eat everything I shoot. The handguns are for target shooting and its a blast. I live in Chicago and all my 3 adult children know how to shoot and they love it too although the girls less so. I am sure many people have them for personal safety which is their choice. So far the purpose of my guns hasnt been to shoot or kill anyone. Just like learning how to drive a car, it comes with significant responsibility, my kids have learned that owning or shooting a gun does too. Besides whether you are a gun lover or not at this point its irrelevant, as your not going to remove 250 million guns from homes so solutions that deal with the facts as they are today are much better than flat out prohibition.
Good post on the gun issue! I have mine on me right now(concealed), it's my right and I followed all the rules and laws to process it. Now mind you, I've been called a right-wing terrorist by my Government because I served my country for 20 years. I guess I'm caught in a catch-22 eh?
With your logic, we ought not to have meth illegal. After all, it's not the meth that breaks into old peoples homes to steal stuff to buy more meth. It's the people who do it, right?
The old west is over, so put your six-shooter back on the wall and go back to sleep before the drool lets it slip out of your hand and shoot off your toe.
Hi yo Siiver, away!
Oh, BTW, Bush really did screw up everything he thought about. It is a matter of indisputable history, not some phony, made-up politics to undermine an effort to fix the manure pile left by Dubya.
In the liberal mind only. I won't argue with you the merits of what Bush did do correctly because that simply would take up too much time. You wouldn't listen anyway. Solid steel brains are hard to penetrate... besides I've long given up on any intellectual discussion with certain liberals because it's hopeless.
Your first point is that I would make meth legal to stop those that would break into my home diminished. Your convoluted logic is definitely whacked out. Is this your way of making a point? What you are trying to conjure up makes literally no sense whatsoever. It almost sounds like you are in favor of meth use and allowing those that would break into my home get away with it. Tell me this isn't the crux of your point. Your exaggeration of the old west thingy just doesn't work. How about if I divert all those that would break and enter to YOUR home? We can let those you have a bleeding heart for take advantage of you... would you like that? Just post your address so we can send them there in flocks.
Very true, if Rick Perry were chosen as the GOP nominee, that would almost guarantee Obama another term. One more term is all that Obama would need to completely destroy our country, put us into a deep deep depression and take over as a tyrant. I do not by any means where my Religion on my sleeve, but in this case I would really urge everyone to hope and pray that the American people wise up and realize that supporting Perry is as big of a mistake as voting for Obama. Pray for our country as it is on the brink of destruction.
Mitt Romney is the real deal and is only running because he loves and is very concerned about America. He realizes he has the expertise, experience and talents to turn this country around and is only running as a public service to the American people. He did not take a salary as Gov. of Mass. All proceeds of his books go to charity, Mitt is a true statesman and is volunteering his tremendous abilities out of love for America and the American people. It is time for America to accept the tremendous gift of great worth to us and get behind him wholehearedly.
Ron Paul is just another career politician that has been pigging out at the public trough and sending home the pork as bad as the rest of the politicians. If he truly loved the country he would get out of the way so that Mitt can beat Perry and then defeat Obama. This is too important of an election and Paul knows he cannot win the GOP nomination so why does he want to continue to be a spoiler?
Felden said: What is the purpose of a gun? For what reason is a gun manufactured? Why does someone own a gun?
Wow felden, I didn't realize someone could be so in the dark about gun ownership. Other than the military aspect of weaponry, there are lots of reasons for owning a weapon.
1. Home protection
2. Hunting
3. Target shooting (the recreation is a lot of fun)
4. Wilderness protection - if you like to camp out
5. It drives liberals who are against gun ownership absolutely mad (the most funnest part of all)
Tell me felden, you aren't one of those wack jobs that thinks the only purpose of owning a gun is to kill people. If this is your mentality, you've never stood 20 yards behind a target and scored a perfect bullseye. Or lied prone on the firing range with your sergeant behind you tapping on your shoulder... quarter up and a hairs width to the right... pulling the trigger and seeing how his instruction put you right in the middle of the target.
Keep on spouting your liberal views... you've missed out on a great source of enjoyment.
No, seriously BrianB, what did he do from your viewpoint that helped us?
The analogy seems to have gone over your head, Kirk. The issue at hand was the legal/illegal nature of guns and the attendant parallel in the analogy was meth. if it is illegal to have meth because it hurts folks, then it should be illegal to have guns because they hurt folks. They are both inanimate objects that do harm, get it?
BTW, there are many guns whose sole purpose in manufacture are for profit and whose sole purpose is to kill people. It may be hard to take, but those are the facts.
I don't want to get into another of those interminable arguments about firearms. However, with respect to your point 5 - Your strongest protection for the right to gun ownership comes from those who are of a liberal stripe. No true liberal would take away your firearm if you have not abused your right to own a firearm(s). On the other hand, a true liberal would be your worst nightmare if you abused the rights of others with a firearm.
It is very, very good to have liberals for friends. We hate it when rights are attacked....just hate it.
brianb says: "In the hands of responsible people, guns are safe. Irresponsible people are the problem."
This is the classic denial one-liner the NRA spews. Every gun owner thinks they're responsible until an accident happens, and then it's, 'that guy was irresponsible, but I'm still not'. Same thing as when people drive cars. They think they're the most responsible and best driver on the road until they get into a wreck, then it's the other guy's fault. Gun owners never want to accept responsibility, they just deflect it when things go wrong.
I take your silence on the question at hand to be a signal that there ARE no positive things done during the Dub administration. Thanks for the confirmation.
No Tex, your inanimate comparison is really really bad so I will try and be nice. Think about that for a second and imagine all the inanimate objects that could kill such as a rock, car, knife? Who cares if an inanimate object can do harm, its the intent that the person with the inanimate object has with it that matters. Its just that guns have the ability to do more damage than a rock maybe but certainly a car is just as dangerous with the wrong intent. We can make comparisons all day but yours makes no sense. If your trying to use it in the illegal/legal context that doesnt work either because think of the number of legal drugs that are legal to sell with a prescription and can be beneficial and not harmful but in the wrong hands and the wrong context, illegal to sell and will do harm to the user. But they still dont have anything to do with the person then breaking into the house.
What facts are you trying to argue about manufacturing guns? I would hope and imagine the sole purpose of manufacturing and selling any gun is profit (isnt that why we have a capitalistic society) as what other reason would you pursue any business venture? I also agree that the sole purpose of many guns is to kill people and whats your point? I can think of many reasons why people buy guns in order to kill people--lets see the Army, the Police, Security personnel and the law abiding people who just want to protect themselves from that crazy meth head that broke into their home that you already told us about. Was I supposed to argue with you about that?
Cygnus, I am really not sure what your point is. Are you saying your in favor of making anything that might be dangerous or irresponsible in the hands of certain types of people illegal? I would say letting progressives having the right to vote is dangerous and irresponsible because look what happens when one gets into office but that would be an infringement on your rights. But seriously, I understand why you might be in favor of some gun laws or even argue that if only we could go back 200 years and get rid of the guns already sold, but I dont understand your point and how it applies today.
Tex, not sure how to respond to someone making silly observations about Bush. Thats like me saying Obama hasnt done a single good thing as President which would just not be true. I think Bush was a big disappointment as President and made some big mistakes especially for someone like me who is a fiscal conservative and socially moderate which he failed on both counts. But to say he did absolutely zero positive isnt worth responding which is why I am sure Brian is ignoring you.
David - I am really not worried about anyone taking my right to own my firearms. The debate is interesting about why someone would want to take them away. Drawing conclusions from the left side of the debate leads me to believe that the reason to remove them is because they harm people. Granted, firearms are used in a lot of crimes. Mostly for intimidation but when things go terribly wrong, people do get hurt and can die. To cite this as the only reason for removing them is pretty weak. There are many items that can be used in crimes... knifes, bats, nun-chucks, etc. Removing guns will not stop crime. Can't happen, nor will it. Why are police sanctioned to carry firearms? Not so much for defense, but a deterrent. The debate can be carried so far off track because a lot of what we possess can harm us. Ever stepped on a steel rake, or ever hit your finger with a hammer?
Cygnus - I'm not the one in denial. I've been around weapons all my life. I fully understand that accidents occur. But I could just as easily trip down a flight of stairs and become hurt that way too if I'm not paying attention. Because the stairs are there, shall I have them removed because an accident could happen? I'm trained in walking up and down stairs and I'm trained in handling weapons. What distinguishes them apart? Someone saying that one is more dangerous than the other? I don't think so.
Rocks have other purposes and come from nature. Guns have no other purpose than to kill. sometimes as you admit only for other people. Sure guns have a place in law enforcement, but just like the badge cops wear, guns should not be allowed to be carried by citizens. Pay taxes, hire TRAINED professionals to keep order. Most guns that are purchased for home protection and are used in a killing are used to kill a family member! Get the facts!
I brought up the issue of the purpose of guns to kill because Brianb (post #3.15) made fun of that reality.
I simply want to know what the right wing thinks Bush did that was good! Examples? BTW, I can point out lots of good things Obama has done, most of the right will not want to accept them however because their goal is to emasculate him not help solve the problems they created! Examples during Dub's illegal presidency?
Those of you who own guns certainly have the right to do so.
Those of us who do NOT own guns have the right NOT to own guns well. And we have the right and freedom to continue to speak out against guns.
