Topic: The New Hampshire Republican Debate

[trapeze]

silly me, i thought a forum was a meeting place for public discussion

Please don't be obtuse and attempt to equate discussion with advocacy for a fringe candidate. We have been on that particular fun house ride one too many times.

[Alphabet Soup]

Actually, I think that there's a place in this world for the likes of Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kuchinich. Taken in small doses they provide a sort of spice to the array. Of course too much is toxic. He serves a (small) purpose right where he is now. I think he should be content with his present circumstances.

Naturally he wouldn't be RP if he were to leave well enough alone...

[trapeze]

brad:

JF was correct.

You have been given a very friendly warning. Stay here and discuss to your heart's content.

But do not engage in advocacy for Ron Paul.

Honestly, if someone decided to proselytize for any candidate our patience would be worn out in short order.

Ron Paul acolytes are legendarily annoying. Is that our fault? No.

Physician, heal thyself.

[trapeze]

And, just so everyone is on the same page (and just because I'm in the mood), from the Urban Dictionary:

1. Paulbot, noun   

Someone suffering from an obnoxious personality disorder which causes them to endlessly scan online discussions for mentions of Ron Paul and then descend on those discussions with hostile invective and over the top praise for Dr. Paul, accompanied with various rude behavior including shouting down disagreement and accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a fascist. Often characterized by not actually understanding the principles of libertarianism, the political positions of Ron Paul, or how to make any kind of effective argument for their positions. Despite being real people they have been called 'bots' because their comments often have the non sequitur like quality of computer generated spam.

And then, as predictable as the sun rising in the east, a Paulbot shows up to make the second entry for this term and thereby make the first entry a completely fulfilled prophecy:

2. Paulbot, noun   

Freedom and personal liberty loving online supporters of Ron Paul were given this name by close-minded individuals who only follow main-stream media's propaganda and lies. The close-minded refuse to believe that Ron Paul has more support than landline phone polls reflect, and therefore any online entity that supports Ron Paul must be a 'bot'. Fortunately for America there are millions of people who support the only hope for America's future, Ron Paul.

I could go on and on and on with one example after another.

Paulbot behavior will not be tolerated on this forum. Here, have a clue. Have six. We're having a special on them this week.

[charlesoakwood]

They dream of the day that Paul is the nominee so they can drag out all of the voluminous dirty laundry that resides in his drive-in closet.

    It would be a spectacle. 

I like Paul. I'd like Paul overseeing the Fed. I wish the Republicans would give him the respect he is due and let him chair the committee overseeing the Fed and Treasury as they should have. That's his forte and he would do an excellent job.  Quite possibly if they had done the right thing he wouldn't be running for president, he'd be too busy giving the Bernank and the Timothy their due.

[John Florida]

They dream of the day that Paul is the nominee so they can drag out all of the voluminous dirty laundry that resides in his drive-in closet.

    It would be a spectacle. 

I like Paul. I'd like Paul overseeing the Fed. I wish the Republicans would give him the respect he is due and let him chair the committee overseeing the Fed and Treasury as they should have. That's his forte and he would do an excellent job.  Quite possibly if they had done the right thing he wouldn't be running for president, he'd be too busy giving the Bernank and the Timothy their due.

 I would agree to most of that but I'm afraid that he would do something crazy and right now we don't need crazy. After the election I would say have at it but for the time being put a collar on him.

[charlesoakwood]

Yeah, it was a retrospective thought.  He was due the chairmanship, he had planned interviews and the worms finagled him into a subordinate position, once more illustrating their lack of fortitude.  They better than we knew what Paul would find and they were afraid to deal with it.

If we get a conservative, Boehner is history and maybe Cantor too.

 

[Glock32]

While I disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's ideology, I find that he himself is not nearly as insufferable as the legion of Paulbots. They're reminiscent of that kid from your Intro to Western Philosophy I course you took as a sophomore, the one who never missed an opportunity to wax grandiloquent in his numerous and pedantic quibbles with the professor. His interjections and questions were less about a genuine interest in the subject matter and more a platform to appear brainy in front of disinterested classmates.

[trapeze]

They dream of the day that Paul is the nominee so they can drag out all of the voluminous dirty laundry that resides in his drive-in closet.

    It would be a spectacle.  

I like Paul. I'd like Paul overseeing the Fed. I wish the Republicans would give him the respect he is due and let him chair the committee overseeing the Fed and Treasury as they should have. That's his forte and he would do an excellent job.  Quite possibly if they had done the right thing he wouldn't be running for president, he'd be too busy giving the Bernank and the Timothy their due.

 I would agree to most of that but I'm afraid that he would do something crazy and right now we don't need crazy. After the election I would say have at it but for the time being put a collar on him.

I agree with JF on this one. Paul needs to be throttled until the Republicans can consolidate their power. Then let him run roughshod over the Fed. Paul with subpoena power over the Fed is a spectacle that I do look forward to.

But president? Sorry. No Way.

He's an absolute disaster on foreign policy and we have seen what a foreign policy moron can do, haven't we?

[John Florida]

They dream of the day that Paul is the nominee so they can drag out all of the voluminous dirty laundry that resides in his drive-in closet.

