Rajiv Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Did anyone see the security one...I enjoyed this one a lot. Newt is the only one I see who has experience and can be presidential and I can't stand that Mi. Bachmann
Cricket_2_Death Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Perry's statement of stopping money flow to Pakistan and Cain's suggestion of stronger scanning in airports towards those who are most likely to carry out terrorist attacks were also pretty great. However, Newt does seem the most knowledgeable overall but Cain's comment on airport security was surely one of the best things I heard coming out of it.
Texy Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 There is an active media bias against Ron Paul as they he's the only one truly capable of beating Obama.... Ron Paul -- absolutely no bs
punjabi_khota Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Give the other mormon a chance. :wall: I would totally vote for Huntsman if I could vote.
Ram Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Absolutely love the fact that pretty much every Republican in the race hates Pakistan.
Cricket_2_Death Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 ^Indeed, I love it too! Though it isn't really surprising coming from the GOP given the odds they have with Islamic tyranny. I'd like to see more Pak bashing but I realize they have to keep it a little down low for political reasons, but I'm sure what's in their hearts is a lot stronger than they are making public towards Pakistan. I'd like to see someone actually stand up and declare it as the greatest terror hub though and bring light to terror attacks that have happened on foreign soil like India, not many people seem to know enough about it. All funding for them needs to be cut.
yoda Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 I thought it was one of the worst debates, claiming Obama supports America's enemies and lets the US friends down, all because he once said Israel might have to look at the 67 border as part of the agreement. Rest of the time spent on bashing Obama on the deficit issue forgetting the fact that it is their Republican colleagues who are stone walling every possible deal to reduce the deficit. Basically another session of mindless Obama bashing and very few solutions of their own.
Brainfade Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Give the other mormon a chance. :wall: I would totally vote for Huntsman if I could vote. On what basis? He is vehemently pro-life, wants to repeal Obama's "unconstitutional and unaffordable healthcare plan" (the quotes are his words), and wants keep the Bush tax cuts. Which of these positions do you support? I, OTOH, have decided to vote for him for the very same reasons that are loathsome to the "progressives" here. In addition, he follows science wrt the environment, but does not support over the top government regulation (he has tried cap-and-trade and knows it doesn't work). Even sent in my first political contribution to support his campaign.
punjabi_khota Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 ^Saar, I mean in the primaries. Most of the other dumbasses in the field have all those positions AND on top of that don't believe in evolution, for starters :phehehe:
Rajiv Posted November 23, 2011 Author Posted November 23, 2011 yoda, the debates are like a soap drama, I watch it for the comedy
Late Cut Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Yeah; anyone who doesnt believe in climate change, evolution and say's they are running because God mandated them to, is not well in the head...oh wait, that's the entire bunch.
Lurker Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Based on what I saw yesterday my rank would be: 1) John Huntsman has the best overall grip on foreign issues. 2) Ron Paul's strength and weakness are the same - isolationist. I like the fact he wants US to concentrate home and not being drawn in war but his assertion that US should be completely insular is totally incorrect too. 3) Newt Gingrich acts as the Principal of the house and keeps getting away with Patronising remarks. 4) Bachman is not a bimbo ala Palin. 5) Romney is the biggest suck up. First overseas trip to Israel my bottom. Rick Perry, Caine and Santorum have nothing to add and are done.
Brainfade Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Based on what I saw yesterday my rank would be: 1) John Huntsman has the best overall grip on foreign issues. 2) Ron Paul's strength and weakness are the same - isolationist. I like the fact he wants US to concentrate home and not being drawn in war but his assertion that US should be completely insular is totally incorrect too. 3) Newt Gingrich acts as the Principal of the house and keeps getting away with Patronising remarks. 4) Bachman is not a bimbo ala Palin. 5) Romney is the biggest suck up. First overseas trip to Israel my bottom. Rick Perry, Caine and Santorum have nothing to add and are done. I really hope Rick Perry is done. Before these debates, I had never heard the guy speak and thought he'd be good candidate based on his state's performance in the last decade. But, given his big-government policies (govt jobs increased at a higher rate than private sector jobs during his tenure, his support of govt-mandated HPV vaccines for all kids etc.), and a general lack of knowledge on foreign policy, and propensity to slip up in debates, I am done with him. Herman Cain and Rick Santorum are the GOP counterparts of Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi. The sooner they fade, the better. If by some quirk of fate, a Huntsman/Gingrich or G/H ticket prevails, it'll make 2012 interesting. If not, BHO wins by the TINA factor. BTW, are you sarcastic when you state Bachamann's not a bimbo? According to all liberals that I have spoken with (and believe me, I surrounded by them in academia and in desi circles, not to mention ICF :-)), any woman is pro-life and anti-PPAC is a bimbo.