Of the reasons listed for gun ownership, all, other than target practice, involve killing or the threat of killing. Whether humans or animals. And this still doesn't address ownership of high powered rifles and automatic weapons where use for target shooting is highly debatable.
As David Walker alluded to above, if you truly wish to preserve your rights as a gun owner, then respect the rights of those who do not feel as you do.
tex2c2 - I guess I don't hang around these boards waiting for responses like you do. Sometimes I have the need to step away from them. But since you think I don't have an answer for you here are some of the things Bush did well, or made good decisions on
1. He jettisoned the Keyoto accords. He didn't allow the US to become the scapegoat of the world since China and India were exempted from it.
2. He instituted enhanced interrogation of terrorists... something Obama has screwed up royally.
3. His unswerving support for Israel - The lone proponent for freedom in the middle east before Iraq became a free nation.
4. His decision to go with the surge in Iraq... effectively bringing the war to a close and saving many lives in combat.
5. Amber Alet Bill
6. Under Bush's watch DICTATOR Saddam Hussein was captured
I can keep going tex2c2... but no matter how many of these actual accomplishments I list, it won't change your opinion.
felden - feel free not to own a weapon. Nobody is saying you have to. On the same token, those of us that do own them will do everything in our power to keep them from people who don't want us to own them. Those that speak out against them need to learn the proper way to speak out against them. Don't hold those that are responsible for ownership and safe operation in the same light as those that abuse the weapons. Go after them, not us. When you learn to not blanket everyone together in your anti-gun rebellion, then I'll shut my mouth about those that want to take them away.
In fact Felden - I'll go one step further. If you liberals could target just those that abuse them you might even find support FROM gun owners. Until then, I'll just consider your attacks against gun ownership as an attack against me. Like them apples?
I'm not denying you your rights to ownership, but you are denying me my right to speak out. You are the one, after all, who said that one of the reasons you own guns is to needle those of us who do not share your enthusiasm. In light of that, please do not presume to lecture me on the right way to voice my opinion.
If you as a gun owner feel your rights are being threatened by those who abuse guns, perhaps you should join us in speaking out against the abuse.
Tex, first its not true that most gun owners kill family members rather than home protection. Not even sure how you could even measure that. If you look at it from the easy statistic of a criminal shot in the act of commiting a crime versus a person accidently shooting a family member, its not even within the close range as less than a handful of people accidently kill family members a year. If you look at it in terms of crime statistics, areas of the country in which a concealed weapon is allowed have lower violent crime stats so not sure that helps you either.
But your missing the point, ITS TOO LATE to take them off the street so not even sure what the purpose of your views are. Same thing with Felden, I dont think either of Brian or I at any point in time told you that you didnt have the right to speak out against guns, we just answered your questions as to why we have guns and the purpose of which we have them. I could care less if you dont want to own one and I really dont care if you want to speak out against them. Neither of you even addressed putting forth reasonable gun laws which maybe some of us would support like I said before. No one said Fielden that we were for assault rifles etc but you seem to want to make them illegal across the board which at this point might make for good conversation but silly in terms of addressing where we are today. Again, I completely respect your rights to not own one and dont even disagree with you regarding the purposes of guns but some of us enjoy killing animals to eat and shooting targets which I would think is not offensive to you.
Tex, I would add to Brian and say that Bush's focus on education and the huge increase in spending was one of his best accomplishments. Of course he ran into the teacher's unions with wanting to try reforms but even Obama and Arne Duncan are taking his ideas and expanding them. Second, he made a ton of military mistakes which I dont want to address, but he certainly made us safer here at home which again the Obama admin has continued with the same programs. I assume Seniors would love his prescription drug progam.
In regards to the gun debate going here. Gun control does not take guns out of the hands of criminals who get them illegally anyways. I believe the main reason for our second amendment right is to protect ourselves and our families from those that would do us harm for personal gain.
I also personally believe that this amendment was put in place to ensure we could rise up against tyranny like our forefathers did against the monarchy in England. They knew the potential of government going out of control and the people suffering because of it.
I am not a gun owner but support those that are and I hope that one day, if the government collapses and chaos ensues, they will help me protect my family and those close to me. Remember, if the government does collapse there will be no Police to protect you.
Who gives a sh!t, the thread is about the GOP debate. As David Walker pointed out above, liberals are the first to protect rights, including the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, etc. I believe the last gun regulation was passed after Brinkley shot Reagan. It is the right-wing fascists in this country you need to worry about. That's why I pack heat.
Back to the topic, who's the biggest loser, er I mean, who has the most to lose (or gain) in the GOP debate...
women, the Poor, minorities, The Youth Vote, Labor, the middleclass, any informed voter lol will rise, run to the polls, Obama will win in a landslde please nominate Perry Please!
Landslide? What hole do you live in? Obama's poll numbers are dropping like a rock. People are seeing through this actor. Last time he mesmorized people... This time, he has lost so much credibility it's almost comical. He had the chance to do great things... but great things is what he's lacking.
You can hope... and I'm certain you will not change... but no matter how you slice it, Obama will not make it this time... not with the amount of people that are fed up with economic conditions and the amount of unemployed this nation holds.
Paul not surprised you thought I was a man, shows how retro your thinking is. You feel we need a neanderthal like Perry who does not believe in science. You would like us to wake up to a new nightmare where America would be Europes, Mexico. Stand down and go shoot a coyote.
By the way Brianb stops watching poll numbers and please who I believe will crash the voting booths when and If God better known as Perry runs LOL>
rm forsyth - You don't know that Perry will win the nomination. We don't know who will win. Right now it's only the debates among known candidates. Now if you can predict the future, how about sharing tonight's lottery numbers with me. I could use a few million to line my pockets.
If the debate is a fight to see who gets Tea Party backing, this becomes a fight to see who gets beat in the general election. With the negative pole numbers the Tea Party has (and going lower each day) it's hard to understand why these otherwise good candidates would all be rushing to the bottom of the barrel. We need to change leadership at the top but none of the present list of Republican candidates fits the bill. We might as well elect David Duke as any of the current choices.
Gary do you honestly think changing leadership will change the way Washington operates? It's not the President it's congress and the supreme court that's need changing. The tea people GOP republicans feel embolden by the supreme court we now have. They feel every SC decision will go their way. Plus they think they have the corporate money to back it up.
Gary, you must be ignoring the negative poll numbers of Obama as he is getting crushed. In the states that will decide the election he is behind by 10 points to both Perry/Romney so not sure where you guys think this landslide is coming from. The Tea Party or Congress has low approval ratings like Pelosi and her Congress had poor approval ratings. She personally had a low approval rating of like 11% and she won easily for reelection. The Tea Party will be irrelevant in the national election as they arent voting for Obama no different than the black caucus will vote for any GOP candidate.
Dennis, thats a month old but I do agree the poll is closer in some states than others. You have to realize though that once the GOP candidate stops pandering to the right to win the nomination and insteads starts campaigning to pander to the middle (just like Obama did in 2008), the spread between the GOP candidate and Obama will widen without an economic turn around. Obama is not going to win over new voters at this point so he is stuck with the percentages he has now while actually having the potential to lose voters.
Kirk, forget the polls, remember in 2000, the polls said Gore would win right up to the point where the traitors in the Supreme Court stepped in and declared Dubya? Actually, Gore did win, both in popular vote and in the Electoral College, it was just those 5 criminals in the Supreme Court whose vote counted more! Think how much better off we would all be if Gore had been allowed to serve and had the opportunity to stop some of the stupidity American Big Business has burdened us with? Gulf spill - would not have happened, bank bail outs - wouldn't have happened, social security fund - would still be solvent, national deficit - none, national debt - going down! Your education needs some updating but it is not likely that you can get past the brainwashing.
I know it is hopeless to continue trying to help you through your muddle, so I am OUTA HERE!
Tex, not sure how much meth you been taking but I agree that Gore won the popular vote but he certainly didnt win the electoral college under any recount or review of Florida after the fact you can make. The Scotus decision was somewhat irrelevant in hindsight but your right Gore won the popular vote. Not sure we would have been any better off as certainly the internet bubble would have happened, 9/11 would have happened, social security funding would NOT be solvent but yes the tax cuts would probably nto have happened but big government spending on additional failed Green Energy projects probably would have happened with the same deficit issues we face today and the housing bubble would certainly still have happened and I dont blame anyone whether Bush or Obama for the bank bailouts. I think TARP was the right move and I was all for a Stimulus but just fashioned differently with incentives to invest and infrastructure projects that were longer lasting not pet projects of the democratic congress and short term tax cuts nor teacher and union pension bailouts. Whether those were valid is irrelevant they just had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Dont worry I dont need reeducating as I lived it Tex as I assume your still in school learning about theory so when you get out in the real world come back and talk.
Are you telling this post thread that I am taking meth? Sounds like an actionable event there fella!
You make the assumption that I am a youngster with a hope for the future. Actually I am probably older than you are, but I still want to make the future better for my grandkids. It has become obvious to me that the future is bleak under a 19th Century concept of benefits to all based on greed at the top. I watched during the Nam days as this country was torn to shreds by liars in control seeking profit. Don't try to lecture me unless you have a more relevant PhD than I do.
You do need some re-education if you still believe that guns on the street are a good idea! Hello out there? BTW, we will never know for sure if Gore won the Electoral College or not, the Republican National Committee came down in force to contaminate the process. Many say he did.
