Debates ...

[ViRedd]

The Republican debates are on tonight. Fox 9pm EST.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

The Republican debates are on tonight. Fox 9pm EST.

Vi

You mean, the debate of the rich white guys. We'll see who's the whitest of the white. Hey, if you hear one word of truth uttered in this "debate" be sure and let me know~LOL~.

 

[ViRedd]

At least they won't have that Chris Matthews trying to further his career by asking nonsensical questions.

Watch the debates Med ... ya might pick up a debating point or two.

Vi

 

[medicineman]

At least they won't have that Chris Matthews trying to further his career by asking nonsensical questions.

Watch the debates Med ... ya might pick up a debating point or two.

Vi

watched the last one, nauseating bullshit, almost as bad as the dems.

 

[7xstall]

the Fox debate was total BS. people were cheering to the torture comments, it was a staged piece of crap, IMHO. i didn't even watch much of it, it was a joke.

not one person in that audience agreed with R. Paul's assertion that our decades of interdiction has something to do with 9/11????? bs. no one could muster applause for the embassy comment and the 14 permanent bases? bs.

i would like to see an analysis, but i am sure that Romney, Rudy, and McCain easily had the most face time. i know they did during the times i watched.

the right wing -media- clearly has their favs picked out and it looks like more ignorant, arrogant junk than promise for a good future...

starting in 1992 i was convinced that our country was on the decline, we were entering an era where showmanship vastly outweighs substance and i'm afraid it's going to make a dramatic turn for the worse if people don't start opening their ears.




.

 

[7xstall]

oh, and one more thing... was i the only one who dry heaved when people were clapping for Romney's little, i'm going to double gitmo comment???


bs.

.

 

[ViRedd]

Where's the new Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan? I agree, 7x ... the debates were puke. AND ... its pretty obvious that the media heads are leaning toward McCain and Rudy. Personally, I can't imagine either one of these guys leading the country. Honestly, I can't figure it out. Well, at least the front runner isn't Bob Dole. *lol*

Vi

 

[medicineman]

the Fox debate was total BS. people were cheering to the torture comments, it was a staged piece of crap, IMHO. i didn't even watch much of it, it was a joke.

not one person in that audience agreed with R. Paul's assertion that our decades of interdiction has something to do with 9/11????? bs. no one could muster applause for the embassy comment and the 14 permanent bases? bs.

i would like to see an analysis, but i am sure that Romney, Rudy, and McCain easily had the most face time. i know they did during the times i watched.

the right wing -media- clearly has their favs picked out and it looks like more ignorant, arrogant junk than promise for a good future...

starting in 1992 i was convinced that our country was on the decline, we were entering an era where showmanship vastly outweighs substance and i'm afraid it's going to make a dramatic turn for the worse if people don't start opening their ears.




.

I'm impressed 7X, you see it for what it is, I was expecting some drivel like they sure beat the tar out of the dems, not to say the dems are that great, but Kudos for seeing it like it is. The choices on both sides are slim to none. I might even consider sitting down with you and having a conversation, you have shown me versatility, Bravo.

 

[ViRedd]

Hey, I'll go on record as saying the Republicans were better than the Democrats ... by far! What's being offered by both parties aren't worth a damn for leading the country, but Edwards, Obama & Hillary?

I'll take any of the Republican candidates over those three any day of the week.

Vi

 

[Wavels]

3oo million people in this nation and we are stuck with these guys!!!!
Bloomberg will probably run as an independent, but he is a Mary Poppins nanny state guy.
Newt will enter as a Republican, at least he has some historical perspective, but I can not support him either.
Fred Thompson? I don't know.
Somethings gotta give!
This really sucks...IMO

 

[Indie]

Keep the faith Wavels......don\'t give up.

 

[ViRedd]

I'd like to see Newt run. Like you said, Wavels ... the guy is a historian and at least he knows that welfare-statism leads us down the road to serfdom. Not that I'd like him to be elected, I just think he'd bring a different side to the debate.

