Post: #603

Here's the link to the latest Ron Paul ad that starts running tomorrow. I think it does a pretty good job of quickly pointing out some of the discrepancies between Santorum's voting record and his "fiscal conservative" election image. The ad campaign is labeled "Fake".

http://www.infowars.com/new-ron-paul-201...m-as-fake/

The Feb 22 Arizona debate should be interesting...

Post: #604

On no! not info wars and prison planet! Alex Jones is a first class mong.

Post: #605

(02-22-2012 12:00 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote:  On no! not info wars and prison planet! Alex Jones is a first class mong.

It was the only site that had actual video ad up in a format that played. The other write-ups about the campaign ad (that I found) only had still shots.

Anyway, it's an interesting ad. I think Rick Santorum is going to get pummeled in the debate tonight. Ron Paul will be hammering on the inconsistencies between his election rhetoric and his voting record and Santorum is biting at Romney's heels in Arizona, so Romney should be ready to attack too. The heat is on.

Post: #606

Someone needs to point out a few things about the incumbant, when will that happen?

Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America 's story."


Really? could someone point out the muslim who landed with the pilgrims,enjoyed the first Thanksgiving in the new world, who fought the American Revolution?signed the Delaration of independence? Bill of rights,Contstitution, who fought for freedom of the slaves in the civil war ,fought against Hitler in world war 2,marched with Martin Luther during the civil rights Movement?

anything that shows that they were always part of America's story.

TIA.

Post: #607

(02-22-2012 02:30 PM)IMaDick Wrote:  Someone needs to point out a few things about the incumbant, when will that happen?

Barack Obama,
during his Cairo speech, said:
"I know, too, that Islam has always been a part
of America 's story."


Really? could someone point out the muslim who landed with the pilgrims,enjoyed the first Thanksgiving in the new world, who fought the American Revolution?signed the Delaration of independence? Bill of rights,Contstitution, who fought for freedom of the slaves in the civil war ,fought against Hitler in world war 2,marched with Martin Luther during the civil rights Movement?

anything that shows that they were always part of America's story.

TIA.

During the first debates, the GOP candidates took a lot of shots at Obama and the democratic party in general. This is the last debate before Super Tuesday in March. Til then, I think those still standing will remain more concerned about carving out their own spots than focusing as much on the incumbent or the opposing party.

Btw, Obama hasn't given any examples of Muslim contributions to American history on par with what you requested, to the best of my knowledge. But, you'll be glad to know that he noted these all-important contributions that he highlighted in 2009:

...Nashala Hearn, who won the right to wear a hijab in school, Bilqis Abdul-Qaadir, who holds the record for the most points scored by a high school basketball player in Massachusetts, and Muhammad Ali, who – though he couldn’t attend – is “a man of quiet dignity and grace and continues to fight for what he believes.”

Post: #608

I only caught snippets of the debate tonight but excluding Ron Paul, I think the other candidates expressed that we should be ready/willing to act militarily in Iran and that Obama isn't being tough enough in that regard...?

There was so much flip-flopping with regards to Libya, I want to pin these bastards down on their stance with regards to Iran.

I have to say, the GOP ticket sucks elephant ass right now. I don't like Obama but I'd have a hard time voting for any of the Republican contenders. They're all leaning too hard right and playing further and further to their tea party/religious right supporters.

Post: #609

I watched the debate and am surprised to say that I think I underestimated Rick Santorum. I wouldn't vote for him because of his history regarding women's issues, but he impressed me tonight and that shocked me. It makes a big difference in a debate when there are only 4 candidates and not 8 or more - got to hear more of what each of them had to say on the issues and they got a chance to pummel each other's historical voting records vs. their current rhetoric with more vigor. I thought it was a really good debate.

All of the candidates profess to want more issues turned over to the state. All of them claim to be fiscal conservatists who will seriously cut entitlement programs as was done under Reagan with welfare. All of them profess to want "No Child Left Behind" to be abolished; Paul hit Santorum hard for previously supporting it. All of them, except Paul, think Obama has been weak when it comes to what they perceive as a real nuclear weapons threat from Iran, and in Romeny's opinion, a failed opportunity to capitalize on the current vulnerability of Syria's leader who is one of Iran's strongest allies. Paul is one staunch Constitutionalist; firm. He feels that we shouldn't be focusing on issues outside of our borders anyway unless its defensive; he thinks there are too many offensive actions overseas that we should either stay away from, or make the case and officially declare war if warranted. He stated that there is no proof that Iran had nuclear weapon capacity/potential. I think that statement might have hurt him with the general public.

Boy they waffled on the contraception issue. They waffled, in my opinion, on the women in combat issue as well.

Will be interesting to see what the pundits have to say tomorrow. I think Santorum and Romney were pretty much neck and neck in making their points. Paul was great in his statement that elected officials should be making decisions based on their commitment to the Constitution, not to any party or group - got a big applause. He really is consistent, as he said. Gingrich was kind of a non-entity, I thought. Again referring back to his role in the Reagan administration too often, in my opinion, as in every debate. He did make me laugh though when the moderator asked each of them to describe themselves in one word. Paul: Committed. Santorum: Courage. Romney: Resolute. Gingrich: Cheerful.

Post: #610

(02-22-2012 11:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:  I watched the debate and am surprised to say that I think I underestimated Rick Santorum. I wouldn't vote for him because of his history regarding women's issues, but he impressed me tonight and that shocked me. It makes a big difference in a debate when there are only 4 candidates and not 8 or more - got to hear more of what each of them had to say on the issues and they got a chance to pummel each other's historical voting records vs. their current rhetoric with more vigor. I thought it was a really good debate.