While the constitutionally protected recount was starting, there are pictures of the "protesters" outside Dade County courthouse that is a roll call of Republican operatives. They were not citizens protesting the recount as claimed. They were thugs sent in from all over the country to play act the plan created in Austin TX the night of the election results after Gore was first called as the winner. Of course, the phony protest was not working so the heavy lifters were called in (the traitorous Supreme Court who were mostly political appointees by Reagan and old man Bush) to avoid getting an honest count. Like it or not, that's history. Get over it, but don't forget it!
Tex, maybe you are older but I am in my 50s but no PHD just a graduate degree. I just find curious your Robert Ludlum like conpiracy theories that in my 30 years of business experience just arent accurate as a generalization. I dont even understand this concept of seeking profit. My parents owned the local Hallmark store growing up, they sought a profit and now own 3 in their late years of life. The immigrants who come here seeking a profit and own 10 dunkin donuts or gas stations seek a profit and yes even McDonalds seeks a profit from selling their hamburgers. Thats a good thing but yes bad things happen because people are greedy but just like any other criminal they are the exception not the rule. I dont need reeducation on guns as I own 4 and whether they are a good thing on the street is irrelevant at this point. 250 million guns are already on the street so dealing with what might have been is wasting conversation. If you want to take the position that reasonable gun control laws should be enacted, make your case but the points you were trying to make dont work.
I realize that you are bitter about Bush but the votes were looked it every which way and even if you counted every single thrown out Gore vote, he still lost. The only way he won is by throwing out whatever definition of damaged or incorrectly made Bush votes and kept the Gore votes so all this GOP operative stuff is just things you have read on some liberal conspiracy web site. That said, I am not going to argue with you on Bush he was a bad president but unfortunately so is Obama. Bad doesnt come in the form of one political party or another. Bad is bad. If you think Greed isnt part of the Obama administration then you must not realize that his money is the Pritzkers, Soros, Buffett, Gates, the extremely wealthy unions leaders etc. These guys are not behind Obama because of idealogoy come on Tex talk about being educated.
I am not talking about capitalism when I accuse American business of greed, I am talking about corporatism. Mom and Pop stores are what created the comfort we all enjoy, but corporations have undermined that comfort to the point that they have to be stopped. I went to school with the spoiled, rotten hearted, children of the Big Oil Rich and watched as they showed utter disrespect for the American people as they plotted to move extreme right wing ideology into the minds of the lower classes. John Birch Society and the hate filled activities of the Joseph McCarthy gang were funded by Texas Oil interests because they wanted to negate ANY restrictions (reasonable or not) to their greed.
I am fully aware of the problems with a bloated, lazy bureaucracy and issues of errors made by the Obama admin. I do see that the plan from the R/T congress has been to make sure he looks as bad as possible to their supporters, even when it is not in the best interests of the country. They will be called to task for their strategy. Don't forget that Obama developed a campaign that brought in the biggest election chest in history, not from Soros and the rich, but from the $100 or less donations from little folks who wanted to see him cooperated with by Congress in finding solutions to the overwhelming problems he inherited. What failure is assigned to his administration should be rightfully shared with the right wing extremist nay-sayers. I cannot say if Obama will be re-elected, but I rest assured that the extreme right will have a wake up call. That will be when you might change your mind about the right to have guns!
I also realize that the underlying paradigm of the Democratic party is altruistic where the underlying paradigm of the Republican party is selfishness. That is just a fact and can be argued as to the relative values in each philosophy. Read Rand. How those ideologies play out in reality is a different issue. The unions were needed to counter the abuse of the robber barons of the 19th Century, then they became corrupt, so now we have a large number of working class who vote against their best interests! It is a joke on the uneducated.
The real underlying problem with our society is that our government institutionalizes corruption. That is clearly manifest in the lobby system that is not only allowed but encouraged on both sides of the isle. Bribery as a fundamental part of a government is not acceptable.
This understanding comes not from a naive idealism but from a life of rich options giving me an understanding of what is likely in such a corrupt system. In the last 3 decades, corporate America has taken that corruption to a fine art and, ironically, that is what they are mandated to do. It is not the corporations' fault, it is our fault for allowing them to have that kind of control over our government. "We the people" has become "we the corporate slaves (so we can continue to buy the plastic furniture at Walmart)." When the plastic has all UV decomposed and we cant afford to buy more, what will we do?
Ron Paul has what it takes to take on Obama and tonite he will go after Perry. People need to ask themselves one question about Perry,would you buy a used car from this guy? Perry is a shill for big money special interests just like Obama.
Then Perry is a shoe in, because in the good ol' U.S. of A. that is what gets politicians elected. Ron Paul is the only one amongst the whole gang with an ounce of integrity or morals, which pretty much disqualifies him from the get go.
Anyone really think Obama is on your side? Anyone that thinks he is on your side just remember Obama named General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt as head of the President's council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Obama doesn't work for the American people. How much corporate tax did GE pay? Enough said Obama is on the take and his buddy at GE is shipping jobs to China as fast as he can!
Yes I really think President Obama is on our side. And what does naming Immelt to head the President's council on jobs and competitiveness have to do with it? How much corporate tax did any of the major corporation pay?
Mo Obama is on Barack Obama's side not yours, But if you have $35,000.00 you can join Jeffrey Imelt and other corporate donors for dinner? Imelt and GE are busy sending whole divisions to China at the same time he is advising Obama on jobs? Where in Shangai?
Just goes to show Reality Check, when viewers want real facts they tune into MSNBC. When they want political entertainment, lies and misinformation they tune into Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine).
Mo - that must mean that a whole lot of Americans are listening to Fox. Their ratings top all the other major liberal news outlets put together. We can only hope that the brainwashing effect Fox has on their viewers works, eh? Should be guaranteed to put Obama on the street again in 2013.
It does work with the uneducated Briab. You just stretched the truth (lied) about Fox ( aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) ratings just a little bit Briab. But then again you probably do like political entertainment (aka fox lies and made up stories).
@Brian So did Jerry Springer's show get top ratings. So does the Kardashian show. So does Dance Mommas or whatever it is called. Just goes to show you, the more crap and nasty there is, the more the unintelligent, uninformed neanderthals will watch! Go for it Brian!
Doesn't Romney have the most to lose? If he isn't seen as Presidential, and more Presidential then Perry, how does he recover? His best hope is that Perry does that "cowboy" swagger and annoys the heck out of folks. By the way, saw a video of Perry grabbing a saddle with gloves and leading a horse. Now, I have had horses forever, and I have never saddled one with gloves, or walked in front of one when I was leading it. Has he EVER been on a horse?
Hey NewDay how you doing kid. I do know that a real cowboy wears the horsepoop on the outside of his cowboy boots. Maybe his theme song could be Rhinestone Cowboy.
It all comes down to which of the candidates can convince the wealthy republican corporate machine that they will maintain the status quo. End of story.
All of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, represent more of the same nonsense that has gotten us into our current mess. If we want to turn things around and "really" make a change for the better, then it must be Ron Paul 2012!
Who has the most to gain? President Obama!!! The GOP sleeper is Huntsman; but go ahead with Perry, the Ring Master. It will assure President Omaha a second term.
great philosophical question....personally I don't think it's necessary. Presidents are given too much power without oversight and are rarely held accountable. The think most of the responsibility should be laid on the Congress.
Not sure we need a president, or much of a congress for that matter. What's wrong with one representative from each state (total of 50), whose sole function is to propose legislation that the citizens vote on directly through the internet. Neither the republicans nor the democrats do a good job of representing us (big surprise here -- they are representing themselves and their own interests). If you limit each piece of proposed legislation to ten pages or less (this would eliminate pork, not to mention the tons of needless legislation that the congressional sausage factory puts out every month). We could make decisions for ourselves. Think of the cost savings in terms of the cost of government overhead alone!
You cats best quit the positive comments about Ron Paul, if the positive comments about Paul exceeds 30% on any blog the media is required to shut down that thread, it's a beltway law.
I find it hard to believe that either Paul or Romney will get the nomination for different reasons. Perry will continue to be a big target if he wins...probably Obama's choice for Republican nominee. As such, it appears to me that only Bachmann of these four has a chance of changing status significantly from this debate.
Dr. Paul has a chance to shine against a dull and battered backdrop of failed politicians and political policies. If he wants to distinguish himself, and get some media attention, he needs to play his hand well.
I love Paul he splits votes for republicans, the poor guy can't get any airtime from his own party but runs fairly strong against the field. He is the middle child of the republican field!
E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Comment:
Ron Paul may emerge a winner. Bachmann will be eliminated tonight and Romney seems fake to me so he won't gain any traction at all. Perry sounds too much like Bush so as soon as opens his mouth he has lost the general election. He may gain Republican voters but he will lose the general. Huntsman may be the sleeper. Isn't he debating tonight?
AnaBanana:
I think you're dead right. If Paul is in full attack mode, he'll destroy Perry and expose him as a dependent of the Federal government. He'll attack Romney on health care and paint him as a closet socialist.
Paul is folksy, he is NOT a Wall Street type, he has what might be termed "isolationist" views, and in the main, has been true to his principles. No flip-flopping for this guy, where both Perry and Romney change their tunes faster than a juke box.
