Perry v. Paul

[S.J.]

No idiot canadian either. Ted Cruz...teaper canadian.

Better than a communist Kenyan.

debateble

Not really.

 

[Missourian]

IMO, Rand Paul is a panderer.

I supported Perry last time, I'll support him again this time.

I vividly remember that Perry stuck to his guns on the Immigration question in the debate against pandering Romney, and all the Romneyite gave him shit over it...then as soon as Romney lost the election everyone was like "we need a bigger tent".

I don't trust Rand Paul...I may not agree with Ron Paul, but at least he was true to his beliefs.

What Rand learned from his fathers campaign is "Tell everyone what they want to hear, cuz if you tell them what you really believe, you'll never get elected".

 

[Dante]

The fight continues, Perry criticizes Rand Paul on immigration:

Perry: Paul ?isolationist policies? are ?curiously blind,? ?wrong? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Perry used the term isolationist, and it fits.

All we need now is for Ted Cruz, Allen West, and Marco Rubio to enter the fray and we have a quorum

 

[S.J.]

The fight continues, Perry criticizes Rand Paul on immigration:

Perry: Paul ?isolationist policies? are ?curiously blind,? ?wrong? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Perry used the term isolationist, and it fits.

All we need now is for Ted Cruz, Allen West, and Marco Rubio to enter the fray and we have a quorum

You left out the one who scares you the most, Ben Carson.

 

[Dante]

The fight continues, Perry criticizes Rand Paul on immigration:

Perry: Paul ?isolationist policies? are ?curiously blind,? ?wrong? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Perry used the term isolationist, and it fits.

All we need now is for Ted Cruz, Allen West, and Marco Rubio to enter the fray and we have a quorum

You left out the one who scares you the most, Ben Carson.

Why is it that people like you always consider laughing at a clown car full of conservative tools something akin to fear?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

Correct.

Americans reject extremism – both left and right.

 

[S.J.]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

Correct.

Americans reject extremism – both left and right.

You must not be an American then.

 

[JoeB131]

Perry clearly does not understand the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.

Paul has a real chance in 2016 to beat the democratic candidate for the presidency.

Perry would not get 40% of the vote in my opinion.

Really?

Frankly, I think Paul would probably get less of the vote, because he's kind of like Goldwater, just sort of a nut.

Not a big fan of Perry, and he really did flub his 2012 campaign, but he's got a much stronger argument than Perry does and he's more mainstream.

Neither one of these guys has a chance to beat the democratic candidate because the demagraphic problems they had in 2012 will still exist or possibly be worse.

• Without Obama, a lot of the racism that animated Romney's candidacy will be gone.
  Hispanics will be a larger slice of the pie.
  Women will be more enthusiastic about a Hillary run
  Wall Street will be more enthusiastic about a Hillary run

What slice of the electorate does Paul Get that Romney didn't? Maybe those young kids who want him to legalize pot? Yeah, if there not too stoned to find their way to the polling place.

 

[JoeB131]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

Um, isn't that what you said about Romney?

Frankly, I have no love for the far right, but the last two guys who lost were exactly the kind of "moderate" the MSM says that they want, and they lost anyway.

Honestly, the GOP would be better off if they ran someone from the far right, have that person lose decisively, and then they can't use the excuse they are using now that "McCain/Romney/Christie wasn't a real conservative", which is exactly what they are going to say.

Here's where I think Perry might succeed where Romney failed miserably. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was born on a poor farm, worked his way through college, served in the Air Force and earned everything he has.

Also, hate to say it, Karl Rove was right on one point. Elections are won by that 10% in the middle who vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with. Perry does better in the "Beer Primary" than Hillary or Christie.

 

[JWBooth]

Either one of them would be infinitely better than the communist we have now.

Rick is kinda dumb for dumb though.... Don't get me wrong, Obama is a very intelligent sounding moron as long as he's reading a script. But Risk, I dono....

Perry, this is the guy who tried to use the power of the state to seize vast swaths of land and turn it over to a Spanish corporation for a transportation corridor through the state.

 

[Peach]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

Um, isn't that what you said about Romney?

Frankly, I have no love for the far right, but the last two guys who lost were exactly the kind of "moderate" the MSM says that they want, and they lost anyway.

