Open Thread: Iowa GOP Debate
Just days before the Iowa Straw Poll, Republican presidential candidates face off tonight to debate at the Iowa State Fair. Absent from the debate are two rumored candidates, Gov. Rick Perry and Sarah Palin.
Included is the still wide field of GOP contenders, Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Rep. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Will you be watching tonight?
Fox News, which is co-hosting the debate with the Washington Examiner, broke down the best strategies each candidate can follow tonight.
MITT ROMNEY ...Romney should "relentlessly contrast himself with Obama on the economy and jobs," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, "only indirectly jabbing the others." [...] REP.
MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN. ...The Tea Party favorite and Iowa native has consistently stayed at the top of the polls since announcing her candidacy in June. Sabato said she should embrace her conservativism - "I'm the new mainstream and I can win in November." [...]
TIM PAWLENTY ..."Roll the dice and confront both Romney and Bachmann," Sabato said, "explaining why you'd be a better president." [...]
NEWT GINGRICH ...Gingrich stressed the importance of the Iowa straw poll Thursday, telling Fox News that the outcome was "the start of a national conversation." Sabato said Gingrich should seize the opportunity to connect with a national audience. "Come across as likeable," would be Newt's best bet, he said, "not just knowledgeable." [...]
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS ..."He may be the biggest winner from the events of the last week, because it shows that his very unconventional theories that differ sharply from the conventional wisdom in Washington, really might develop some sport," Morris said. "What he needs to do is to capitalize on those developments to show how his policies that differed from everybody else's in Washington, really could make the difference." [...]
HERMAN CAIN ..."What Cain's got to do is to really distinguish himself," said Morris. "He's got to make clear how his performance as a businessman, his perspective, differs from the conventional wisdom in Washington." Sabato adds that Cain must "explain convincingly why his lack of office experience will help and not hurt running against Obama." [...]
RICK SANTORUM ...The conservative candidate has lingered in the shadows of higher-profile candidates like Bachmann. In his best night, Santorum would "excite the Christian base in Iowa by going hardcore right on abortion and gay rights," said Sabato. "It's his only shot to surge." [...]
JON HUNTSMAN ...One of Huntsman's biggest challenges is distancing himself from his former boss - President Obama. He needs to "convince Republicans that, despite what they've read and heard, he's a strong conservative," said Sabato. [...]
Have you seen any other good pre-debate analyses? Do you think the debate will be worth watching without Perry and Palin?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
If we see the MSM come out in
Submitted by inquiringmind on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:23am.
If we see the MSM come out in support of Palin then you know they are trying to "McCain" us again. Highly unlikely seeing as they hate her so much. It would be fun to watch though.
Are you saying Palin is
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:05pm.
Are you saying Palin is another RINO like McCain?
~I can only think
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:13pm.
that he meant the media wants Palin to be the nominee because they think she's beatable (like McCain was), but I doubt they really think that way down deep in their little black hearts. If they did they wouldn't be so intent on marginalizing her.
RINO is what they call
Submitted by goldwater89 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:31pm.
RINO is what they call Republicans who aren't far-right enough. the days of the big tent are over
RINO is what we call those
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:58pm.
RINO is what we call those who do not have conservative ideals. The GOP has a big tent but we want our leaders to represent our values.
Good riddance big tent!
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:29pm.
Good riddance big tent!
I won't be watching. Too
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:33am.
I won't be watching. Too early to watch and at least 3 people (Giulanni, Palin, Perry) have't declared (or declined).
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Ditto that.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:05am.
.
Newt's back in?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:42am.
I thought Light Helmet said no...?
Did you see him last night?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:09pm.
He had concealing eye make up on and looked like a negative racoon.
Go away Newt. Go sit on the sofa with Pelosi some more.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"negative racoon" - LOL!!!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 2:24pm.
.
Stupid!
Submitted by RefudiateObama2012 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:44am.
This so-called debate is nothing but a glorified question and answer exercise, and some of the questions are pretty silly. If they really want to take eight candidates and pit them against each other, bring them into a studio individually on a day prior to the airing and ask each a series of questions, with the results of each being embargoed and all televised at the same time. None of the candidates would be allowed to observe or listen to the other candidates. That way, each candidate can be asked the same question, the candidate will have no benefit of listening to what the other candidates say nor given time to mull the question.
The bottom line is that the purpose of this event is not debate. The purpose is purely commercial. FNC will draw an audience of those who are engaged in political discourse right now, but it won't reach the voters who will determine the results of the election. If not for the debt and stock market fluctuations, and the riots in London, FNC is pretty much debate hype 24/7.