If Paul performs well, the media almost certainly must acknowledge the fact that he is a major player who appeals to the G.O.P.
Strangely, this doesn't seem unrealistic... but still unlikely
GOP debate tonight - NFL Football opening game tomorrow night. Life is good!
what? you expected me to mention obama's speech? roflmao!!!! hahahahahahhahaaaaahaaaahahahahaaaaaahahaaaaahahahaaaaa
I love the way you Liberals think you know everything about the Republican electorate. Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance in hell. Perry is not trying to win over Democrat votes. He needs to win the primary first and worry about the general later. If Perry can maintain a hold on the base and win maybe 1/3 of the so-called Independents in the general, he will win. Obama is in over his head and frankly I believe deep down he really wants to get the hell out of D.C. The only reason he is running again is out of an obligation to the powers that he owes for being there in the first place. Those high rollers that put him in that position hasn't received the total payout yet.
You can believe what you want but this is just politics and they all are politicians.
"If Paul performs well, the media almost certainly must acknowledge the fact that he is a major player who appeals to the G.O.P."
======================================================================
Paul has preformed quite well before, the media will NEVER acknowledge Ron Paul, Paul is not a beltway a$$ kissing corporate owned swine, which is a requirement for the corporate owned media's acknowledgement.
New bumper sticker and t-shirt reads:
Slick Rick Perry
In your guts you know he is nuts.
Certainly not the Amercian public... Nobody gains.
Red meat lovers, corporations, the wealthy will have enough to be happy for tonight. As usual, expect Ron Paul to lay it straight but that would not endear him to GOP/TP. The don't like it straight, the truth.
IntheMiddle, TX-
Interesting speculation about President Obama's enthusiasm for the coming campaign.
I don't get the impression that being POTUS is as much fun as he thought it'd be.
Also, the way the economy is shaping up, the only way he can possibly be reelected is by running the most negative campaign imaginable to demonize his eventual GOP opponent...a campaign that's the polar opposite of the 2008 "Hope And Change" theme.
No rainbows and unicorns from Axelrod and Plouffe for the Obama 2012 effort.
There aren't likely to be many adoring Will i am campaign videos complete with messianic "Oh-Ba-Ma" chanting by empty-headed actors and musicians...we're past that sort of nonsense, aren't we?
This time around, we all actually know what the reality of an Obama Presidency looks like.
It ain't exactly Camelot, is it?
MB
Obama wins even at the stagnant state of things in the country. sooner or later, GOP would elect someone and the difference in which direction the country goes would be more highlighted. The GOP crop has not shown anything that would make your head swell and look at Obama as finished. The problem is what they're offering.......the same old Tax cut and what's not.......Europeans countries that adopted austerity measures are beginning to doubt if it's a better solution. The electorate is more aware now than ever. Your going to go out and prove to them that Govt. is bad for them but good for the corporations and rich.
PEN-24-
In no way did I intend to imply that President Obama cannot be reelected.
When you have somewhere around $1 billion to spend on negative campaign ads (Obama's job performance rules out a "Morning In America" type of effort, doesn't it?), you've got a fighting chance to win.
But this will be very, very different from 2008.
Much darker, and very, very downbeat in tone.
We'll see whether Obama warms to this sort of a campaign.
I don't know that he has it in him.
Mitt Romney has the answers, the expertise, the leadership and the wisdom to lead our country back to excellence in all areas like it once enjoyed. Mitt truly loves this country and would never do anything other than build it up and every decision he will make will be for the country's benefit. Rick Perry is a fake in everything. His mouth utters what conservatives want to hear but his heart is all about greed and personal ambition. He is a hypocrite, a globalist, a progressive, and a liar. The only one he is just slightly better than would be Obama, but that is just because he is not smart enough to do the damage Obama is capable of.
How about this one Job1
New bumper sticker and t-shirt reads:
"If you're not a Democrat, you're a racist"
How about this one for you Paul
"I'm a racist"
I agree that Obama may not have the fight in him to run a strong re-election campaign. He is rolling over so often these days, I just don't see it.
While he does, in fact, still owe the powers that got him elected in the first place, do not underestimate someone else who wants to stay in the White House.
His wife.
She is loving the life of Riley that has been thrust upon her. I believe she has a lot of power in their marriage and if she wants the President to fight, he will do his best. Very soon, I expect to see Michelle in full campaign mode, trying to win back the voters with "Give us 4 more years, please....."
TO: IntheMiddle, TX who wrote:
"I love the way you Liberals think you know everything about the Republican electorate..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We know we're not voting for any of those bozo's you've got up there, if that's what you mean.
Of course you're not, American Girl. You're still mesmerized by the great Democratic messiah, and will vote for him despite his abysmal failure to accomplish anything... besides adding $4 trillion to our debt.
@Spider
No, we will not vote for those who made it impossible for the great Democratic messiah, as you refer to him, to do what is right for our country, our economy and our people. We wil not vote for those who would rather see this country fail, and work toward that end, than to see a President succeed. You just keep right on following your corporate masters, spidey!
Ron Paul is the winner by far, that is, if the media gives him an equal chance.
Perry has never had a job in the private sector, how does he expect to run the country.
Bachman and her $ 2.00 a gallon gas promised is an airhead.
Roomey I am not too sure about.
As for the rest of the troop, they might as well stay home.
Perry's "handlers" told him to leave the guns at home. You watch, the swagger, the drawl, all that will be dialed back. Romney doesn't need to do anything except give Perry a long rope and let him hang himself. Bachmann, who can't keep a staff, may be the loose cannon she really is. Ron Paul is the only real, honest person there, but is too radical. Cain is just right-wing tokenism. Huntsman looks sane compared to the rest, but in reality is far-right of center just like everyone else.
The real winner would be the one who has a jobs plan other than more tax cuts for the "job creators" (A.K.A. corporate welfare and making the rich even richer). Romney and his repatriation amnesty--how about repatriating JOBS! I double dare them, I dare them all to get real.
Perry 2012. Because we miss Bush.
Dr. Ron Paul, the MOST ELECTABLE candidate. Every where I go are signs that we are in a REVOLUTION!!!
***PRESIDENT RON PAUL 2012***
Mo,
Sure, because everything I've said has racial implacations to it right?
Oh heck no Drive By - Obama 2012, cause he has adopted all of Bush's hits.
And tomorrow the hit will just keep coming.
Payroll tax holidays for the worker bees and the employers. That's a "big f'ing deal" for self employed folk.
So was the whole cuts taxes and regulations a secret part of Obama's campaign platform, or is he really just making all this up [by which I mean imitating Bush in all respects] as he goes along?
Let's give a big shout out to "corporate welfare." Man, corporate welfare rocks. I know this cause Obama loves him some more corporate welfare.
Romney is a good speaker but he appears very contrived. He scares me. He refuses to answer anything about his support from the Mormon Occult. Americans will not vote for a man who wears super natural undergarments and wears another space suits in secret rituals in Mormon Temples.
I can see a used car hustler in Romney.and see the dishonesty in Perry s eyes and the way he conducts himself ..defenatly RON PAUL 2012
Who has the most to gain? Obama does, the candidates rhetoric contrasted with the performance of the republican controlled house, leaves people two choices, and you can see how they feel about the Ryan plan and no taxes the more they bash him, with no action from Congress the less people blame the president who can not legislate a single thing. Republicans in the house make Obama a clear choice for most people even if they feel it is the lesser of two evils. Republicans can rail all they want about Obama their own grannies will not vote for them when it gets down to it and they remember they are going to lose SS and medicare, they already proved that in NY26. If they stay with the current plan of more of the same and Congress continues to sit on it's thumb they help Obama.
SPANKY
We'll hear what your boogeycrops have to offer tonight. Needless to say, tax cut and how govt. is bad for the poor and middle class but good them, the rich and the corporations. That's a tough sale, guy.
Silverspud -- Bachmann is truly ignorant (or a liar). Not only has oil production in the US gone up during President Obama, it is at the highest levels in history. But the real kicker is, no matter how much oil is produced in or off US shores, it will go on the global market to be sold, enriching only the oil companies. Barrels of oil produced in the US are not marked "USA" for our consumption only. The president has also tapped into reserves to bring the price down, but that's a temporary supply and demand tactic at best used to teach speculators a lesson.
Paul-4048005 - The Mormon faith (and undergarments) is no more disconcerting than the International Coalition of Apostles that sponsored Perry's Prayer Meeting. They too believe in modern revelation. And of course the Seven Mountains (business, government, media, arts and entertainment, family, religion and education) transforming all to reflect their puritanical beliefs -- mixing religion into politics. The Evangelicals and the Rapture, C Street and The Family, take your pick. We would be a theocracy if they had their way.
The Democrats are true Christians who care about the poor, the elderly, and the planet. But they adhere to Separation of Church and State. With the Teapublicans becoming more of a religious Party, the safe bet is to vote for Democrats--just on that basis alone.
Tough sale?
You all should head over to some of the other websites. The bloom is off the rose - I'm not talking about the obvious poll numbers, which are horrible, or the even worse economy numbers.
It's gotten way worse for Obama, from those that used to support him. Economic reality has caught up and beaten down all the Hope and Change talk - all the unicorns are dead, all the fairy dust used up.
Perry and Romney will speak, but let's face it - all eyes are on Obama tomorrow night and we already know he has nothing to offer.
Jimmy Carter in half the time.