Honestly, the GOP would be better off if they ran someone from the far right, have that person lose decisively, and then they can't use the excuse they are using now that "McCain/Romney/Christie wasn't a real conservative", which is exactly what they are going to say.

Here's where I think Perry might succeed where Romney failed miserably. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was born on a poor farm, worked his way through college, served in the Air Force and earned everything he has.

Also, hate to say it, Karl Rove was right on one point. Elections are won by that 10% in the middle who vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with. Perry does better in the "Beer Primary" than Hillary or Christie.

Obama scores low in that category, some of those in the middle want substance over soundbites.

 

[Seawytch]

Perry v. Paul

Oh boys, don't fight...

You both have horribly bad ideas.

 

[Seawytch]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

Um, isn't that what you said about Romney?

Frankly, I have no love for the far right, but the last two guys who lost were exactly the kind of "moderate" the MSM says that they want, and they lost anyway.

Honestly, the GOP would be better off if they ran someone from the far right, have that person lose decisively, and then they can't use the excuse they are using now that "McCain/Romney/Christie wasn't a real conservative", which is exactly what they are going to say.

Here's where I think Perry might succeed where Romney failed miserably. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was born on a poor farm, worked his way through college, served in the Air Force and earned everything he has.

Also, hate to say it, Karl Rove was right on one point. Elections are won by that 10% in the middle who vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with. Perry does better in the "Beer Primary" than Hillary or Christie.

Yeah, but I think we learned our lesson with the last "dumb cowboy". Rick Perry makes George Bush look like a rocket surgeon.

 

[LiberalMedia]

CNN is a bullshit commie organization.

They're trying to wage a war inside the republicrat establishment.

Notice how there's NEVER a conflict among democrooks. No "mavericks", no "moderates", no "reaching across the isle".

It's because those of us on "the right" aren't robots. We have critical thinking skills, morality and ethics. We don't follow cults of personality. We're individuals and proud of it.

Rand Paul makes good arguments for staying out of foreign conflicts. Rick Perry makes good points about American interests and military power stabilizing global conflicts so that they don't blow up into something worse.

Democrooks do what they want when they have power, regardless of the consequences which are always worse than the problem. They manipulate the story and the bed wetters go along. When shit goes wrong they blame their enemies, that is Americans.

So as far as I'm concerned I'm more interested in who wins the debate in the arena of ideas between Paul/Perry than I am the script Al-CNN is ready to regurgitate.

Bullshit, prove it.

BTW you have a talking head who's goal is to be on par with Bill or Beck as your avatar. She is not a journalist, she is not honest, she is "opinionated news." Basically she tries top tell you what to think and how to feel about a story she wants to talk about. You can't call her on her bullshit because it's not news, it's not fact.... it's opinion.

She is a journalist, and she is honest. The difference between hyr and your warped idea of what a journalist should be is that Myss Maddow isn't afraid to give hyr opinion. She has beliefs and she isn't going to shy away from them in public. She reports the facts, and weighs in on them. It is literally, LITERALLY impossible to report completely and honestly on most issues without giving some degree of your own opinions.

I suppose you must've expected reports about the 9/11 terror attacks to say, "A plane hit one of the Twin Towers. Another plane hit the other tower. And now for the weather." No analysis (which is largely opinion by nature), no critical thinking (more opinions), no interviews (with people who give their opinions), just plain, boring facts.

 

[LiberalMedia]

CNN is a bullshit commie organization.

They're trying to wage a war inside the republicrat establishment.

Notice how there's NEVER a conflict among democrooks. No "mavericks", no "moderates", no "reaching across the isle".

It's because those of us on "the right" aren't robots. We have critical thinking skills, morality and ethics. We don't follow cults of personality. We're individuals and proud of it.

Rand Paul makes good arguments for staying out of foreign conflicts. Rick Perry makes good points about American interests and military power stabilizing global conflicts so that they don't blow up into something worse.

Democrooks do what they want when they have power, regardless of the consequences which are always worse than the problem. They manipulate the story and the bed wetters go along. When shit goes wrong they blame their enemies, that is Americans.

So as far as I'm concerned I'm more interested in who wins the debate in the arena of ideas between Paul/Perry than I am the script Al-CNN is ready to regurgitate.

Bullshit, prove it.

If you don;t know by now that there is a liberal bias in our media you in fact might be an isolationist.

