2007 debates.

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
What are you opinions on the republican and democratic debates?

Personally I thought that frontrunner Hillary Clinton was more concernd with bashing republicans, than debating opponents. She may be the front runner but I really hope she does not get elected.

Obama seemed very composed, I like his immigration plan. He is open to working with mexico on this issue and understands that this is a nation of diverse ethnicity.

Edwards would be a perfect vice president with Obama if they combined forces. His healthcare plan is better than all the democrats plan of raising taxes to cover everyone. You dont need to raise taxes to cover everyone you just need to put a cap on the insurance companys profit. They are the ones screwing it up, just like oil companys.

(Note to republicans, the free market can only take you so far. Until you have a monopoly on your hands, then the government literally has to take over and stop the corruption.)

Rudy Gulliani is a dope. He is trying to get the sympathy vote for 9-11, yet all he does is bash democrats. You cant get votes, bashing democrats (who happen to controll the senate and the house right now) So how can he work in a bipartisan way after bashing them all the way to the top?

Huckabee is still a lunatic, with punchlines similar to george bush. I hope he does not get nominated. Hes such a tool.

I do like the republicans side stepping the gay issue though, that was classic. Every single one of them said "well we should not talk about this stupid stuff during time of war" and they are right but, well cant at least one of you talk about it? I mean its going to be an election year coming up, people want to know what you think, not that you can dodge a question.

Ofcourse none of them believe gays should serve openly in the military. I think I will leave that issue to the gays and the soldiers, since It wont really effect me.

Mitt Romney supports the president in every way. What a surprise, another republican supporting his leader. He actually said he would make bush an ambassador of the US during times of tragedy because he has character, hes honest.....blah blah blah. BUSH??!?! Is going to represent america overseas? Good lord I have seen it all. Is he not the one that alienated us in the first place?

A little advice, if you want to be president, dont align yourself with the worst one.

Basically all the nominees want to stay in Iraq.

So voters, let it be known. If you like the way Iraq is going, and think we should stay for a very long time. Vote republican. lol.

Good luck on that issue next year republicans.

As for democrats.....Good luck explaining your stupidity in handling a simple war funding bill. Its easy, either you fund it because you agree.....or you dont because you dont. They basically funded the war that they oppose, way to make a statement. Ofcourse they got the extra money they wanted.....well thats just great, but why do I care?

Anyone else have an opinion?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
You would work well with Republicans after all your kind words abouth them

The Dem debtae was like a high schoold debate. They blamed Bush for everything and offered no new solutions

The Dems went witht he usual answers - higher taxes, surrender in Iraq, government run health care, and how the US needs to suck up to the rest of the world
 
OP
Vintij

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
You would work well with Republicans after all your kind words abouth them

The Dem debtae was like a high schoold debate. They blamed Bush for everything and offered no new solutions

The Dems went witht he usual answers - higher taxes, surrender in Iraq, government run health care, and how the US needs to suck up to the rest of the world
Actually they offered several new plans in healthcare and immigration. Iraq not so much, just the usual "I will get them out" rant. If I were voting republican, I would vote for......Mcain. If I were voting democrat I would vote for Obama.

But RSR, you should stop aligning yourself with president Bush, even your republican nominees are all bashing Bush. He is hopeless.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Actually they offered several new plans in healthcare and immigration. Iraq not so much, just the usual "I will get them out" rant. If I were voting republican, I would vote for......Mcain. If I were voting democrat I would vote for Obama.

But RSR, you should stop aligning yourself with president Bush, even your republican nominees are all bashing Bush. He is hopeless.
All the plans were the same - government run and a hell of huge price tag. They all would pay for it with higher taxes

I have my disagreements with Pres Bush: spending, immigration, global waming crap, and not pushing for more tax cuts

McCain is a RINO and he does not have a chance in getting the nomination
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,353
Reaction score
7,019
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
From all I can tell, the debates this early are just plain silly. Pretty much the same questions, no one wants to distinguish themselves from the others too much for fear of losing support, save Ron Paul, and this goes to both parties. The CNN debates are perhaps the mosr ridiculous, raise your hand if you believe... Come on, raise your hand? Fuck me! Ask them a question they can answer for shits sake. WTF? Raise your hand? Wow, now there's a new debate format!

The Fox Republican debate has, so far and for the most part, been the best of the debates (IMO), Democrat and Republican. Though I did take humbrage with that idiotic hypothetical terrorist attack question.

In my opinion, the Democrats were foolish to cancel their date with Fox News (I use the term news loosely, more than anything, Fox is a news analysis/opinion network). Based on what I've seen, FN was tougher on the Republican candidates than CNN was on the Democrat candidates, but that's probably why they canceled.