The problem as I see it is this: Americans, once fiercely independent and very protective of their liberties, have been lulled into a welfare state, entitlement mentality. The candidates are only echoing what they perceive the American people want. As soon as the majority of Americans demand the return of liberty, a liberty devotee will show up on the debate podium. How far down the road to serfdom we have to travel before Americans see the light remains to be seen.

Vi

 

[7xstall]

well med, i don't like to candy coat anything. i didn't watch the dem debates; they are irrelevant to me because their stand is consistently anti-life, anti-liberty, anti-responsibility, you know the drill... as Vi said, they have nothing on the table at this point and it doesn't appear they will anytime soon.

Newt is extremely wise, he's a treasure chest of knowledge and any elected official would stand to benefit from his counsel but i must agree that the executive position would not be a good fit. IMO, it would actually be underutilization of his talent.

Fred T., who knows? the ruthless attacks from the media, i'm afraid, have almost handed Ron P. a TKO.

this totally sucks Wavels...couldn't be worse. if a dem gets hold of all the executive power that Bush has accumulated... God help us.




.

 

[medicineman]

this totally sucks Wavels...couldn't be worse. if a dem gets hold of all the executive power that Bush has accumulated... God help us.

Now there's a comforting Idea, Revenge of the nerds. The dems arent smart enough to know how to use it. They can't even stop the war funding

 

[7xstall]

it's not about intelligence, there are many dems with intelligence to spare.

the problem lies in that intersection of capacity and will. we have not seen Bush wield the increased power of the executive against citizens like we have seen previous dems so willingly do.

so, maybe if you send an email with the phrase "jihad" it gets flagged but that's nothing compared to burning citizens alive in their home because they didn't have the correct federal permit for a couple guns.

while the drug war might be on the back burner now, it wasn't so long ago that a dem spent a record $16 billion on sending victimless criminals to prison.

my thought is, based on recent history, if a dem gets elected it will most likely result in an overcorrection of sorts; they will seek to put up a bold "new sheriff in town" domestic front and escalate the assault on our liberty to new levels, in the most despotic ways.

truth is none of the media favs on either team are real leaders, none of them have the potential to unite the two "sides" so it doesn't look good either way this thing turns out. still - even a dilute, pseudo-conservative would be better than the hard-left offering of the dems. if not from a foreign policy vantage certainly from a domestic one, which is all i really care about at present.





.

 

[medicineman]

it's not about intelligence, there are many dems with intelligence to spare.

the problem lies in that intersection of capacity and will. we have not seen Bush wield the increased power of the executive against citizens like we have seen previous dems so willingly do.

so, maybe if you send an email with the phrase "jihad" it gets flagged but that's nothing compared to burning citizens alive in their home because they didn't have the correct federal permit for a couple guns.

while the drug war might be on the back burner now, it wasn't so long ago that a dem spent a record $16 billion on sending victimless criminals to prison.

my thought is, based on recent history, if a dem gets elected it will most likely result in an overcorrection of sorts; they will seek to put up a bold "new sheriff in town" domestic front and escalate the assault on our liberty to new levels, in the most despotic ways.

truth is none of the media favs on either team are real leaders, none of them have the potential to unite the two "sides" so it doesn't look good either way this thing turns out. still - even a dilute, pseudo-conservative would be better than the hard-left offering of the dems. if not from a foreign policy vantage certainly from a domestic one, which is all i really care about at present.





.

No middle ground, eh? How does Ron Paul- Mike Gravel sound, split ticket?

 

[7xstall]

honestly the three Reps are as middle ground as you can get. they stand for nothing and whatever they do stand for can change overnight.


yeah, i totally think that the VP should also be elected by the people. the framers didn't create a VP slot to be a redundant copy of the Pres but rather they wanted an on-the-scene second pair of eyes.. it's just another fine example of wisdom that our political system has thrown out the window.




.

 

[7xstall]

btw, sorry but i don't know who Gravel is.

 

[hempie]

gravel is a dem from alaska also the loud mouth clown who stopped the draft. something imo that should of never happened. our military is too thin without it. it wont be long before its reinstated.

 

[Zekedogg]

The Republican debates are on tonight. Fox 9pm EST.

Vi

Im not trying to sound like an ass but is their really people that give a flying fuck about this?