Rachel Maddow is the only real lybyryl in the American media. Show me one other, and I'll show you a conservatard bigot masquerading as a socially acceptable pundit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

Um, isn't that what you said about Romney?

Frankly, I have no love for the far right, but the last two guys who lost were exactly the kind of "moderate" the MSM says that they want, and they lost anyway.

Honestly, the GOP would be better off if they ran someone from the far right, have that person lose decisively, and then they can't use the excuse they are using now that "McCain/Romney/Christie wasn't a real conservative", which is exactly what they are going to say.

Here's where I think Perry might succeed where Romney failed miserably. He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was born on a poor farm, worked his way through college, served in the Air Force and earned everything he has.

Also, hate to say it, Karl Rove was right on one point. Elections are won by that 10% in the middle who vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with. Perry does better in the "Beer Primary" than Hillary or Christie.

Yeah, but I think we learned our lesson with the last "dumb cowboy". Rick Perry makes George Bush look like a rocket surgeon.

Joe, you know when you mention Mormon your eyes cross, you can't raise your arm, your writing slurs, and your tongue sticks to the inside of your mouth: all signs of political stroke.

We both agree that a far right loon cannot win.

You are wrong about a Bush, a Paul, or a Huntsman.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe, you know when you mention Mormon your eyes cross, you can't raise your arm, your writing slurs, and your tongue sticks to the inside of your mouth: all signs of political stroke.

We both agree that a far right loon cannot win.

You are wrong about a Bush, a Paul, or a Huntsman.

Uh, guy, I told you nominating the Mormon was a horrible idea, and guess what, it was.

He didn't just lose a winnable election, he lost epicly.

Huntsman is a non-starter for me because he comes from the same whacky cult. The reason why he won't get the nomination is that the Evangelicals won't go along with it for a second time, he's not even pretending to be conservative like Romney did, and he's not willing to piss away millions of his own dollars to try to browbeat the GOP into supporting him like Romney did.

Bush- also a non-starter. He could get the nomination, but he'd never win the election. Clinton vs. Bush, Clinton wins every time.

Rand Paul is a nut. Rand Paul is the candidate for people who listen to the Michael Savage show.

Now, guys who might be viable- Scott Walker. Pence from Indiana. Christie might have been before he spectacularly exploded over Bridgegate. Definitely someone who used to be a governor and can make an honest claim to knowing how to run something.

Perry damaged himself with his last run, but he's been really selling himself as a "can do" guy.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Obama scores low in that category, some of those in the middle want substance over soundbites.

Obama won decisively twice. He's the most successful president since Reagan.

 

[Nutz]

[

Joe, you know when you mention Mormon your eyes cross, you can't raise your arm, your writing slurs, and your tongue sticks to the inside of your mouth: all signs of political stroke.

We both agree that a far right loon cannot win.

You are wrong about a Bush, a Paul, or a Huntsman.

Uh, guy, I told you nominating the Mormon was a horrible idea, and guess what, it was.

Magic underwear

He didn't just lose a winnable election, he lost epicly.

Embarrassingly...Romney was a loser from the beginning

Huntsman is a non-starter for me because he comes from the same whacky cult. The reason why he won't get the nomination is that the Evangelicals won't go along with it for a second time, he's not even pretending to be conservative like Romney did, and he's not willing to piss away millions of his own dollars to try to browbeat the GOP into supporting him like Romney did.

He looks like a queer and child molester.

Bush- also a non-starter. He could get the nomination, but he'd never win the election. Clinton vs. Bush, Clinton wins every time.

Bush would beat Clinton.

Rand Paul is a nut. Rand Paul is the candidate for people who listen to the Michael Savage show.

Paul is moving more towards the center everyday. By the time the debates roll around he will be a smidgen right of Romney. In the end, he will get accused of plagiarism by Perry and will see a quick exit.

Now, guys who might be viable- Scott Walker. Pence from Indiana. Christie might have been before he spectacularly exploded over Bridgegate. Definitely someone who used to be a governor and can make an honest claim to knowing how to run something.

A
Perry damaged himself with his last run, but he's been really selling himself as a "can do" guy.[/QUOTE]
Anyone is viable right now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Perry is never viable outside of Texas.

I like Huntsman best, but the far rightiies can torpedo him.

The far righties can't hurt a Bush or a Paul.