Yeah he individual
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 12:10pm.
Yeah he individual questioning sounds great like Rick Warren did. To me that illuminated the two drastically.
record
Submitted by paulnashtn on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:38am.
Will watch later but can’t wait for a debate with Perry involved.
Also with Perry and Bachman in the race, I really do not think Palin will throw her bonnet in
Plus ... Giulanni & Bolton … LOL delusional
One more time
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:10pm.
on the latest movie poster for the Obamaganda movie due out next year, right before the election. This was a hot topic yesterday with Rep King calling for inquiries into just how much access this Bigelow/Boal team will get to Defense and CIA. Personally, I don't think they'll get that much access or anything in the way of real intelligence, even if the White House says 'nothing's off the table'.
The fact that Bigelow (producer/director) has come out and said this is a non-partisan movie that's been in the works for years and will chronicle three administrations' worth of pursuit of bin Laden, tells me that the conceived this movie the moment they hard bin Laden was dead and will make every effort to turn this into an 'Obama saved the world by doing what Bush couldn't' movie. This new poster knda plays up that angle.
Here's Barry as the hitman in 5.1.11, The Movie.
Good one, bk---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 4:47pm.
though if Obama throws slugs like he does baseballs, he is wasting his time with a sidearm.
MD
Closing statement from the debate
Submitted by billb on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 1:38pm.
"One of us could soon be president of the United States. The joy of triumph will soon disappear after considering what you are about to INHERIT!"
As a “Political-Junkie”-
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 2:11pm.
I’ve been looking forward to this debate since June! (Yeah, that is pretty pathetic).
Unfortunately, Fox news beat me to the punch with a “pre-debate” analysis… but not to be deterred, let me offer my own prior to the event analysis:
Here’s what we can expect from the candidates:
Mitt Romney - He will be to the Republican party as what Waterloo was to Napoleon Bonaparte… He is to conservatism what “Ted Baxter” was to journalism… He is to honesty what Marie Antoinette was to empathy. I wonder who he’s hired to wipe away all the lips marks from every mirror he gets near. STAND BACK FOLKS… he’s about to kiss himself again!
MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN. - She will display the magnificence that can only come from having true core-values.
TIM PAWLENTY – He will do his best to overcome his training at “The Barney Fife School of Political Presence.”
NEWT GINGRICH – He will prove once and for all that he’s better at writing books and philosophizing than he is at being taken for a serious contender for the presidency.
REP. RON PAUL – Will become the poster-child for showing the importance of switching to Decafe before appearing on stage.
HERMAN CAIN – Will perform better than his critics expect. I suspect he will walk away one of the winners.
RICK SANTORUM – I’m pulling for you Rick… Get rid of that “Deer-in-the-headlights” look and you’ll be OK.
JON HUNTSMAN – Will impress our Chinese debt-holders, but few others.
- Grump :o)
P.s.: I hope there is an “Open Thread” tomorrow where I can post my Post-Analysis. (hint, hint).
Your Ron Paul analysis
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 6:39pm.
Had me Lawlling!
Well played, Grump.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Huntsman
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:26pm.
Oh, how will America survive THE EVIL CHINESE holding that eye-popping, whopping 9.5% of debt? Why, if we can just pass a law prohibiting those bastards from owning even Series EE bonds, why, we can run up as much debt as we damn well please!
Anyways, Jon Huntsman probably excited the living hell out of John Harwood if he were watching tonight. In fact I have no doubt that Harwood thinks Huntsman the clear winner of the debate, and is excited by Huntsman in ways I cannot describe here on a family-friendly website.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Changed my mind, Grump
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:11am.
After tonight....
Ron Paul is the poster boy for JAZZ HANDS!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Catholic Rick Santorum wears pro-life and pro war labels
Submitted by lrgon on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:42am.
He attacks protestant Ron Paul during the debate for his position on foreign policy. Yet Paul is more in tune with the "just war" ideas of early Catholic church fathers like saint Augustin and Thomas Aquinas than the Catholic from Pennsylvania.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=just+war+principles&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=I...
