It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: trapeze on June 13, 2011, 08:03:23 PM
-
Bachman!
-
Cain supports the Ryan Plan.
-
Romney slams O'Bama on Social Security
and everything else.
-
Bachman slams O'Bama on the debt ceiling.
-
Pawlenty makes great answer on separation of church and state.
-
Ron Paul responds to a question of faith about as you would expect. Gets applause.
-
Cain gets hit with the anti muslim question.
Gets applause for standing against sharia law.
-
Gingrich takes on militant islam.
-
The "this or that" questions are asinine.
-
Bachman stands for federalism on question of gay marriage.
-
Santorum gets the "don't ask don't tell" question right by saying that the military isn't for social engineering.
-
Santorum also scores with the pro life issue.
Gets applause.
-
Bachman scores with the pro life question, too.
-
Damn, I wish that Perry was in this debate.
-
Illegal immigration question.
Santorum kind of fudges on it.
Paul sez protect border by getting out of Iraq.
-
Cain gets the anchor baby question. and dodges it.
Sez secure borders, enforce laws, promote path to citizenship.
-
Pawlenty gets the federalism question about AZ's border law. Sez that the federal government should do its job. Goes after the anchor baby question by way of the bench. Sez that federal judges are liberal on the issue.
-
Gingrich starts soft on immigration. Will not deport apparently. Sez border should be enforced though. Slams DHS...send them to the border. Wants the comprehensive immigration solution, though.
-
Paul torpedoes eminent domain laws. As expected. And as he should.
-
Romney also comes out against eminent domain abuse. Makes the right answer on energy independence. Slams O'Bama on energy.
-
Santorum gets the ethanol subsidy question. Is for phase out of subsidies and tariffs re ethanol.
-
I missed the beginning of the debate and will have to watch it in rerun. The candidates are doing pretty good in general. Not slamming O'Bama enough. Slamming O'Bama is an absolute no brainer at this point in the primary season and it SHOULD be done as frequently as possible. When the Huckabee Anti-ObamaCare ad is more anti-O'Bama than the candidates, that's a bad sign. These are missed opportunities.
-
The bring the troops home question goes to Romney. sez that the Afghanies need to be able to protect against the Taliban before we leave. Hmmm.
Sez we shouldn't fight foreign wars of independence.
-
Paul, of course, is for no wars at all.
Ever.
-
Pawlenty thanks the serviceman for his service. Brings it back to 9/11. Smackdown of Paul's answer.
-
Bachman slams the Libya war. Slams O'Bama on Libya.
-
Gingrich slams the intelligence community re Libya. Sez we need to get out of somewhere. Not sure if he's talking about Libya or other places.
-
Cain gets the commander in chief question. Throws out his usual point of needing to know the facts before making decisions. Not bad but not specific enough.
-
Santorum gets a stupid question about reducing the military to reduce the debt. Misses the opportunity to slam entitlements which are the real problem.
-
Commercial break.
Again, not enough slamming of the current administration. Why? Why? Why? These are HUGE missed opportunities to remind the public of the failure of the O'Bama admin. The first debate featured a lot more slams of O'Bama. This one is seriously light on that kind of thing.
They keep showing Facebook questions up on a big screen and some of the questions are better than the questions the candidates are getting. I don't know why they bother showing these questions if they aren't willing to ask them.
-
The final segment.
Cain gets a question about polls. Stupid question. Gives a fairly good answer to a stupid question about the field of candidates being weak.
-
Commercial break.
Again, not enough slamming of the current administration. Why? Why? Why? These are HUGE missed opportunities to remind the public of the failure of the O'Bama admin. The first debate featured a lot more slams of O'Bama. This one is seriously light on that kind of thing.
They keep showing Facebook questions up on a big screen and some of the questions are better than the questions the candidates are getting. I don't know why they bother showing these questions if they aren't willing to ask them.
They started the night by slamming bambi.
-
Pawlenty gets an easy question about the veep pick and does the right thing by attacking Biden. What a terrific question, softball, Biden is wrong on everything.