[You all should head over to some of the other websites.]
So, Spanky...just what DOES Glenn Beck have to say? Could it be, perhaps, that he cheered the August jobs report? Classy guy, much like yourself, right Schpanky?
Yes, it is official, you have become insignificant...maybe if you head back to FoxNation and The Blaze, your BFF's will take you back. I'm sure they are thrilled that you're here, hanging around MSNBC "spreadin' da woid"...
...mediocrity, my friend...mediocrity...keep reachin' for those stars!
I know my vote would be for Ron Paul in 2012. But the powers that be will not let him in the White House. We live in a 2 party dictatorship, and its apparent with every election. If you dont like either, your always told"pick the lesser of the 2 evils". That is not a vote then,its a forced decision. I would like to see on the ballots of the future,would be a check box for "none of the above". At least then the public and the government would truly know the pulse of the nation.But as in the case with Gore vs. Bush, the ballots were so tainted, we will never know who was(or is) the winner. I for one will make my vote and stay in the hills till the dust settles.
Forrest - If I didn't know better, your post sounded a little desperate. You may not have meant it that way, but if you are hinging your bets on Obama being the lesser of the two evils, might I remind you that it's not democrats or republicans that will choose the next president. Us independents will make the final decision. If it were left up to just the democrats, Obama would be a shoe in without a doubt. If it were left up to just the republicans the unknown republican would be a shoe in. It's not going to work that way this time. If Obama is going to win, he will have to completely win over the independents... and vice versa for the pub.
I find it rather par for the course that the democrats will get behind Obama... and this board is rife with democrats/liberals. It may appear on this board that Obama is going to win, but since the cards are stacked in Obama's favor here, this is not a good proving ground. All the bravado in the world will not help him from this board... and polls indicate that he's losing support big time.
Hey Brianb it is not desperation just my call, I hear you with his dropping poll numbers but they are still way better than Congress, and I just think more people will hold Congress responsible just the way they did with democrats in the last election. Whether or not republicans believe it, I think many people, dems and indys feel that the president has been hamstrung by this Congress, and don't hold him totally responsible, as he can't legislate, I tell you this though I'm glad I don't try to make a living predicting these things. All in all in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. It was not desperation but honesty when I said he may just be seen as the lesser of two evils and sometimes in politics that is all you need.
All we ever get to vote for is the lesser of two evils. Think it's done deliberately? McCain vs Obama, Kerry vs Bush, Bush vs Gore. Looking back on Kerry and Edwards and now the legal actions against Edwards, wouldn't it have been great if Kerry had gotten elected. Would we know about Edward's mistress and love child? Misappropriated funds?
Seems that once they get elected all the criminal malfeasance gets swept under the carpet.
The American People!
What an informative post Wayne Hall. Leaves about as much guess work as choosing between types of soda. The debate will be forgotten as soon as it's over. Onward to Thursday night, the most exciting night of all. I can't wait to see and hear what's going to happen.... I'm all pumped up in anticipation. The long awaited night will arrive with all the pomp and circumstance that can be expected! I hope to see new plans and possibly a new game emerge. When the Saints take the field, I will be whooping it up big time!
Touche'...
Brianb- its about as exciting as taking a trip to Pittsburgh during the off-season of football eh?
President Barack Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rah...rah...whoop de do....
It doesnt matter if Romney and Bachmann pulled out video of Perry committing murder, the right-wing lemmings will still fall for his love fest. This guy has more baggage than any candidate I've ever seen, and it doesnt matter a lick. Let the voter beware. You'll get what you vote for in Perry. He's a panderer, who's just out to self promote and run his own get-rich-quick agenda for he and his Bush cronies. It will be Bush the Third, and we see how the previous ones have both led us into recessions.
Stop exagerating.........
It creeped me out to see Perry on a video clip saying "gun control? Yeah, I'm in favor of gun control. I always use both hands." Ugh. What a psychopath. So sick considering how much gun violence we've seen in the US and Mexico.
Oh yeah Amy. Gun control. This is another of life's dillemas that liberals haven't thought through to the end. Guns don't kill people Amy - people kill people. In the hands of responsible people, guns are safe. Irresponsible people are the problem. The liberal's solution - remove all the guns and all will be well with the world. What a wacked out solution. I own 2 weapons... a pistol and a shotgun. Neither have hurt a soul. I don't even use them to hunt with. In fact, if a burglar broke into my home, I probably wouldn't even fire the shotgun... just racking it sends a signal to whoever would be on the receiving end to escape as quickly as possible.
With what liberals propose, removes all the protection I need in my home from anyone that would choose to come in to rob from me. How is this fair to me and do I sould out of control?
I 've watched this about 6 times and I still find it extremely entertaining and truthful:
Scarborough: Perry will do whatever to get elected:
This is Great. Thanks
I dont even know why these debates are relevant to this MSNBC or the progressive posters. They are campaigning to win the GOP nomination and pander to win their votes. You guys spend your time personally attacking them, wouldnt vote for them under any circumstance including being the best candidate for President so why do you bother watching? If as you say, their positions are so wacko, have no chance at being successful etc, then no one will vote for them anyway and Obama has it in the bag. Not sure why he is losing by 10 points in the states that will decide the election but I assume you guys attribute that to the low IQ of the voters not Obama's failed policies to date.
Your astonishment at why people dont get Obama's brilliance and dont understand that if we give him more time the world will be a happy place, is the same astonishment we fiscal conservatives have that states like Illinois, California and NY continue to vote for him in such large numbers when those states are the guinea pigs for Obama's policies with a greater historical record. The high tax, pro union, high government regulation and interference states are really performing well dont you think? Every time I hear someone complain about Walker and Kasich, I want to say are you kidding me come to Illinois if you want incompetence.
Kirk - the liberals think Obama is brilliant because he has the same ideology as they do. They can't possibly look beyond the shortsighted 30 second thought process... (Not all liberals are included in this). Some simply don't think at all. They have been programmed to follow after the emotional whim and logic escapes them.
MSNBC has nothing better to do than chase after all the republican candidates. With Obama securely lodged in as the dem candidate, without the republicans there'd be nothing to talk about. What is so great is reading how the democrats are offended at conservatives pointing out the failures of Obama... as if they weren't doing the exact same thing about Bush. I love the indignation because it shows exactly how hypocritical they are.
So, Brianb,
With your logic, we ought not to have meth illegal. After all, it's not the meth that breaks into old peoples homes to steal stuff to buy more meth. It's the people who do it, right?
The old west is over, so put your six-shooter back on the wall and go back to sleep before the drool lets it slip out of your hand and shoot off your toe.
Hi yo Siiver, away!
Oh, BTW, Bush really did screw up everything he thought about. It is a matter of indisputable history, not some phony, made-up politics to undermine an effort to fix the manure pile left by Dubya.
What is the purpose of a gun? For what reason is a gun manufactured? Why does someone own a gun?
Tex, I am confused over that analogy? Your example is not even close to being the same logical conclusion. I think we do lock up the person for breaking into the home regardless of whether they are on meth. In fact, I think your example is exactly what he is illustrating in that if a person misuses meth, they will get put in jail just as the person who sells meth or an illegal gun. You might want to try again. With 250 million guns in possession any attempt at outlawing ownership is just plain stupid and the crime statistics in cities like Chicago etc illustrate that prohibiting gun ownership at this point only benefits the criminals. A better solution is putting in place reasonable gun laws that prohibit certain types of bullets, automatic weapons, clips that hold more than a certain number of bullets etc.
Fielden, well I own 4 guns (1 shotgun and 3 handguns) and the shotgun is for pheasant and duck hunting mainly in the great state of Iowa and southern Illinois. Yes I eat everything I shoot. The handguns are for target shooting and its a blast. I live in Chicago and all my 3 adult children know how to shoot and they love it too although the girls less so. I am sure many people have them for personal safety which is their choice. So far the purpose of my guns hasnt been to shoot or kill anyone. Just like learning how to drive a car, it comes with significant responsibility, my kids have learned that owning or shooting a gun does too. Besides whether you are a gun lover or not at this point its irrelevant, as your not going to remove 250 million guns from homes so solutions that deal with the facts as they are today are much better than flat out prohibition.
Kirk,
Good post on the gun issue! I have mine on me right now(concealed), it's my right and I followed all the rules and laws to process it. Now mind you, I've been called a right-wing terrorist by my Government because I served my country for 20 years. I guess I'm caught in a catch-22 eh?
tex2c2 said:
With your logic, we ought not to have meth illegal. After all, it's not the meth that breaks into old peoples homes to steal stuff to buy more meth. It's the people who do it, right?
The old west is over, so put your six-shooter back on the wall and go back to sleep before the drool lets it slip out of your hand and shoot off your toe.
Hi yo Siiver, away!
Oh, BTW, Bush really did screw up everything he thought about. It is a matter of indisputable history, not some phony, made-up politics to undermine an effort to fix the manure pile left by Dubya.
In the liberal mind only. I won't argue with you the merits of what Bush did do correctly because that simply would take up too much time. You wouldn't listen anyway. Solid steel brains are hard to penetrate... besides I've long given up on any intellectual discussion with certain liberals because it's hopeless.
