Assuming we don’t get 19 more polls today, here’s the Republican debate stage

[Harry Dresden]

Be interesting to see how Fox handles the debates. Will they act like a credible news agency or will they throw softballs like Hannity gave to Cruz at CPAC....Why do you love America so much?





.

seriously could the Left be any more hypocritical? softballs? that's what the Left does for their demi-gods

Why do you love America so much?

Its as if a comic book came alive, is it not?

no that was "Captain America:The Winter Soldier....

 

[jknowgood]

but we can pay off our debt at any time.

18 trillion...how? Maybe give China California?

We print money.

The sad part is people like you vote.

 

[Harry Dresden]

but we can pay off our debt at any time.

18 trillion...how? Maybe give China California?

PLEASE!!!!!

do you i hate California people want china to be twice what we are?....look how much technology and wealth and resources would go with it.....20 years ago your states were all riding on Californias coat tails....and it still has a better economy than the other 49....

 

[defcon4]

but we can pay off our debt at any time.

18 trillion...how? Maybe give China California?

We print money.

OMG! Again???

 

[browsing deer]

I am totally bummed. Two I detest are in (Bush, yuck! Trump, who let that clown in) and two Iike (Fionira and Jindal) are out. A tragedy.

 

[Brain357]

Better look harder.

Why would I?
On every issue I've seen you discuss, you have been on the left.

Not really on either side in this one. Trump is leading and it should be embarassing for republicans. If trump led as a dem id say same thing.


I'm anti abortion if that is conservative for you. My gun stance is similar to Reagan.

I've seen no evidence of your claim on either issue.

Ronald Reagan on Gun Control

I bet Ronnie carried with one in the pipe.

Did it save him?

 

[Brain357]

but we can pay off our debt at any time.

18 trillion...how? Maybe give China California?

We print money.

OMG! Again???

You aren't aware we print money?

 

[Brain357]

You support trump, shocking.

Where did I say that?

Let's say, I support him over hillary clinton.

Not excited about Hilary, but trump will never get my vote. He acts childish and a country can't just file for bankruptcy like he did.

Sure! Trump went bankrupt. hillary clinton is morally bankrupt, but you'll end up supporting her.

Over trump for sure. I think Kasich seems like best option. Need to watch debates though.

if Kasich is like he was when he addressed the postal union years ago i may even consider the guy...

He seems to have a heart which is a good start. His state also seems to like him and be doing well.

 

[Brain357]

but we can pay off our debt at any time.

18 trillion...how? Maybe give China California?

We print money.

The sad part is people like you vote.

People who know we print money? You prefer people who know little vote?

 

[candycorn]

Assuming we don t get 19 more polls today here s the Republican debate stage - The Washington Post

How embarassing for republicans.

Why is it embarrassing?Did you ever consider that the qualities and issues that make a politician an embarrassment in your feeble mind, make that same politician the candidate of choice for a sane person?

Because your own chairman made a decision about who is worthy before a single vote is cast.

No, dummy. Fox limited the panel to 10. The people selected the top 10

I don't know what is more bewildering...that you believe that or that you accept that whatever FOX wants, they get from the PARTY. Suppose Fox just wanted Trump...would Princess had given it to them? If Fox is the reason some serious candidates aren't being heard and the GOP is okay with it...you should be more embarrassed than normal.

Secondly, look at who is on the stage, people with no hope of being elected...

If you're not ashamed to be a republican most days, you should be now.

YAWN

nothing strange about limiting a field of debaters to TEN
it's hilarious watching left-wing losers so bored with their own slater of riche old white panderers that they try to lecture others on what is the right thing to do and if they should feel embarrased to be who they are

libs are just laughable, irrelevant losers

Yawn.
332-206....which number was irrelevant? Hint it's between 207 and 205.

 

[candycorn]

Be interesting to see how Fox handles the debates. Will they act like a credible news agency or will they throw softballs like Hannity gave to Cruz at CPAC....Why do you love America so much?

.

Maybe they will handle it like Candy Crowley (CNN) handled the Romney-Obama debates. That is, suck up to Obama. And when Romney accused Obama of being afraid to tell the truth about Benghazi, moderator Ms. Crowley came to Obama's defense and said "he did call it terrorism. At least one time he said that word in the Rose Garden!"

Never mind he and Hillary and their staff lied about it for two solid weeks blaming it on a video. Miss Crowley "the moderator" to the rescue!

The moderator has a right to correct factual inaccuracies. Mitt was wrong. Candy was right.

 

[jknowgood]

but we can pay off our debt at any time.