Romney slams O'Bama again.
-
Commercial break.
Again, not enough slamming of the current administration. Why? Why? Why? These are HUGE missed opportunities to remind the public of the failure of the O'Bama admin. The first debate featured a lot more slams of O'Bama. This one is seriously light on that kind of thing.
They keep showing Facebook questions up on a big screen and some of the questions are better than the questions the candidates are getting. I don't know why they bother showing these questions if they aren't willing to ask them.
They started the night by slamming bambi.
More, please.
-
Bachman gets a stupid question about who she would pick as veep.
-
Paul doesn't want to pick a veep either.
-
No one should answer that question.
-
Santorum sez good things about the candidates.
Bachman does too.
Gingrich panders to NH.
Romney does too.
Paul sez we all get along.
Pawlenty sez the Boston Bruins rule.
Cain sez it's not about us but about the people.
-
CNN sure puts on a stupid debate. Dumb questions and stupid format. FNC was way better.
-
I will need to review this later and look for mistakes that I didn't catch when this was live. I really, really wish that Perry had been there. Next time, I hope.
-
But, at least the part I saw, the candidates (with the exception of Romney) were a bit timid in attacking the admin. The admin sucks and they need to be willing to make that a part of every single answer.
-
And even Romney didn't do it enough.
-
So, some good points were made but, for me, there were a tremendous number of missed opportunities.
-
Your dumb and stupid nailed it. They missed some opportunities possibly because they were busy dodging the red meat moderators were tossing trying to start a fight. They did it to the bitter end, starting at the beginning with an Obamneycare challenge to Pawlenty.
The lady and gentlemen overall did better than I expected due to circumstance. Santorum needs to dump the personal pronouns.
Paul was more disciplined than usual. Cain's answers are pretty good but delivery is rough. Gingrich was better than I expected.
-
Your dumb and stupid nailed it. They missed some opportunities possibly because they were busy dodging the red meat moderators were tossing trying to start a fight. They did it to the bitter end, starting at the beginning with an Obamneycare challenge to Pawlenty.
The lady and gentlemen overall did better than I expected due to circumstance. Santorum needs to dump the personal pronouns.
Paul was more disciplined than usual. Cain's answers are pretty good but delivery is rough. Gingrich was better than I expected.
You're right on the money.If I had to chose tonight it would be hard.
-
thanks for the update trap. I had to go out and missed it--hope to catch it later.
-
cain/romney/gingrich on muslims in government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGOhsiYFbd4#ws)
-
Reading the comments at AoS for the debate live blog. Best one yet:
84 You can't even see Callista behind Newt's podium with her hand up his ass.
Posted by: nickless at June 13, 2011 08:11 PM (MMC8r)
-
Reading the comments at AoS for the debate live blog. Best one yet:
84 You can't even see Callista behind Newt's podium with her hand up his ass.
Posted by: nickless at June 13, 2011 08:11 PM (MMC8r)
I don't like gNewt. I don't want him up there.
Tonight he exercised restraint and his answers resonated. They need
to jack him up or he is going to look better and better.
-
Reading the comments at AoS for the debate live blog. Best one yet:
84 You can't even see Callista behind Newt's podium with her hand up his ass.
Posted by: nickless at June 13, 2011 08:11 PM (MMC8r)
I don't like gNewt. I don't want him up there.
Tonight he exercised restraint and his answers resonated. They need
to jack him up or he is going to look better and better.
This was just the opening round given time he'll screw up!!
-
You're a man of great faith, JF.
-
I liked this one, too...
148 Kudos to CNN for the-most-schizophrenic-debate evah!
Twitter! Facebook! Live feed! Some random mainstream d-bag! Yay! Look, a squirrel asking a pertinent question! No, over there you moron!
Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at June 13, 2011 08:32 PM (nufXD)
-
SS/Medicare, after thought:
As the remedy question circulated amongst the candidates only Pawlenty and Bachman said "my plan", the rest they either wholeheartedly supported it or gave a big tip of the hat to Paul Ryan.