Your first point is that I would make meth legal to stop those that would break into my home diminished. Your convoluted logic is definitely whacked out. Is this your way of making a point? What you are trying to conjure up makes literally no sense whatsoever. It almost sounds like you are in favor of meth use and allowing those that would break into my home get away with it. Tell me this isn't the crux of your point. Your exaggeration of the old west thingy just doesn't work. How about if I divert all those that would break and enter to YOUR home? We can let those you have a bleeding heart for take advantage of you... would you like that? Just post your address so we can send them there in flocks.
Very true, if Rick Perry were chosen as the GOP nominee, that would almost guarantee Obama another term. One more term is all that Obama would need to completely destroy our country, put us into a deep deep depression and take over as a tyrant. I do not by any means where my Religion on my sleeve, but in this case I would really urge everyone to hope and pray that the American people wise up and realize that supporting Perry is as big of a mistake as voting for Obama. Pray for our country as it is on the brink of destruction.
Mitt Romney is the real deal and is only running because he loves and is very concerned about America. He realizes he has the expertise, experience and talents to turn this country around and is only running as a public service to the American people. He did not take a salary as Gov. of Mass. All proceeds of his books go to charity, Mitt is a true statesman and is volunteering his tremendous abilities out of love for America and the American people. It is time for America to accept the tremendous gift of great worth to us and get behind him wholehearedly.
Ron Paul is just another career politician that has been pigging out at the public trough and sending home the pork as bad as the rest of the politicians. If he truly loved the country he would get out of the way so that Mitt can beat Perry and then defeat Obama. This is too important of an election and Paul knows he cannot win the GOP nomination so why does he want to continue to be a spoiler?
Felden said: What is the purpose of a gun? For what reason is a gun manufactured? Why does someone own a gun?
Wow felden, I didn't realize someone could be so in the dark about gun ownership. Other than the military aspect of weaponry, there are lots of reasons for owning a weapon.
1. Home protection
2. Hunting
3. Target shooting (the recreation is a lot of fun)
4. Wilderness protection - if you like to camp out
5. It drives liberals who are against gun ownership absolutely mad (the most funnest part of all)
Tell me felden, you aren't one of those wack jobs that thinks the only purpose of owning a gun is to kill people. If this is your mentality, you've never stood 20 yards behind a target and scored a perfect bullseye. Or lied prone on the firing range with your sergeant behind you tapping on your shoulder... quarter up and a hairs width to the right... pulling the trigger and seeing how his instruction put you right in the middle of the target.
Keep on spouting your liberal views... you've missed out on a great source of enjoyment.
No, seriously BrianB, what did he do from your viewpoint that helped us?
The analogy seems to have gone over your head, Kirk. The issue at hand was the legal/illegal nature of guns and the attendant parallel in the analogy was meth. if it is illegal to have meth because it hurts folks, then it should be illegal to have guns because they hurt folks. They are both inanimate objects that do harm, get it?
BTW, there are many guns whose sole purpose in manufacture are for profit and whose sole purpose is to kill people. It may be hard to take, but those are the facts.
Brianb:
I don't want to get into another of those interminable arguments about firearms. However, with respect to your point 5 - Your strongest protection for the right to gun ownership comes from those who are of a liberal stripe. No true liberal would take away your firearm if you have not abused your right to own a firearm(s). On the other hand, a true liberal would be your worst nightmare if you abused the rights of others with a firearm.
It is very, very good to have liberals for friends. We hate it when rights are attacked....just hate it.
brianb says: "In the hands of responsible people, guns are safe. Irresponsible people are the problem."
This is the classic denial one-liner the NRA spews. Every gun owner thinks they're responsible until an accident happens, and then it's, 'that guy was irresponsible, but I'm still not'. Same thing as when people drive cars. They think they're the most responsible and best driver on the road until they get into a wreck, then it's the other guy's fault. Gun owners never want to accept responsibility, they just deflect it when things go wrong.
Brianb,
I take your silence on the question at hand to be a signal that there ARE no positive things done during the Dub administration. Thanks for the confirmation.
Really Cygnus? Every gun owner eh?
So tex, what we should have in the Bill of Rights is, The right to do meth! That's what you're saying.
I have the right to own a fire arm. Are you stating that it's not or should not be a right?
No Tex, your inanimate comparison is really really bad so I will try and be nice. Think about that for a second and imagine all the inanimate objects that could kill such as a rock, car, knife? Who cares if an inanimate object can do harm, its the intent that the person with the inanimate object has with it that matters. Its just that guns have the ability to do more damage than a rock maybe but certainly a car is just as dangerous with the wrong intent. We can make comparisons all day but yours makes no sense. If your trying to use it in the illegal/legal context that doesnt work either because think of the number of legal drugs that are legal to sell with a prescription and can be beneficial and not harmful but in the wrong hands and the wrong context, illegal to sell and will do harm to the user. But they still dont have anything to do with the person then breaking into the house.
What facts are you trying to argue about manufacturing guns? I would hope and imagine the sole purpose of manufacturing and selling any gun is profit (isnt that why we have a capitalistic society) as what other reason would you pursue any business venture? I also agree that the sole purpose of many guns is to kill people and whats your point? I can think of many reasons why people buy guns in order to kill people--lets see the Army, the Police, Security personnel and the law abiding people who just want to protect themselves from that crazy meth head that broke into their home that you already told us about. Was I supposed to argue with you about that?
Maybe tex wants Meth legal so he can get it without getting arrested?
Cygnus, I am really not sure what your point is. Are you saying your in favor of making anything that might be dangerous or irresponsible in the hands of certain types of people illegal? I would say letting progressives having the right to vote is dangerous and irresponsible because look what happens when one gets into office but that would be an infringement on your rights. But seriously, I understand why you might be in favor of some gun laws or even argue that if only we could go back 200 years and get rid of the guns already sold, but I dont understand your point and how it applies today.
Tex, not sure how to respond to someone making silly observations about Bush. Thats like me saying Obama hasnt done a single good thing as President which would just not be true. I think Bush was a big disappointment as President and made some big mistakes especially for someone like me who is a fiscal conservative and socially moderate which he failed on both counts. But to say he did absolutely zero positive isnt worth responding which is why I am sure Brian is ignoring you.
David - I am really not worried about anyone taking my right to own my firearms. The debate is interesting about why someone would want to take them away. Drawing conclusions from the left side of the debate leads me to believe that the reason to remove them is because they harm people. Granted, firearms are used in a lot of crimes. Mostly for intimidation but when things go terribly wrong, people do get hurt and can die. To cite this as the only reason for removing them is pretty weak. There are many items that can be used in crimes... knifes, bats, nun-chucks, etc. Removing guns will not stop crime. Can't happen, nor will it. Why are police sanctioned to carry firearms? Not so much for defense, but a deterrent. The debate can be carried so far off track because a lot of what we possess can harm us. Ever stepped on a steel rake, or ever hit your finger with a hammer?
Cygnus - I'm not the one in denial. I've been around weapons all my life. I fully understand that accidents occur. But I could just as easily trip down a flight of stairs and become hurt that way too if I'm not paying attention. Because the stairs are there, shall I have them removed because an accident could happen? I'm trained in walking up and down stairs and I'm trained in handling weapons. What distinguishes them apart? Someone saying that one is more dangerous than the other? I don't think so.
Kirk,
Rocks have other purposes and come from nature. Guns have no other purpose than to kill. sometimes as you admit only for other people. Sure guns have a place in law enforcement, but just like the badge cops wear, guns should not be allowed to be carried by citizens. Pay taxes, hire TRAINED professionals to keep order. Most guns that are purchased for home protection and are used in a killing are used to kill a family member! Get the facts!
I brought up the issue of the purpose of guns to kill because Brianb (post #3.15) made fun of that reality.
I simply want to know what the right wing thinks Bush did that was good! Examples? BTW, I can point out lots of good things Obama has done, most of the right will not want to accept them however because their goal is to emasculate him not help solve the problems they created! Examples during Dub's illegal presidency?
Those of you who own guns certainly have the right to do so.
Those of us who do NOT own guns have the right NOT to own guns well. And we have the right and freedom to continue to speak out against guns.
Of the reasons listed for gun ownership, all, other than target practice, involve killing or the threat of killing. Whether humans or animals. And this still doesn't address ownership of high powered rifles and automatic weapons where use for target shooting is highly debatable.
As David Walker alluded to above, if you truly wish to preserve your rights as a gun owner, then respect the rights of those who do not feel as you do.
tex2c2 - I guess I don't hang around these boards waiting for responses like you do. Sometimes I have the need to step away from them. But since you think I don't have an answer for you here are some of the things Bush did well, or made good decisions on
1. He jettisoned the Keyoto accords. He didn't allow the US to become the scapegoat of the world since China and India were exempted from it.
2. He instituted enhanced interrogation of terrorists... something Obama has screwed up royally.
3. His unswerving support for Israel - The lone proponent for freedom in the middle east before Iraq became a free nation.
4. His decision to go with the surge in Iraq... effectively bringing the war to a close and saving many lives in combat.
5. Amber Alet Bill
6. Under Bush's watch DICTATOR Saddam Hussein was captured
I can keep going tex2c2... but no matter how many of these actual accomplishments I list, it won't change your opinion.
felden - feel free not to own a weapon. Nobody is saying you have to. On the same token, those of us that do own them will do everything in our power to keep them from people who don't want us to own them. Those that speak out against them need to learn the proper way to speak out against them. Don't hold those that are responsible for ownership and safe operation in the same light as those that abuse the weapons. Go after them, not us. When you learn to not blanket everyone together in your anti-gun rebellion, then I'll shut my mouth about those that want to take them away.