18 trillion...how? Maybe give China California?

We print money.

The sad part is people like you vote.

People who know we print money? You prefer people who know little vote?

You think we can just print money with no consequences. That's the sad part.

 

[Iceweasel]

Be interesting to see how Fox handles the debates. Will they act like a credible news agency or will they throw softballs like Hannity gave to Cruz at CPAC....Why do you love America so much?

.

Maybe they will handle it like Candy Crowley (CNN) handled the Romney-Obama debates. That is, suck up to Obama. And when Romney accused Obama of being afraid to tell the truth about Benghazi, moderator Ms. Crowley came to Obama's defense and said "he did call it terrorism. At least one time he said that word in the Rose Garden!"

Never mind he and Hillary and their staff lied about it for two solid weeks blaming it on a video. Miss Crowley "the moderator" to the rescue!

The moderator has a right to correct factual inaccuracies. Mitt was wrong. Candy was right.

Uhm, no. You got is ass backwards like everything else you believe. It was a coverup because of the potential fallout. That's when Romney lost the presidency.

 

[turzovka]

Be interesting to see how Fox handles the debates. Will they act like a credible news agency or will they throw softballs like Hannity gave to Cruz at CPAC....Why do you love America so much?

.

Maybe they will handle it like Candy Crowley (CNN) handled the Romney-Obama debates. That is, suck up to Obama. And when Romney accused Obama of being afraid to tell the truth about Benghazi, moderator Ms. Crowley came to Obama's defense and said "he did call it terrorism. At least one time he said that word in the Rose Garden!"

Never mind he and Hillary and their staff lied about it for two solid weeks blaming it on a video. Miss Crowley "the moderator" to the rescue!

The moderator has a right to correct factual inaccuracies. Mitt was wrong. Candy was right.

Who you trying to kid? The same people Obama and Hillary were trying to B.S.?

They lied about Benghazi and its origin for two solid weeks on national TV!! They never said it was terrorists, they only spoke of some lame video. Just cannot get yourself to admit to the obvious. I really do not care much any longer. A nation that demands lying losers, deserves lying losers.

Candy Crowley had no right to correct anyone, especially when she was using B.S. to make Obama look good.

 

[candycorn]

Be interesting to see how Fox handles the debates. Will they act like a credible news agency or will they throw softballs like Hannity gave to Cruz at CPAC....Why do you love America so much?

.

Maybe they will handle it like Candy Crowley (CNN) handled the Romney-Obama debates. That is, suck up to Obama. And when Romney accused Obama of being afraid to tell the truth about Benghazi, moderator Ms. Crowley came to Obama's defense and said "he did call it terrorism. At least one time he said that word in the Rose Garden!"

Never mind he and Hillary and their staff lied about it for two solid weeks blaming it on a video. Miss Crowley "the moderator" to the rescue!

The moderator has a right to correct factual inaccuracies. Mitt was wrong. Candy was right.

Uhm, no. You got is ass backwards like everything else you believe. It was a coverup because of the potential fallout. That's when Romney lost the presidency.

The GOP lost the election when it nominated a guy with a show horse and a car elevator dumbass. The only ones who thought he stood a chance were either on this message board or were named Romney. Every poll showed Obama with a comfortable lead except for a few outliers that quickly corrected themselves.

This is when you losers came up with "unskewedpolls.com"--remember that? It was a real hoot.

Again, the moderator has the right to correct a candidate. She did so. If you don't want to look like a you're not in command of the facts....don't say things that are not factual. Easy.

 

[candycorn]

Be interesting to see how Fox handles the debates. Will they act like a credible news agency or will they throw softballs like Hannity gave to Cruz at CPAC....Why do you love America so much?

.

Maybe they will handle it like Candy Crowley (CNN) handled the Romney-Obama debates. That is, suck up to Obama. And when Romney accused Obama of being afraid to tell the truth about Benghazi, moderator Ms. Crowley came to Obama's defense and said "he did call it terrorism. At least one time he said that word in the Rose Garden!"

Never mind he and Hillary and their staff lied about it for two solid weeks blaming it on a video. Miss Crowley "the moderator" to the rescue!

The moderator has a right to correct factual inaccuracies. Mitt was wrong. Candy was right.

Who you trying to kid? The same people Obama and Hillary were trying to B.S.?

They lied about Benghazi and its origin for two solid weeks on national TV!! They never said it was terrorists, they only spoke of some lame video. Just cannot get yourself to admit to the obvious. I really do not care much any longer. A nation that demands lying losers, deserves lying losers.