This is ego garbage. Neither of the two has a plan but they are going to have a better plan. Wait people, you aren't sophomores in high school, this is Ryan's forte, your staff will never do as well as Ryan, it is becoming accepted, stick your finger in the wind and support the man. This is our best chance to reconstruct this thing. If you must, apply your ego somewhere else.***
gNewt also scored again. His addendum was to call attention to the necessity of electing enough senators to control it
in order for assured accomplishment.
***Bachmann? said to defund the EPA, NOW.
-
You're a man of great faith, JF.
The Secret of Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp3aAvorZcw#)
-
Having had some time to reflect on the debate...
Romney did well and I did give him credit throughout the portion that I watched for hitting O'Bama. He probably hit O'Bama more than anyone else. He was smooth and polished. Not that he shouldn't have been. This is his second go round at this dog and pony show. He didn't make any huge obvious mistakes.
Cain did not improve on his performance from the last debate and I think that the reason for this was twofold. First, he is still depending on the, "I will get top experts together and we will come up with the best plan" non-answer answer to at least one of the questions...I can't remember which one. Secondly, he did not appear to have spent the intervening time between now and the last debate working very hard on his delivery or on his knowledge of the issues. A serious candidate would be working overtime to become an expert on every topic likely to be put to him. So, Cain was a bit of a disappointment. Not that he was bad, he wasn't, but that he wasn't better. I cut him a lot of slack because I expected him to be better.
Santorum, who I like on most issues, just doesn't come across as presidential. I can't put my finger on why but that is just my overall impression. I would rather see him back in congress fighting the good fight.
Pawlenty had some good moments but seems to be lacking sufficient fire. There is a lack of passion there and that will be his undoing in this part of the campaign. He can come back from this but he needs to hurry to avoid being painted that way with a broad brush.
Gingrich did surprisingly well given the recent upheaval inside his camp. I think he will drop out at some point because he won't be able to raise the money necessary to keep up. (That will probably be Cain's undoing, too.)
Paul was remarkably restrained and only had one or two of his trademark, "Koo Koo For Cocoa Puffs" moments. Need I say more?
Bachman had the most to gain from this debate since she has (nationally) less name recognition than the others (possible exception would be Santorum). I think that she did herself a lot of good tonight. I don't think that she did herself any harm. It will be interesting to see if she can build on this performance in the coming weeks.
So, bottom line is that Romney would be the winner except that he did about as well as he was expected to do. Not an outstanding performance or a breakout performance but that would be hard to pull off under any circumstances. Romney benefitted from not really being harpooned over AGW and/or RomneyCare. Bachman, in my opinion, wins by a nose because she stood out better than the rest of the field and didn't screw up. Not an outstanding performance but a competent one. I don't think she will end up getting the nomination (unless things really get weird). She could get the veep pick if she can keep up the same level of performance that she showed tonight, though.
As always, all bets are off if/when Perry gets in. Or Palin.
-
Just read Rich Lowry's take (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269528/mitts-night-rich-lowry) on the debate. Pretty close to my assessment in several ways. I thought Gingrich was better than he did. He gave the debate to Romney, though, with what looked like a close second to Bachmann.
In general, Pawlenty was fine, but faded into the background and sometimes seemed much too canned. He had to be chagrined watching how well Michelle Bachmann did — the average viewer just tuning in wouldn’t have any idea she’s not considered a “top tier” candidate.
-
I'd have to say your analysis is fair Trap. I too am a bit disappointed in Cain, if he can't show more depth he'll be lost in the noise.
So far the Paulbots are hitting Fox in the "who would you like to see debate Obama" contest. Cain in second surprises me, but as with all online polls you have to take these with a big grain of salt.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/13/which-candidate-or-would-be-candidate-would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/13/which-candidate-or-would-be-candidate-would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/)
I think Michele did alright her first time at bat. If she improves her performances and gains confidence she could be a factor. I think Romney is coasting on money and confidence right now so his thing will be all about not making mistakes, and the funny thing about that is that sometimes when you focus too much on that events and other candidates can often surge past you and then BAM! you make that one fatal mistake.