All of the candidates profess to want more issues turned over to the state. All of them profess to want "No Child Left Behind" to be abolished; Paul hit Santorum hard for previously supporting it. All of them, except Paul, think Obama has been weak when it comes to what they perceive as a real nuclear weapons threat from Iran, and in Romeny's opinion, a failed opportunity to capitalize on the current vulnerability of Syria's leader who is one of Iran's strongest allies. Paul is one staunch Constitutionalist; firm. He feels that we shouldn't be focusing on issues outside of our borders anyway unless its defensive; he thinks there are too many offensive actions overseas that we should either stay away from or officiallly declare war. He stated that there was no proof that Iran had nuclear weapon capacity/potential. I think that statement might have hurt him..

Boy they waffled on the contraception issue. They waffled, in my opinion, on the women in combat issue as well.

Will be interesting to see what the pundits have to say tomorrow. I think Santorum and Romney were pretty much neck and neck in making their points. Paul was great in his statement that elected officials should be making decisions based on their commitment to the Constitution, not to any party or group - he really is consistent, as he said. Gingrich was kind of a non-entity, I thought. He did make me laugh though when the moderator asked each of them to describe themselves in one word. Paul: Committed. Santorum: Courage. Romney: Resolute. Gingrich: Cheerful.

Nice summary! I did hear Paul make that remark about constitution vs. party. +1 for him.

I didn't hear enough of what Santorum said overall to comment. But he's so far right of me from a social/religious/reproductive rights stand point that I don't know if I could vote for him under any circumstances.

Romney failed at that last question; something to the effect of "what misperceptions do people have about you"? He went off on some tangent and when confronted said something like "you asked the question, I'll answer it the way I want" or something stupid. -1 Romney.

I'm looking forward to the analyses too because I did miss a lot of it.

Post: #611

Oh yeah, user, Romney really blew it with the last question about the biggest misconception the public has about each of them. Instead of answering the question like the others did about what they feel the public wrongly perceives about themselves, he used that last minute to try and sum up his campaign agenda and was off point. It made him look less focused than the others; bad way to end a really close debate. He was ruffled, but that moderator is excellent in my opinion and blew off Romney's attempt to deflect and cover his ass.

Post: #612

Santorum should have come out with a big, blotch of ash on his forehead.

Post: #613

(02-23-2012 12:10 AM)username Wrote:  Santorum should have come out with a big, blotch of ash on his forehead.

Haha. He's got to hide that, for now. He is quicker and sharper than I previously thought though. Slick.

Post: #614

(02-23-2012 12:15 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 12:10 AM)username Wrote:  Santorum should have come out with a big, blotch of ash on his forehead.

Haha. He's got to hide that, for now. He is quicker and sharper than I previously thought though. Slick.

No doubt he's quick and sharp but he's also unabashed about his "satan is targeting the U.S." remarks.

They're all pandering to their far right constituency and they're killing themselves in the general election. I would absolutely vote for a fiscally conservative Republican candidate but not someone who sounds like a right wing, televangelist.

Post: #615

I intend to make my decision on who I'm giving my vote to by what I glean from this thread.

Yes, Cracker, my lazy, honky ass is letting someone else do all the work, all the reading, all the time spent listening to the debates, watching & listening to everything media driven & I'm going to use the knowledge they share to make my choice.

Thank you.

Post: #616

(02-23-2012 12:49 AM)username Wrote:  No doubt he's quick and sharp but he's also unabashed about his "satan is targeting the U.S." remarks.

They're all pandering to their far right constituency and they're killing themselves in the general election. I would absolutely vote for a fiscally conservative Republican candidate but not someone who sounds like a right wing, televangelist.

I would vote for a fiscally conservative candidate from any party too, if they possessed the leadership qualities and abilities to choose the right Cabinet and staff to also handle foreign relations and manage social issues skillfully (and with respect to input from the people who they are supposed to be representing).

I just took a look at some of the write-ups about last night's debate. Most seem to be giving Romney a victory over Santorum. I saw it differently, but maybe because I expected so little from Santorum and a better showing from Romney. A political analyst, I most surely am not...

Santorum's satan shit doesn't bother me as much as his positions on some issues. He is against abortion even for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. He is against all birth control, period. Though he says he will put aside his personal feelings on these matters (which he considers "moral" issues, if I understand correctly) and consider the views of the masses and others in government if elected, it bothers me that these are social issues that involve legislation. The hard-core Catholic beliefs and evil-fearing jargon don't bother me as much because while they may affect his decision making, they aren't beliefs or matters that can be directly legislated. If he were to have wise advisors and Cabinet members, major decisions couldn't be made based on one person's religious idealogy (hopefully I'm not being naive about that; separation of church and state seems to work pretty well for us, in my opinion).

The LDS/Mormom religion keeps a lot of its belief systems and Mormon practices out of the public spectrum and limited to its followers. That's probably a plus for Romney. Not sure the same portions of the voting public who are turned off by Santorum's religious rhetoric would be any less turned off by some LDS beliefs, particularly those related to LDS men's god-like status on earth (and the ultimate level of satisfaction for LDS women). IDK, I guess I don't care about the candidates' religious beliefs, as long as they don't affect legislation and conflict with the Constitution.

I think Paul and Gingrich are pretty much out after last night, but lots of my instincts have been incorrect since the first televised debate. Ha. I'd be surprised if the final ticket is not Romney or Santorum vs. Obama, who current polls indicate cannot be defeated by any of the GOP candidates. Still early though and lots of shit will undoubtedly change before November. This has been a very interesting election race so far.