In fact Felden - I'll go one step further. If you liberals could target just those that abuse them you might even find support FROM gun owners. Until then, I'll just consider your attacks against gun ownership as an attack against me. Like them apples?
You are still missing the point Brian.
I'm not denying you your rights to ownership, but you are denying me my right to speak out. You are the one, after all, who said that one of the reasons you own guns is to needle those of us who do not share your enthusiasm. In light of that, please do not presume to lecture me on the right way to voice my opinion.
If you as a gun owner feel your rights are being threatened by those who abuse guns, perhaps you should join us in speaking out against the abuse.
Tex, first its not true that most gun owners kill family members rather than home protection. Not even sure how you could even measure that. If you look at it from the easy statistic of a criminal shot in the act of commiting a crime versus a person accidently shooting a family member, its not even within the close range as less than a handful of people accidently kill family members a year. If you look at it in terms of crime statistics, areas of the country in which a concealed weapon is allowed have lower violent crime stats so not sure that helps you either.
But your missing the point, ITS TOO LATE to take them off the street so not even sure what the purpose of your views are. Same thing with Felden, I dont think either of Brian or I at any point in time told you that you didnt have the right to speak out against guns, we just answered your questions as to why we have guns and the purpose of which we have them. I could care less if you dont want to own one and I really dont care if you want to speak out against them. Neither of you even addressed putting forth reasonable gun laws which maybe some of us would support like I said before. No one said Fielden that we were for assault rifles etc but you seem to want to make them illegal across the board which at this point might make for good conversation but silly in terms of addressing where we are today. Again, I completely respect your rights to not own one and dont even disagree with you regarding the purposes of guns but some of us enjoy killing animals to eat and shooting targets which I would think is not offensive to you.
Tex, I would add to Brian and say that Bush's focus on education and the huge increase in spending was one of his best accomplishments. Of course he ran into the teacher's unions with wanting to try reforms but even Obama and Arne Duncan are taking his ideas and expanding them. Second, he made a ton of military mistakes which I dont want to address, but he certainly made us safer here at home which again the Obama admin has continued with the same programs. I assume Seniors would love his prescription drug progam.
The reason for Americans to have weapons is to rebel against tyranny RON PAUL 2112
In regards to the gun debate going here. Gun control does not take guns out of the hands of criminals who get them illegally anyways. I believe the main reason for our second amendment right is to protect ourselves and our families from those that would do us harm for personal gain.
I also personally believe that this amendment was put in place to ensure we could rise up against tyranny like our forefathers did against the monarchy in England. They knew the potential of government going out of control and the people suffering because of it.
I am not a gun owner but support those that are and I hope that one day, if the government collapses and chaos ensues, they will help me protect my family and those close to me. Remember, if the government does collapse there will be no Police to protect you.
Who gives a sh!t, the thread is about the GOP debate. As David Walker pointed out above, liberals are the first to protect rights, including the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, etc. I believe the last gun regulation was passed after Brinkley shot Reagan. It is the right-wing fascists in this country you need to worry about. That's why I pack heat.
Back to the topic, who's the biggest loser, er I mean, who has the most to lose (or gain) in the GOP debate...
You pack heat TP too funny, you walk around with a sucker in your mouth too in your '70s suit? Here's looking at you kid..............
Bombs, that's the ticket. If you want to kill large numbers of people at one time then there is nothing handier than a bomb.
Now that I've settled that issue...so, who did better in the debates?
women, the Poor, minorities, The Youth Vote, Labor, the middleclass, any informed voter lol will rise, run to the polls, Obama will win in a landslde please nominate Perry Please!
Landslide? What hole do you live in? Obama's poll numbers are dropping like a rock. People are seeing through this actor. Last time he mesmorized people... This time, he has lost so much credibility it's almost comical. He had the chance to do great things... but great things is what he's lacking.
You can hope... and I'm certain you will not change... but no matter how you slice it, Obama will not make it this time... not with the amount of people that are fed up with economic conditions and the amount of unemployed this nation holds.
Brianb,
I think rm is stuck in 2008. give him time to wake up.
Paul not surprised you thought I was a man, shows how retro your thinking is. You feel we need a neanderthal like Perry who does not believe in science. You would like us to wake up to a new nightmare where America would be Europes, Mexico. Stand down and go shoot a coyote.
By the way Brianb stops watching poll numbers and please who I believe will crash the voting booths when and If God better known as Perry runs LOL>
rm forsyth - You don't know that Perry will win the nomination. We don't know who will win. Right now it's only the debates among known candidates. Now if you can predict the future, how about sharing tonight's lottery numbers with me. I could use a few million to line my pockets.
Even the greatest Republican mind in the last 30 years, Bush's Brain, Carl Rove has said Perry is a loser. Get it?
Well rm, I should had put him/her then, but now I know you're a "her" I will address you as such.
This Government is trying to become more like Europe, look up VAT and who wants it.
Please vote for Perry or Paul you Republicans, please, pretty please
Obama supporter
If the debate is a fight to see who gets Tea Party backing, this becomes a fight to see who gets beat in the general election. With the negative pole numbers the Tea Party has (and going lower each day) it's hard to understand why these otherwise good candidates would all be rushing to the bottom of the barrel. We need to change leadership at the top but none of the present list of Republican candidates fits the bill. We might as well elect David Duke as any of the current choices.
Gary do you honestly think changing leadership will change the way Washington operates? It's not the President it's congress and the supreme court that's need changing. The tea people GOP republicans feel embolden by the supreme court we now have. They feel every SC decision will go their way. Plus they think they have the corporate money to back it up.
Gary, you must be ignoring the negative poll numbers of Obama as he is getting crushed. In the states that will decide the election he is behind by 10 points to both Perry/Romney so not sure where you guys think this landslide is coming from. The Tea Party or Congress has low approval ratings like Pelosi and her Congress had poor approval ratings. She personally had a low approval rating of like 11% and she won easily for reelection. The Tea Party will be irrelevant in the national election as they arent voting for Obama no different than the black caucus will vote for any GOP candidate.
In Ohio our President is leading all GOP contenders in the latest polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/16/poll_obama_holds_narrow_lead_over_gop_in_ohio.html
Dennis, thats a month old but I do agree the poll is closer in some states than others. You have to realize though that once the GOP candidate stops pandering to the right to win the nomination and insteads starts campaigning to pander to the middle (just like Obama did in 2008), the spread between the GOP candidate and Obama will widen without an economic turn around. Obama is not going to win over new voters at this point so he is stuck with the percentages he has now while actually having the potential to lose voters.
Kirk, forget the polls, remember in 2000, the polls said Gore would win right up to the point where the traitors in the Supreme Court stepped in and declared Dubya? Actually, Gore did win, both in popular vote and in the Electoral College, it was just those 5 criminals in the Supreme Court whose vote counted more! Think how much better off we would all be if Gore had been allowed to serve and had the opportunity to stop some of the stupidity American Big Business has burdened us with? Gulf spill - would not have happened, bank bail outs - wouldn't have happened, social security fund - would still be solvent, national deficit - none, national debt - going down! Your education needs some updating but it is not likely that you can get past the brainwashing.
I know it is hopeless to continue trying to help you through your muddle, so I am OUTA HERE!
Tex, not sure how much meth you been taking but I agree that Gore won the popular vote but he certainly didnt win the electoral college under any recount or review of Florida after the fact you can make. The Scotus decision was somewhat irrelevant in hindsight but your right Gore won the popular vote. Not sure we would have been any better off as certainly the internet bubble would have happened, 9/11 would have happened, social security funding would NOT be solvent but yes the tax cuts would probably nto have happened but big government spending on additional failed Green Energy projects probably would have happened with the same deficit issues we face today and the housing bubble would certainly still have happened and I dont blame anyone whether Bush or Obama for the bank bailouts. I think TARP was the right move and I was all for a Stimulus but just fashioned differently with incentives to invest and infrastructure projects that were longer lasting not pet projects of the democratic congress and short term tax cuts nor teacher and union pension bailouts. Whether those were valid is irrelevant they just had nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Dont worry I dont need reeducating as I lived it Tex as I assume your still in school learning about theory so when you get out in the real world come back and talk.
Kirk,
Are you telling this post thread that I am taking meth? Sounds like an actionable event there fella!
You make the assumption that I am a youngster with a hope for the future. Actually I am probably older than you are, but I still want to make the future better for my grandkids. It has become obvious to me that the future is bleak under a 19th Century concept of benefits to all based on greed at the top. I watched during the Nam days as this country was torn to shreds by liars in control seeking profit. Don't try to lecture me unless you have a more relevant PhD than I do.
You do need some re-education if you still believe that guns on the street are a good idea! Hello out there? BTW, we will never know for sure if Gore won the Electoral College or not, the Republican National Committee came down in force to contaminate the process. Many say he did.
While the constitutionally protected recount was starting, there are pictures of the "protesters" outside Dade County courthouse that is a roll call of Republican operatives. They were not citizens protesting the recount as claimed. They were thugs sent in from all over the country to play act the plan created in Austin TX the night of the election results after Gore was first called as the winner. Of course, the phony protest was not working so the heavy lifters were called in (the traitorous Supreme Court who were mostly political appointees by Reagan and old man Bush) to avoid getting an honest count. Like it or not, that's history. Get over it, but don't forget it!