I also agree with your earlier comment about wanting more attacks on Obama, he is a target rich environment and the opportunities to attack and differentiate yourself from his disastrous record should be a no-brainer. The time to jump on a fellow candidate is when they say something stupid, otherwise the focus must be on differentiation with Obamunism. If you don't set the plate now you won't be enjoying a good dinner later!
ETA - Disclaimer: I also think Palin & Perry could really shake things up here and rid us of the obvious dead wood should they decide to jump in.
-
I saw the Paul numbers and fully expected to see them. His supporters are very consistent. Consistently obsessive and stupid. I always ignore Paul's online poll results for this reason.
Romney has already made his mistakes re AGW and RomneyCare.
The debate format was very stupid and someone could have scored a lot of points with the base for just pointing it out. The "this or that" questions were the most brainless of all hearkening back to the "boxers or briefs" question that Clinton got from the MTV crowd. If I had been at the debate and had been asked one of those inane questions I would have thrown it right back at them as too stupid to be considered worthy of a reply, as in, "John, don't waste the time of the American people with such trite and pointless questions. America is in serious trouble and we need to discuss serious topics. Save this kind of nonsense question for the president the next time you see him."
-
This was posted this morning at AoS under the title of "Young Newt Gingrich"
(http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad81/rdbrewer/101234.gif)
-
Republicans Assail Obama Performance on Economy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKb7jNPIYng#ws)
-
This was posted this morning at AoS under the title of "Young Newt Gingrich"
(http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad81/rdbrewer/101234.gif)
::hysterical::
-
I saw the Paul numbers and fully expected to see them. His supporters are very consistent. Consistently obsessive and stupid. I always ignore Paul's online poll results for this reason.
Romney has already made his mistakes re AGW and RomneyCare.
The debate format was very stupid and someone could have scored a lot of points with the base for just pointing it out. The "this or that" questions were the most brainless of all hearkening back to the "boxers or briefs" question that Clinton got from the MTV crowd. If I had been at the debate and had been asked one of those inane questions I would have thrown it right back at them as too stupid to be considered worthy of a reply, as in, "John, don't waste the time of the American people with such trite and pointless questions. America is in serious trouble and we need to discuss serious topics. Save this kind of nonsense question for the president the next time you see him."
::thumbsup::
-
Louisiana Hayride (http://thehayride.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-the-debate/)
...
But one thing which seems quite clear after watching this event – this business of the Republicans having a weak field this year has been proven to be a fraud. Which isn’t a surprise – the purveyors of that notion come primarily from the ranks of the legacy media, the overwhelming majority of whom are invested in Obama’s re-election.
On stage tonight was a former Speaker of the House, a pair of governors, a Senator, two members of Congress and a prominent businessman who was a Federal Reserve Bank chairman. Compare that to the Democrat field in 2008 which produced an elected president – essentially three senators (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards) of very junior tenure and minimal accomplishment. So the idea that this field isn’t good enough to beat Obama is bilge. It’s canal water.
Another thing which jumped out was that John King, the moderator, sucked. King grunted incessantly while the candidates were trying to give their answers, and if that was off-putting to watch one has to think how irritating and distracting it must have been to try to give answers to questions with the moderator making stupid noises while they’re trying to talk.
...
Complete article: Link (http://thehayride.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-the-debate/)
-
Consensus is that Tim Pawlenty should have stuck a knife in Romney at the Obamneycare opportunity.
I disagree, criticizing a plan is one thing taking a cheap shot to make one appear strong is not, it is an Obamanism, and Pawlenty is the better man for walking it back and addressing it on the merits instead
of a cheap slogan. Doesn't mean he shouldn't skewer him, just do it as an adult. Thanks Tim.
-
Louisiana Hayride (http://thehayride.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-the-debate/)
...