Candy Crowley had no right to correct anyone, especially when she was using B.S. to make Obama look good.

The facts whisper louder than your shouts of injustice. Sorry.

 

[Iceweasel]

The GOP lost the election when it nominated a guy with a show horse and a car elevator dumbass. The only ones who thought he stood a chance were either on this message board or were named Romney. Every poll showed Obama with a comfortable lead except for a few outliers that quickly corrected themselves.

This is when you losers came up with "unskewedpolls.com"--remember that? It was a real hoot.

Again, the moderator has the right to correct a candidate. She did so. If you don't want to look like a you're not in command of the facts....don't say things that are not factual. Easy.

She didn't correct shit. She lied for obama. You are full of shit. I remember it very well and like many wondered why he didn't jump on it. He even said so later that he should have.obama sent his gal out for two weeks blaming it on some idiot film that no one heard of.

From the rightwing source:

Mitt Romney Benghazi Exchange Allows Obama To Dodge Questions Until Third Debate
WASHINGTON -- President Obama never directly answered the questions posed to him Tuesday night about the death of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi. He didn't have to.

Mitt Romney, Obama's Republican opponent, bungled his line of attack on the issue. And then Candy Crowley, the debate moderator, spoke for the president by stating that Obama had called the Benghazi attacks an "act of terror" the day following.

But with the third and final debate on Monday night focused on foreign policy, Obama is sure to be pressed on at least two key outstanding questions. One, why did his White House have so many different answers about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, in which U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed? And two, who is responsible for denying a request for added security at the embassy in Tripoli?

The president never directly addressed Romney's questions about why his administration provided a rolling series of conflicting answers about what provoked the attack.

"Please proceed," Obama told Romney when his foe pressed him on whether he called the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an "act of terror" the next day.

"Is that what you're saying?" Romney pressed Obama.

"Please proceed, governor," Obama said.

Obama's response could have been a sign that he knew Romney was floundering and didn't want to get in his way. Alternatively, Obama might have seen the road Romney was trying to take him down to discuss the shifting answers from the White House, and didn't want to follow.

Romney appeared to think he had caught Obama in a blatant falsehood, because he said: "I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."

At that point, Obama made a lawyerly objection: "Get the transcript," he said.

And then Crowley stepped in.

"He did in fact, sir," Crowley said to Romney.

 

[candycorn]

The GOP lost the election when it nominated a guy with a show horse and a car elevator dumbass. The only ones who thought he stood a chance were either on this message board or were named Romney. Every poll showed Obama with a comfortable lead except for a few outliers that quickly corrected themselves.

This is when you losers came up with "unskewedpolls.com"--remember that? It was a real hoot.

Again, the moderator has the right to correct a candidate. She did so. If you don't want to look like a you're not in command of the facts....don't say things that are not factual. Easy.

She didn't correct shit. She lied for obama. You are full of shit. I remember it very well and like many wondered why he didn't jump on it. He even said so later that he should have.

Brainwashed moron!

She corrected Mitt Romney's incorrect statement. Sorry. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

 

[Iceweasel]

The GOP lost the election when it nominated a guy with a show horse and a car elevator dumbass. The only ones who thought he stood a chance were either on this message board or were named Romney. Every poll showed Obama with a comfortable lead except for a few outliers that quickly corrected themselves.

This is when you losers came up with "unskewedpolls.com"--remember that? It was a real hoot.

Again, the moderator has the right to correct a candidate. She did so. If you don't want to look like a you're not in command of the facts....don't say things that are not factual. Easy.

She didn't correct shit. She lied for obama. You are full of shit. I remember it very well and like many wondered why he didn't jump on it. He even said so later that he should have.

Brainwashed moron!

She corrected Mitt Romney's incorrect statement. Sorry. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

You're ******* moron. I added the evidence above.

 

[candycorn]

The GOP lost the election when it nominated a guy with a show horse and a car elevator dumbass. The only ones who thought he stood a chance were either on this message board or were named Romney. Every poll showed Obama with a comfortable lead except for a few outliers that quickly corrected themselves.

This is when you losers came up with "unskewedpolls.com"--remember that? It was a real hoot.

Again, the moderator has the right to correct a candidate. She did so. If you don't want to look like a you're not in command of the facts....don't say things that are not factual. Easy.

She didn't correct shit. She lied for obama. You are full of shit. I remember it very well and like many wondered why he didn't jump on it. He even said so later that he should have.

Brainwashed moron!

She corrected Mitt Romney's incorrect statement. Sorry. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

You're ******* moron. I added the evidence above.

You're simply wrong. Sorry.