Tex, maybe you are older but I am in my 50s but no PHD just a graduate degree. I just find curious your Robert Ludlum like conpiracy theories that in my 30 years of business experience just arent accurate as a generalization. I dont even understand this concept of seeking profit. My parents owned the local Hallmark store growing up, they sought a profit and now own 3 in their late years of life. The immigrants who come here seeking a profit and own 10 dunkin donuts or gas stations seek a profit and yes even McDonalds seeks a profit from selling their hamburgers. Thats a good thing but yes bad things happen because people are greedy but just like any other criminal they are the exception not the rule. I dont need reeducation on guns as I own 4 and whether they are a good thing on the street is irrelevant at this point. 250 million guns are already on the street so dealing with what might have been is wasting conversation. If you want to take the position that reasonable gun control laws should be enacted, make your case but the points you were trying to make dont work.
I realize that you are bitter about Bush but the votes were looked it every which way and even if you counted every single thrown out Gore vote, he still lost. The only way he won is by throwing out whatever definition of damaged or incorrectly made Bush votes and kept the Gore votes so all this GOP operative stuff is just things you have read on some liberal conspiracy web site. That said, I am not going to argue with you on Bush he was a bad president but unfortunately so is Obama. Bad doesnt come in the form of one political party or another. Bad is bad. If you think Greed isnt part of the Obama administration then you must not realize that his money is the Pritzkers, Soros, Buffett, Gates, the extremely wealthy unions leaders etc. These guys are not behind Obama because of idealogoy come on Tex talk about being educated.
Kirk,
I am not talking about capitalism when I accuse American business of greed, I am talking about corporatism. Mom and Pop stores are what created the comfort we all enjoy, but corporations have undermined that comfort to the point that they have to be stopped. I went to school with the spoiled, rotten hearted, children of the Big Oil Rich and watched as they showed utter disrespect for the American people as they plotted to move extreme right wing ideology into the minds of the lower classes. John Birch Society and the hate filled activities of the Joseph McCarthy gang were funded by Texas Oil interests because they wanted to negate ANY restrictions (reasonable or not) to their greed.
I am fully aware of the problems with a bloated, lazy bureaucracy and issues of errors made by the Obama admin. I do see that the plan from the R/T congress has been to make sure he looks as bad as possible to their supporters, even when it is not in the best interests of the country. They will be called to task for their strategy. Don't forget that Obama developed a campaign that brought in the biggest election chest in history, not from Soros and the rich, but from the $100 or less donations from little folks who wanted to see him cooperated with by Congress in finding solutions to the overwhelming problems he inherited. What failure is assigned to his administration should be rightfully shared with the right wing extremist nay-sayers. I cannot say if Obama will be re-elected, but I rest assured that the extreme right will have a wake up call. That will be when you might change your mind about the right to have guns!
I also realize that the underlying paradigm of the Democratic party is altruistic where the underlying paradigm of the Republican party is selfishness. That is just a fact and can be argued as to the relative values in each philosophy. Read Rand. How those ideologies play out in reality is a different issue. The unions were needed to counter the abuse of the robber barons of the 19th Century, then they became corrupt, so now we have a large number of working class who vote against their best interests! It is a joke on the uneducated.
The real underlying problem with our society is that our government institutionalizes corruption. That is clearly manifest in the lobby system that is not only allowed but encouraged on both sides of the isle. Bribery as a fundamental part of a government is not acceptable.
This understanding comes not from a naive idealism but from a life of rich options giving me an understanding of what is likely in such a corrupt system. In the last 3 decades, corporate America has taken that corruption to a fine art and, ironically, that is what they are mandated to do. It is not the corporations' fault, it is our fault for allowing them to have that kind of control over our government. "We the people" has become "we the corporate slaves (so we can continue to buy the plastic furniture at Walmart)." When the plastic has all UV decomposed and we cant afford to buy more, what will we do?
Ron Paul has what it takes to take on Obama and tonite he will go after Perry. People need to ask themselves one question about Perry,would you buy a used car from this guy? Perry is a shill for big money special interests just like Obama.
" Perry is a shill for big money special interests "
========================================================================
Then Perry is a shoe in, because in the good ol' U.S. of A. that is what gets politicians elected. Ron Paul is the only one amongst the whole gang with an ounce of integrity or morals, which pretty much disqualifies him from the get go.
Anyone really think Obama is on your side? Anyone that thinks he is on your side just remember Obama named General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt as head of the President's council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Obama doesn't work for the American people. How much corporate tax did GE pay? Enough said Obama is on the take and his buddy at GE is shipping jobs to China as fast as he can!
Yes I really think President Obama is on our side. And what does naming Immelt to head the President's council on jobs and competitiveness have to do with it? How much corporate tax did any of the major corporation pay?
Mo Obama is on Barack Obama's side not yours, But if you have $35,000.00 you can join Jeffrey Imelt and other corporate donors for dinner? Imelt and GE are busy sending whole divisions to China at the same time he is advising Obama on jobs? Where in Shangai?
Would that be the same Imelt that didn't pay Federal taxes last years or is that the Imelt that is one of Obama's advisers? I get the both confused!!
peace lover, please try to stay relevant!
Who has the most to gain tonight? MSNBC. They may actually get viewers for a change.....
Just goes to show Reality Check, when viewers want real facts they tune into MSNBC. When they want political entertainment, lies and misinformation they tune into Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine).
Mo - that must mean that a whole lot of Americans are listening to Fox. Their ratings top all the other major liberal news outlets put together. We can only hope that the brainwashing effect Fox has on their viewers works, eh? Should be guaranteed to put Obama on the street again in 2013.
It does work with the uneducated Briab. You just stretched the truth (lied) about Fox ( aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) ratings just a little bit Briab. But then again you probably do like political entertainment (aka fox lies and made up stories).
@Brian So did Jerry Springer's show get top ratings. So does the Kardashian show. So does Dance Mommas or whatever it is called. Just goes to show you, the more crap and nasty there is, the more the unintelligent, uninformed neanderthals will watch! Go for it Brian!
Obama will never be on the "street" again in his life. I believe he's earned it.
I really wanted to vote for the healthcare industry.
Doesn't Romney have the most to lose? If he isn't seen as Presidential, and more Presidential then Perry, how does he recover? His best hope is that Perry does that "cowboy" swagger and annoys the heck out of folks. By the way, saw a video of Perry grabbing a saddle with gloves and leading a horse. Now, I have had horses forever, and I have never saddled one with gloves, or walked in front of one when I was leading it. Has he EVER been on a horse?
Probably, but I'm not sure the pony rides at the county fair really count. Then again he does resemble a horse a$$.
Good one, devie.
Hey NewDay how you doing kid. I do know that a real cowboy wears the horsepoop on the outside of his cowboy boots. Maybe his theme song could be Rhinestone Cowboy.
It all comes down to which of the candidates can convince the wealthy republican corporate machine that they will maintain the status quo. End of story.
All of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, represent more of the same nonsense that has gotten us into our current mess. If we want to turn things around and "really" make a change for the better, then it must be Ron Paul 2012!
Perry will be the big loser and they lose bigger in Texas, because he can't think on his feet, it has to be scripted for him like Bush Jr.
Who has the most to gain? President Obama!!! The GOP sleeper is Huntsman; but go ahead with Perry, the Ring Master. It will assure President Omaha a second term.
Do we even need a President?
Certainly did not have one for the first 8 years of this century. We had a committee of corporate bosses who fan the rest of us into the ground.
great philosophical question....personally I don't think it's necessary. Presidents are given too much power without oversight and are rarely held accountable. The think most of the responsibility should be laid on the Congress.
Not sure we need a president, or much of a congress for that matter. What's wrong with one representative from each state (total of 50), whose sole function is to propose legislation that the citizens vote on directly through the internet. Neither the republicans nor the democrats do a good job of representing us (big surprise here -- they are representing themselves and their own interests). If you limit each piece of proposed legislation to ten pages or less (this would eliminate pork, not to mention the tons of needless legislation that the congressional sausage factory puts out every month). We could make decisions for ourselves. Think of the cost savings in terms of the cost of government overhead alone!
should be interesting - probably the best comedy show on tonight
You cats best quit the positive comments about Ron Paul, if the positive comments about Paul exceeds 30% on any blog the media is required to shut down that thread, it's a beltway law.
I find it hard to believe that either Paul or Romney will get the nomination for different reasons. Perry will continue to be a big target if he wins...probably Obama's choice for Republican nominee. As such, it appears to me that only Bachmann of these four has a chance of changing status significantly from this debate.
Dr. Paul has a chance to shine against a dull and battered backdrop of failed politicians and political policies. If he wants to distinguish himself, and get some media attention, he needs to play his hand well.
He has no shot, but he will be entertaining.
I love Paul he splits votes for republicans, the poor guy can't get any airtime from his own party but runs fairly strong against the field. He is the middle child of the republican field!
I'm dying to see a P.H.D. (Dr. Paul) take on the college flunk out (Perry.) Let the games begin!
He is an M.D. not a Ph.D.
Yea, but was Paul a gay cheerleader?
Yeah, but he was a top, not a bottom like you LOL