But one thing which seems quite clear after watching this event – this business of the Republicans having a weak field this year has been proven to be a fraud. Which isn’t a surprise – the purveyors of that notion come primarily from the ranks of the legacy media, the overwhelming majority of whom are invested in Obama’s re-election.
On stage tonight was a former Speaker of the House, a pair of governors, a Senator, two members of Congress and a prominent businessman who was a Federal Reserve Bank chairman. Compare that to the Democrat field in 2008 which produced an elected president – essentially three senators (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards) of very junior tenure and minimal accomplishment. So the idea that this field isn’t good enough to beat Obama is bilge. It’s canal water.
Another thing which jumped out was that John King, the moderator, sucked. King grunted incessantly while the candidates were trying to give their answers, and if that was off-putting to watch one has to think how irritating and distracting it must have been to try to give answers to questions with the moderator making stupid noises while they’re trying to talk.
...
Complete article: Link (http://thehayride.com/2011/06/thoughts-on-the-debate/)
::clapping::
-
I think there is a culprit aside from the "legacy media" responsible for the perception that the GOP field is weak: conservatives who understand what is at stake, and are refusing to settle for milquetoast in place of hard medicine.
We are not satisfied with another McCain, we demand more, and split our allegiance between those who are acceptable.
I'll say one thing: I'd rather deal with the disappointment of having to hold Romney's or Pawlenty's feet to the fire than watch our country end on Obamas watch
-
I think there is a culprit aside from the "legacy media" responsible for the perception that the GOP field is weak: conservatives who understand what is at stake, and are refusing to settle for milquetoast in place of hard medicine.
We are not satisfied with another McCain, we demand more, and split our allegiance between those who are acceptable.
I'll say one thing: I'd rather deal with the disappointment of having to hold Romney's or Pawlenty's feet to the fire than watch our country end on Obamas watch
And here we are again! Everytime we start to close in on an election this comes up. It's like dating an ugly woman and swearing that we will never do it again and next thing you know it's a quarter to closing and you have a choice to make.
-
I think there is a culprit aside from the "legacy media" responsible for the perception that the GOP field is weak: conservatives who understand what is at stake, and are refusing to settle for milquetoast in place of hard medicine.
We are not satisfied with another McCain, we demand more, and split our allegiance between those who are acceptable.
I'll say one thing: I'd rather deal with the disappointment of having to hold Romney's or Pawlenty's feet to the fire than watch our country end on Obamas watch
And here we are again! Everytime we start to close in on an election this comes up. It's like dating an ugly woman and swearing that we will never do it again and next thing you know it's a quarter to closing and you have a choice to make.
Insanity:
repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result.
-
I think you're right about the insanity remark and you have to admit that the only one that isn't part of the game is Paul.
-
Rush mentioned today any of the candidates would be better than obummer.....and he is correct....but I do not want to settle this go around.....I do not want the media choosing my candidate.
Out of this group, there is only one candidate, if the nominee, will drive me nuts....he (oops) it is the one who mentioned humans as a cause of global warming, climate change, or climate chaos and has a healthcare plan eerily similiar to obamas.
Some of the others I have minor issues, but most likely nothing to stop my support.
-
I think you're right about the insanity remark and you have to admit that the only one that isn't part of the game is Paul.
I would have said Cain.He's the only outsider.
-
I think there is a culprit aside from the "legacy media" responsible for the perception that the GOP field is weak: conservatives who understand what is at stake, and are refusing to settle for milquetoast in place of hard medicine.
We are not satisfied with another McCain, we demand more, and split our allegiance between those who are acceptable.
I'll say one thing: I'd rather deal with the disappointment of having to hold Romney's or Pawlenty's feet to the fire than watch our country end on Obamas watch
And here we are again! Everytime we start to close in on an election this comes up. It's like dating an ugly woman and swearing that we will never do it again and next thing you know it's a quarter to closing and you have a choice to make.
Insanity:
repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result.