Lurker Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 BTW' date=' are you sarcastic when you state Bachamann's not a bimbo? According to all liberals that I have spoken with (and believe me, I surrounded by them in academia and in desi circles, not to mention ICF :-)), any woman is pro-life and anti-PPAC is a bimbo.[/quote'] No I am not being sarcastic CA. Bachmann has certainly improved. When she started she was a different cup of tea, and if you asked me the same question back then my answer would have been different. But she has worked hard and it shows. And although she is still way off as possessing serious candidature I do appreciate the effort she has put in. With regards to the liberals surrounding you at work, what kind of a half-ar$ed effort they have been putting in?? Shouldnt you be a progressive already :winky:
Brainfade Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 With regards to the liberals surrounding you at work, what kind of a half-ar effort they have been putting in?? Shouldnt you be a progressive already :winky: Believe me, they have tried. They even pulled the Mormon card when I suggested Jon Huntsman as a viable, truly conservative, science-supporting candidate. I can understand it coming from a Southern Baptist, but when "progressives" start playing the religion card, it is highly hypocritical.
Cricket_2_Death Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Bachmann isn't that bad but I don't think she's the one for the GOP. Heck if Obama can become president I see no reason why any fool couldn't, nonetheless something just doesn't feel right with the current candidates. It may be because it is too early; the debates will heat up next year and become more interesting. The goal is not just to get some one better than Obama, but get the best possible President from the pool candidates. I’m really not too sure about Ron Paul, every time I hear him I wonder if he is in the wrong party. Romney, Cain and Gingrich are where I expect the final shootout to be, Perry has lost it after that illegal immigrant college tuition stance.
Lurker Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Believe me' date=' they have tried. They even pulled the Mormon card when I suggested Jon Huntsman as a viable, truly conservative, science-supporting candidate. I can understand it coming from a Southern Baptist, [b']but when "progressives" start playing the religion card, it is highly hypocritical. lol...not really. Liberals and conservatives are not entirely different when it comes to using an agenda to further their interests. Liberals are always keen to show how and why Romney and Huntsman wont win because of their religious affliction. If it did not matter to them, they wouldnt even bring it up. By the way Huntsman has been supporting Wall Street occupiers, how (or does it) dilute his conservative credentials?
Brainfade Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 lol...not really. Liberals and conservatives are not entirely different when it comes to using an agenda to further their interests. Liberals are always keen to show how and why Romney and Huntsman wont win because of their religious affliction. If it did not matter to them, they wouldnt even bring it up. By the way Huntsman has been supporting Wall Street occupiers, how (or does it) dilute his conservative credentials? A true conservative questions the government's role in bailing the banks out, and that is what he is doing. I am not a supporter of methods of the OWS movement (I am tired of hartals, gheraos and picketing in general), but do agree that they bring up *some* legitimate points. It is those legitimate points that Huntsman supports, too. Fannie and Freddie being forced by Clinton's govt to dole out high-risk loans, banks being "too big to fail" etc. If he can explain these points every time he gets a chance, while simultaneously criticizing the OWS movement for their blanket hatred of capitalism, he should be OK. Read his articulate op-ed in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204346104576635033336992122.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop As for the "progressive" friends, they don't bring up his Mormonism to argue why Huntsman will not win, they bring it up to argue why he *should* not win, as if that somehow disqualifies him to be a President. Like I said, a true progressive must not bring religious affiliation into the discussion. But, these people are not true progressives. They are just enamored of BHO.
triam Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 Lurker and CA I feel Bachman is evil and much much more dangerous than Palin just because of the fact she is not a bimbo.
Lurker Posted November 23, 2011 Posted November 23, 2011 A true conservative questions the government's role in bailing the banks out' date= and that is what he is doing. I am not a supporter of methods of the OWS movement (I am tired of hartals, gheraos and picketing in general), but do agree that they bring up *some* legitimate points. It is those legitimate points that Huntsman supports, too. Fannie and Freddie being forced by Clinton's govt to dole out high-risk loans, banks being "too big to fail" etc. If he can explain these points every time he gets a chance, while simultaneously criticizing the OWS movement for their blanket hatred of capitalism, he should be OK. Read his articulate op-ed in the WSJ. I get where you are coming from CA, so this beggars a follow-up question then. If conservatives typically question Govt's role in bailing out giants financial institutions and there is a mass movement against that why have there been not too many Conservative voice in support of it? Not for the entire movement as such but for the relevant pieces of the puzzle. Mostly I hear them being dismissive of it. Personally, I am not a fan of Tea Party or OWS. Call me cynical but American politics these days seems more and more like Indian politics. The economy going down has turned everybody against each other.
Recommended Posts