Paul is right in line George Washington's foreign policy. No entangling alliances with foreign nations was one of Washington's main warnings to America. Paul certainly is in line with John Q. Adams who said that America is a nation of peace not war. "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. " http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/32145.html
RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE UNBORN
The sanctity of the family bill that Paul has perennially introduced would quicky end abortion in America by "checking" the courts jurisdiction. Santorum and others have touted for years the RTL amendment as if something was wrong with the Constitution. Santorum is wrong and Paul is right- the congress has the power right now to end the holocaust of abortion by taking away the courts' appellate jurisdiction in ruling on matters of abortion and end abortion a lot sooner than a RTL amendment.
PAUL HAS BEEN RIGHT AND IS RIGHT
> The Federal Reserve. Ask Newt who last night sounded like Paul's campaign manager when
Newt said the Fed needs an audit. Paul introduced the bill to audit the fed and it passed in both
houses. Now we know what the fed has been doing with all that money they print: they gave
some of it to a bank in Tripoli partly owned by Moammar Gadhafi. Rick Santorum never
worried about a private US central bank giving money to dictators all the time he was in the
senate. He just wanted to go to war not cut off their money supply.
> The housing bubble which Paul predicted would burst. He warned us all about it in 2001
> Debt is debt. There is nothing "conservative" about putting the nation into more debt. Paul
and Bachmann voted against the debt ceiling increase. Rick tried to paint Bachmann as
irresponsible and a weak leader for that vote against more debt? Who's on high caffeine with
that idiotic statement? Where is the fiscally conservative Santorum when we really need him?
why he's out supportiing the fiscally irresponsible spenders that's where!
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-bret-baier...
The United States got started
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:48am.
The United States got started thanks to our "entangling alliance" with France.
Washington didn't mean have no alliances. The thing he was warning about is seen in the the chain reaction that led to WW I.
Why are so many Ron Paul supporters so ignorant?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
MHO
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:32pm.
I think most Ron Paul supporters care about ONE thing and ONE thing only: drugs.
To wit: the local "head shop" has a BIG Ron Paul sign (RON PAUL REVOLUTION with "love" spelled backwards) out.
By and large, most of the Paulbots want to sit around stoned out of their minds all day and all night. Taking foreign policy into consideration or silly things like history and national defense just detracts them from thinking about where to get their next hit or joint or whatever.
Just MHO.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
With permission
Submitted by deadeyedan on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 2:23pm.
If I may be allowed to paraphrase Darth Vader when he admonished Governor Tarkin,
"Don't underestimate the Newt (Force)".
Liberalism - government of the people by the theories and for the ideologists - deadeyedan
Global warming - authoritarian, rather than authoritative, science - deadeyedan
DEBATE CHAT
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 8:52pm.
I opened a Chatzy Room, here.
Hope someone is here to keep me company!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
-
Submitted by Dan Diego on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:32pm.
-
Like him or not
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:32pm.
Newt just (8/11/2011 - about 9:20PM) smacked Wallace down nicely. Again, like him or not, he doesn't take to being backed into a wall and that IS a most admirable characteristic.
yeah but...
Submitted by michiganruth on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 9:39pm.
he smacked him down but Wallace had every right to ask that question.
if Barack Obama had been asked a similar tough question you and I would be cheering the reporter who asked it.
Newt's running with the big boys, he should be able to take it. IMHO he came off looking a little petty.
If Barack Obama
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:22pm.
had half the wisdom of Newt, we wouldn't be in this crapper right now. He screwed his image (literally) and he is almost certainly unelectable, but skill set wise, really, who is better?
I don't trust Chris Wallace. He is a Democrat, and I believe may
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:41pm.
have a hidden agenda to sneakily marginalize Republican candidates. Why else would he attempt to denigrate Congresswoman and Presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann by asking her if she was a 'flake'?
I'm not watching the debate. I've made up my mind that the best candidates to beat Socialist/Clueless Obama are either Mitt Romney or Gov. Rick Perry. However, when it comes down to the general election, I'll vote for any Republican we've nominated. Anybody but that Socialist ideologue currently relaxing and vacationing in the White House.
As for the debate tonight, I almost certain I can count on Bret Baier and the Fox News team not to ask those silly CNN-type questions that were asked in the first debate, such as "toilet paper - one ply or two".
but it was Bret Baier
Submitted by mom_rox on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:54pm.
who asked the silly questions at the first debate: reality show setting, preferred pizza crust, etc. Hopefully Bret has learned.
mom_rox.... The debate I was referring was on CNN, the
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:50pm.
Democrat-controlled network on June 13,2011. CNN's John King was the moderator. Here is the transcript of that debate.
I didn't watch the debate where Bret Baier was the moderator. Did Bret Baier really ask those silly questions? As you suggest, hopefully he has learned.