As long as we let it be known that we'll settle for "Anyone but Obama" then that's exactly what we'll get. What incentive does the Republican Party have to change their ways if they know we'll vote for anyone with an R after their name?
Oddly enough, the mirror image of this phenomenon is also going on with the left. Serious leftists are unhappy with Obama and think he's a pawn of Wall Street. Some consider him a sellout to the leftist cause. But they'll vote for him in 2012 because the Democrats will scare them with the Republican boogeyman. "If you don't vote for Obama, then one of those nasty right-wingers will win." Of course, they'll say that about any Republican, even a RINO.
One might almost suspect that the two parties are playing "good cop, bad cop" with the American people, as the country moves inexorably towards totalitarianism.
-
...
...
Insanity:
repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result.
As long as we let it be known that we'll settle for "Anyone but Obama" then that's exactly what we'll get. What incentive does the Republican Party have to change their ways if they know we'll vote for anyone with an R after their name?...
Right. We know that all persons on that stage would be better than Obama.
A thing to keep in mind, Romney can win the general election he definitely can not
win the primary. There will be someone to collect the evangelical vote, not Romney.
So pass on him and pick a conservative. This is our last chance.
-
...
...
Insanity:
repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result.
As long as we let it be known that we'll settle for "Anyone but Obama" then that's exactly what we'll get. What incentive does the Republican Party have to change their ways if they know we'll vote for anyone with an R after their name?...
Right. We know that all persons on that stage would be better than Obama.
A thing to keep in mind, Romney can win the general election he definitely can not
win the primary. There will be someone to collect the evangelical vote, not Romney.
So pass on him and pick a conservative. This is our last chance.
I saw Perry on TV today and it smells like a run to me.
-
Could be JF, and now the moderate Huntsman is jumping in, so the circus could really fire up now.
-
Could be JF, and now the moderate Huntsman is jumping in, so the circus could really fire up now.
From what I've seen of Huntsman he's a nut.
-
I think you're right about the insanity remark and you have to admit that the only one that isn't part of the game is Paul.
Actually I don't have to admit that at all.
What you seem to be implying is that it would be insane to vote for/support an establishment (liberal lite) candidate like Romney or Gingrich or (maybe) Pawlenty and that instead the non-insane thing to do would be for everyone to just go nuts for Ron Paul.
Sorry to break it to you but Ron Paul is not the anti-establishment candidate. Ron Paul is a fringe crank.
There are many choices (some not yet announced) for an anti-establishment (conservative) candidate and Ron Paul is not in that mix. And never will be.
Ron Paul is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian who does not have the courage to run under that label because he would lose.
The only reason that Ron Paul is tolerated at these debates is because the media makes sure he is always invited. The media enjoys painting Republicans as extremists and Paul gladly fills that hole. 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.
Please feel free to post here, brad, but be forewarned that Paulbots will not be tolerated. Well, not for long anyway. Usually there is some fun had at their expense before they get an up close and personal experience with Mr. Banhammer.
-
silly me, i thought a forum was a meeting place for public discussion
-
silly me, i thought a forum was a meeting place for public discussion
It is.....Just not too many Paul supporters in the place....
-
silly me, i thought a forum was a meeting place for public discussion
Brad you're talking to nice people that just gave you a friendly warning that if you sole purpose to be here is to push Paul and other than that you don't care about anything else you may be wasting you time. We all wear the battle scars already. The choice is yours.
-
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.
-
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... ;D
-
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.
-
And, just so everyone is on the same page (and just because I'm in the mood), from the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Paulbot):
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.
-
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.
::hysterical:: 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.
-
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.
::hysterical:: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
::hysterical:: 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?
-
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.
::hysterical:: 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.
-
But hey, getting back to the debate...
Here is Frank J's (http://www.imao.us/index.php/2011/06/tips-for-handling-a-stupid-debate) 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But hey, getting back to the debate...
Here is Frank J's (http://www.imao.us/index.php/2011/06/tips-for-handling-a-stupid-debate) 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.
::hysterical::
-
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! ;D
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?!"
-
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.
-
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.