They won't face Fox, but they want us to think they will stand down terrorism. (jk)
 

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
I haven't watch them yet because so much can change between now and next year so I'll wait it out when the real candidates who survive start to shuffle for votes.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
From all I can tell, the debates this early are just plain silly. Pretty much the same questions, no one wants to distinguish themselves from the others too much for fear of losing support, save Ron Paul, and this goes to both parties. The CNN debates are perhaps the mosr ridiculous, raise your hand if you believe... Come on, raise your hand? Fuck me! Ask them a question they can answer for shits sake. WTF? Raise your hand? Wow, now there's a new debate format!

The Fox Republican debate has, so far and for the most part, been the best of the debates (IMO), Democrat and Republican. Though I did take humbrage with that idiotic hypothetical terrorist attack question.

In my opinion, the Democrats were foolish to cancel their date with Fox News (I use the term news loosely, more than anything, Fox is a news analysis/opinion network). Based on what I've seen, FN was tougher on the Republican candidates than CNN was on the Democrat candidates, but that's probably why they canceled.

They won't face Fox, but they want us to think they will stand down terrorism. (jk)
Fox News educated CNN on how to run a debate
 
OP
Vintij

Vintij

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
105
Points
48
Location
Anaheim, CA
CNN gives about 10 seconds of response time. If they wanted a quick answer, they should stop asking umbrella questions. And the question about what job would you give to Former president bush or clinton, is a stupid question. Who cares what job you give them, I sure dont.

And the show of hands question about gay issues or religion issues, is not the way to run a debate. If these issues are important to people, drill the candidates with questions about them.

Ofcourse Its kind of hard to drill the republican candidates when they totally side step the gays in the military issue. I did not get one straight answer just a bunch of "we should not talk about this during times of war". Why dont they just come out and say they dont like gay people. Its not like it will hurt them. Most conservative voters dont like gays either. So whats the big deal, just show your true hatefull colors.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
CNN gives about 10 seconds of response time. If they wanted a quick answer, they should stop asking umbrella questions. And the question about what job would you give to Former president bush or clinton, is a stupid question. Who cares what job you give them, I sure dont.

And the show of hands question about gay issues or religion issues, is not the way to run a debate. If these issues are important to people, drill the candidates with questions about them.

Ofcourse Its kind of hard to drill the republican candidates when they totally side step the gays in the military issue. I did not get one straight answer just a bunch of "we should not talk about this during times of war". Why dont they just come out and say they dont need help from gays.
As I said, Fox News showed how a debate should be run

Dems offered nothing new - it was the same old same old
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,353
Reaction score
7,019
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
CNN gives about 10 seconds of response time. If they wanted a quick answer, they should stop asking umbrella questions. And the question about what job would you give to Former president bush or clinton, is a stupid question. Who cares what job you give them, I sure dont.

And the show of hands question about gay issues or religion issues, is not the way to run a debate. If these issues are important to people, drill the candidates with questions about them.

Of course Its kind of hard to drill the republican candidates when they totally side step the gays in the military issue. I did not get one straight answer just a bunch of "we should not talk about this during times of war". Why dont they just come out and say they dont like gay people. Its not like it will hurt them. Most conservative voters dont like gays either. So whats the big deal, just show your true hatefull colors.
I had forgotten about the gays in the military question. The easy answer would have been, "Don't ask don't tell was good enough for Bill Clinton, it's good enough for me."

The correct answer would have been, "In today's society, 'Don't ask don't tell' is an outdated attitude and an outdated policy. Time and time again, gay and lesbian service members have proven themselves in times of war to just as courageous and capable as their heterosexual counterparts. It is time to allow them to serve openly and proudly, while holding them to same standards of military conduct as we do straight service members."
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 90K

90K

Rookie
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
65
Points
0
Location
in the back of GW in foggy bottom
I had forgotten about the gays in the military question. The easy answer would have been, "Don't ask don't tell was good enough for Bill Clinton, it's good enough for me."

The correct answer would have been, "In today's society, 'Don't ask don't tell' is an outdated attitude and an outdated policy. Time and time again, gay and lesbian service members have proven themselves in times of war to just as courageous and capable as their heterosexual counterparts. It is time to allow them to serve openly and proudly, while holding them to same standards of military conduct as we do straight service members."
Good answer even though though my experience it isn't a good policy for unit integrity to have openly gay service members that was a good answer.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
22,353
Reaction score
7,019
Points
360
Location
Charleston, SC
Good answer even though though my experience it isn't a good policy for unit integrity to have openly gay service members that was a good answer.
Thank you. Not having served myself, I can't answer to unit integrity. It strikes me as a somewhat strange attitude to have these days, but where the military is concerned, what do I know?

As a registered Republican, I am constantly annoyed by the stance the party takes in regard to homosexuals in general. Frankly, I don't really care if they are allowed to marry, adopt, visit each other in the hospital, or file joint tax returns. I do not believe that gay marriage diminishes the institution of marriage. As far as I'm concerned, there are far greater threats to our country than gay marriage.