    It would be a spectacle.  

I like Paul. I'd like Paul overseeing the Fed. I wish the Republicans would give him the respect he is due and let him chair the committee overseeing the Fed and Treasury as they should have. That's his forte and he would do an excellent job.  Quite possibly if they had done the right thing he wouldn't be running for president, he'd be too busy giving the Bernank and the Timothy their due.

 I would agree to most of that but I'm afraid that he would do something crazy and right now we don't need crazy. After the election I would say have at it but for the time being put a collar on him.

I agree with JF on this one. Paul needs to be throttled until the Republicans can consolidate their power. Then let him run roughshod over the Fed. Paul with subpoena power over the Fed is a spectacle that I do look forward to.

But president? Sorry. No Way.

He's an absolute disaster on foreign policy and we have seen what a foreign policy moron can do, haven't we?

 He would be like a pitbull with a new bone.

[trapeze]

But hey, getting back to the debate...

Here is Frank J's take on what to do with annoying little debate moderator pricks like John King:

TIPS FOR HANDLING A STUPID DEBATE

* Don’t be afraid to be confrontational with the moderator if he’s getting in the way of a useful discussion. A good way to make the moderator more cautious is to threaten to murder his family, saying something like, “I googled where you live, and if you keep interrupting me, I will murder your family.”

* If asked a stupid question, a perfectly legitimate response is to say, “That’s a stupid question, ask me another one.” If it’s a particularly stupid question from someone in the audience, make it clear you won’t continue with the debate until the person is removed from the building.

* If asked a completely asinine question like, “Dancing with the Stars or American Idol?” A good answer is, “You just killed your family.”

* If the moderator has a question that implies you’re extremist, say, “I can prove I’m a moderate.” Then pull out a gun and shoot him in the knee. “Extremist would have shot you in the face.”

* If the moderator ever makes noises like, “Uh… ah…” over your answer, stop your answer to say, “I’m starting to think you don’t even like your family.”

So, that’s how you shine in these debate: Take charge and threaten to murder families. That may seem extreme, but surveys show most people — especially Republicans — don’t like journalists or their families.

[trapeze]

You see, Tim Pawlenty really missed a big opportunity last night. He was asked, "Coke or Pepsi?"

He should have answered, "Ask real questions or die in a grease fire?"

Then he would have a reputation as a bad ass instead of a puss.

[charlesoakwood]

It was unanticipated that they would so awkwardly try to generate conflict among the debaters.  Genuine probative questions could more possibly cause challenges to each other. 

From the first question the set up was perceived and they acquitted themselves honorably while working around the John to establish distinctions in their positions.   

[Libertas]

But hey, getting back to the debate...

Here is Frank J's take on what to do with annoying little debate moderator pricks like John King:

TIPS FOR HANDLING A STUPID DEBATE

* Don’t be afraid to be confrontational with the moderator if he’s getting in the way of a useful discussion. A good way to make the moderator more cautious is to threaten to murder his family, saying something like, “I googled where you live, and if you keep interrupting me, I will murder your family.”

* If asked a stupid question, a perfectly legitimate response is to say, “That’s a stupid question, ask me another one.” If it’s a particularly stupid question from someone in the audience, make it clear you won’t continue with the debate until the person is removed from the building.

* If asked a completely asinine question like, “Dancing with the Stars or American Idol?” A good answer is, “You just killed your family.”

* If the moderator has a question that implies you’re extremist, say, “I can prove I’m a moderate.” Then pull out a gun and shoot him in the knee. “Extremist would have shot you in the face.”

* If the moderator ever makes noises like, “Uh… ah…” over your answer, stop your answer to say, “I’m starting to think you don’t even like your family.”

So, that’s how you shine in these debate: Take charge and threaten to murder families. That may seem extreme, but surveys show most people — especially Republicans — don’t like journalists or their families.

 

[Libertas]

You see, Tim Pawlenty really missed a big opportunity last night. He was asked, "Coke or Pepsi?"

He should have answered, "Ask real questions or die in a grease fire?"

Then he would have a reputation as a bad ass instead of a puss.

I don't know about a puss.  He played hockey, in that parlance he is a finese player!   

My answer would have been "Jack Daniels goes better with coke.  You going to fill my order or just sit there grunting and groaning and asking more stupid questions?!"

[trapeze]

You see, Tim Pawlenty really missed a big opportunity last night. He was asked, "Coke or Pepsi?"

He should have answered, "Ask real questions or die in a grease fire?"

Then he would have a reputation as a bad ass instead of a puss.

I don't know about a puss. 

That was more a play on the post debate spin that the press was dishing out in their winners/losers narrative.

[Libertas]

You see, Tim Pawlenty really missed a big opportunity last night. He was asked, "Coke or Pepsi?"

He should have answered, "Ask real questions or die in a grease fire?"

Then he would have a reputation as a bad ass instead of a puss.

I don't know about a puss. 

I like Ann Coulter on O'Reilly last night (I had left the TV on and was about to turn it off, then noticed Ann was on)...he asks about Pawlenty and she shrugs.

That about covers it!

That was more a play on the post debate spin that the press was dishing out in their winners/losers narrative.