What debate advice would you give the candidates?

If you did I'd suggest you try again and shoot for a distance farther than your third chin, yo.


Maybe that goblin that lives in your snatch grabbed it while you were looking for some twinkies..



oh pussy boy, you need to try and get a grip... :razz: just tug on it gently though don't hurt yourself.
 
Last edited:
It tells me that Palin has a lot more experience with budgeting and economics running as a VP than Clinton did running as a Pres candidate.

why? because alaska gets a lot of money from oil companies and spends 4x as much per person as clinton could? sounds to me like clinton had a harder time managing the budget on a per capita basis. but to each their own
 
I expect both to deal with some of the financial crisis questions, but this is a 'foreign policy' debate:

1. What do you think our relationship will be with Russia, Pakistan, China by the end of your first term and why.

2. Whether or not you believed Iraq was the right war at the right time, now that our military has secured some level of peace, what are your plans for the future there? Immediate withdrawal or a drawdown as the military submits recommmendations?

3. Afghanistan seems a shambles. What are your plans there for the foreseeable future?

4. Considering our immediate economic crisis, how much US money should be going to other countries as aid? If any, which? Why?
 
oh pussy boy, you need to try and get a grip... :razz: just tug on it gently though don't hurt yourself.

I've already gripped you and tossed you into the street, yo. Perhaps you should not be giving away the advice your daytime prostitute mother gives her clients about her pre-op penis.
 
I've already gripped you and tossed you into the street, yo. Perhaps you should not be giving away the advice your daytime prostitute mother gives her clients about her pre-op penis.






:clap2: yer doing good..
 
Questions to ask the candidates, "what kind of leadership did you bring to Congress that gave them the dismal approval rating?" "Where you involved in the Senate which polls have shown majority disapproval rating?" "If you cannot change the perception of Congress, how are you going to lead the Nation of 300 million when you can't even lead 750-man (Sen + HoR) in the House?" "Could you be in the same position now if you didn't belong to the Republican or Democrat party?" "If you were an independent, would the Republicans or Democrats still have same support of you?"

Then my advice to them, don't sell your soul to the devil ("insert political party"). I bet they already have. That's why we have to pick the "lesser of two evils."
 
Last edited:
go back and see what you wrote.

No, dummy. You make a claim, you back it up.

I will make it easier for you, however, because I fear you actually are lacking in comprehension skills.

You asked why I didn't believe in invading the Sudan, Zimbabwe (?) and .... oh, North Korea? But I had no problems with invading Iraq.

I explained to you we had been at war with Iraq previously, and Iraq had violated the peace treaty in a variety of ways, including threatening to shoot our planes out of the sky.

You took that to mean that I believe we must be attacked before going to war.

That's an erroneous assumption (Dictionary.com) which has nothing to do with what I said. I was stating specifically why we attacked Iraq and not those countries.

I believe we should be anywhere there's genocide going on. But that wasn't what I was addressing in that specific post.

You really need to pay attention to the words being said. Words do mean something. Concentrate on the words on the page, and not the words floating around in your head.
 

Forum List

Back
Top