Christ, they want to grant the equivalent of amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, but can't keep track of one guy with TB that they know about. Yeah, whatever.
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,426
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,830
I haven't watch them yet because so much can change between now and next year so I'll wait it out when the real candidates who survive start to shuffle for votes.

There's a great idea...

Sit on your ass and wait until the corporations and the lobbying groups selctively reduce the field down to their most beneficial candidates...and then what, pick the least of all evils?

Way to let your voice be heard.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
There's a great idea...

Sit on your ass and wait until the corporations and the lobbying groups selctively reduce the field down to their most beneficial candidates.

Way to let your voice be heard.
You mean the trial lawyers, the NOW gang, the tree huggers, and the anti war appeasers?
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,426
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,830
You mean the trial lawyers, the NOW gang, the tree huggers, and the anti war appeasers?
Are you talking about lobbying groups? Those one's you listed have very little say, or otherwise we would leave Iraq, stop using internal combustion engines, and actually convict people who are obviously guilty.

I'm talking about AIPAC, AARP, Energy corps, Pharma corps, Insurance Corps, Defense contractors, etc.

You know, the ones that ultimately call the shots in Washington?

Do you really think your elected officials serve YOU?
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Are you talking about lobbying groups?

I'm talking about AIPAC, AARP, Energy corps, Pharma corps, Insurance Corps, Defense contractors, etc.

You know, the ones that ultimately call the shots in Washington?

Do you really think your elected officials serve YOU?
Dems have long whined about special interest groups running things, even when they are taking the money from those same groups

Watching the Dems the other night all I heard was more of the same - higher taxes, more spending, and more blame Bush for everything
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,426
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,830
Dems have long whined about special interest groups running things, even when they are taking the money from those same groups

Watching the Dems the other night all I heard was more of the same - higher taxes, more spending, and more blame Bush for everything
RSR, you don't seem to get it. You are being sucked in by the paradigm of dem/repub, con/lib, etc..

They are all the same! They serve the same special interest groups, because all those groups and corporations are in bed with just about every single one of them.

Does a politician just coming out and talking crap about the other party really fool you? Since when were politicians honest?

Just because a congressman can come out and say another congressman takes bribes from a special interest group, doesn't mean that very congressman doesn't ALSO take those same type of bribes. But the idiots who watch the news and eat that shit up, believe it, so long as it's coming from their particular "trusted" news channel.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
RSR, you don't seem to get it. You are being sucked in by the paradigm of dem/repub, con/lib, etc..

They are all the same! They serve the same special interest groups, because all those groups and corporations are in bed with just about every single one of them.

Does a politician just coming out and talking crap about the other party really fool you? Since when were politicians honest?

Just because a congressman can come out and say another congressman takes bribes from a special interest group, doesn't mean that very congressman doesn't ALSO take those same type of bribes. But the idiots who watch the news and eat that shit up, believe it, so long as it's coming from their particular "trusted" news channel.
It is a left/right thing

I do not want higher taxes, government run health care, and appeasement to terrorists

With Republicans I am pissed over their amnesty bill, their spending when they ran Congress, and walking away from Reagan conservatism

For me the choice is simple
 

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,426
Reaction score
5,981
Points
1,830
With Republicans I am pissed over their amnesty bill, their spending when they ran Congress, and walking away from Reagan conservatism
So then why don't you support Ron Paul? You just summed him up in one sentence.

and appeasement to terrorists
Would you seriously consider leaving Iraq, and the obvious unjust quagmire that it is, appeasing the terrorists?

We should just let our men and women in uniform, and so far almost 1 million civilians, die everyday for that?

You don't even know exactly why we are there. NO ONE does, except the people who planned the war. There were no terrorists in Iraq that posed a threat to the security of United States. Not even Saddam. There are NOW though. How convenient for companies like Halliburton, and GE, and Boeing...we get to stay there longer and create more profit for them because we made Iraq a so-called "terrorist hot-bed". Saddam posed a potential threat to Israel, and he posed a threat to the US Dollar because of how his regime handled it's oil trade.

SO WHAT??

We should pay for a war in tax dollars and American lives to protect Israel? They're quite capable of protecting themselves, they have everything we do militarily. Organizations like AIPAC, which is among the top 5 most influential in Washington, are responsible for making Israel a main agenda in the US government. And they're agenda is the preservation of Israel via US support.

And second, we have no business interfering with another sovereign nation and it's economic actions. It's Iraq's oil. They can trade it however they please. Who are we to say they can't? If they decide to sell oil in, let's say, Euro, should we invade and conquer the regime and put a US-friendly one in to protect our US Dollar?

I'm not saying these actually are the reasons, but the official reason for invasion is no more proven than the ones i've stated.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top