It was both John King & Bret Baier
Submitted by mom_rox on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:43am.
RF - you're right. King asked the pizza crust / Coke or Pepsi / etc. questions. But Baier asked Gov. Johnston about what type of reality show he might host. all stupid questions.
Is that true that
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:07pm.
Chris Wallace is a democrat?
Registered Democrat
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:09pm.
who has moved a few degrees to the right.
Jer
I'm thinking he may
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:17pm.
be taken a few bumps back to the left.
Picking the Leftmost Candidates, I See
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:24pm.
Yes, by all means, Mitt "Romneycare" Romney and Rick "forced STD vaccines" Perry are the best candidates. *facepalm* That's the best you can do? My geez. Oh. That's right. Only they can win. I see. It's not about conscience or common sense at this point. It's about getting another RINO into the presidency so we can do what exactly?
Visions and Principles blog
Tenebrous....I can understand somewhat your dismay at my
Submitted by Rush Fan on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:33am.
selection of Romney and Perry. With the exception of Paul, Gingrich and Huntsman, I like the other candidates as well. But Romney and Perry not only have the experience in state government, they both are articulate and tough, an essential requirement when your running against an articulate fabricator like Barack Obama.
Every candidate has their blemishes. Even Chris Christie, who I would seriously consider endorsing if he decided to run, is a wacko supporter of the Green environmentalist movement. Christie believes in Climate Change and the 'dire effects' of CO2 and Global Warming. So Christie, my favorite candidate to beat Barack Obama, is a supporter of Al Gore's hoax! In fact, Christie is so "Green" that he has banned new coal plants in New Jersey, intends to shut down current coal plants, and is committed to New Jersey's 2021 Renewables & Efficiency Standard, which will dramatically increase energy costs in that state for businesses and households.
On second thought, perhaps Chris Christie, if he decides to run someday, is better suited to run as a Democrat or Green Party candidate. At least he would get the endorsement of Al Gore.
Oh my gosh! Does anyone
Submitted by seanrobins on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:15pm.
Oh my gosh! Does anyone doubt what a crackpot fool, Ron Paul is. Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons if it wants to. He thinks that its reasonable and understandable, and thinks that we should just go with it. What a complete fool. Anyone (that those idiots who are cheering him on) are utter morons. Good grief, Ron Paul for President??? You ave got to be kidding.
sean robins
His is mostly correct.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 10:24pm.
but his too far to the right ideology makes him also unelectable.
Unfortunately, Some Still Doubt
Submitted by Tenebrous on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:21pm.
Watch for the ignorant to leap to Paul's defense; they too will broadcast their ignorance of how Islamists think. All the Paultards in a little nest, crowing like little liberals, "Everyone is exactly like us!" They have NO IDEA of how differently the Islamists see the world and just how saturated nearly every Middle Eastern country is with vile state-run paranoid propaganda.
Visions and Principles blog
Watch for the ignorant to leap to Paul's defense
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:31pm.
Like Mike Church and Satch
I know. But his followers
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:27pm.
I know. But his followers believe they are the only "true" defenders of the constitution. And they believe there is absolutely no country on Earth that would harm the USA, and if they do it's not their fault but ours.
That's not true at all.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:59pm.
That's not true at all.
Too bad, so sad
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:15am.
"Your" guy beclowned himself, as you do, here, daily.
Toodles, Incestmo.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's not that Ron Paul is "too far to the right" as some have
Submitted by Rush Fan on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:33pm.
suggested. Ron Paul has some excellent ideas, but he is too 'eccentric', to put in the most polite terms. Let me give you one example. Who did Ron Paul support in the 2008 elections? Was it the Republican team of McCain/Palin? NO! Ron Paul initially supported: Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader. From Wikipedia:
Unbelievable! One of the candiates Ron Paul initially endorsed was crazy Anti-American and Anti-Semitic former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
That endorsement should tell you why Ron Paul is not ready for prime time, or any time.
But we would have Peace,
Submitted by okie-pastor on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:35pm.
But we would have Peace, peace I tell you, if we only would let Iran have nukes.
Looking out for number 1
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:42am.
WE would have peace if we stopped interjecting ourselves into the rest of the world's problems. We do not need military bases around the world to protect our great nation. We do not need to subsidize and fund half the world while going broke at home. It is not isolationism, it is pragmatism to be willing to conduct fair trade (not "free" trade) with the world while not telling them how to live.
Outed.
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:45am.
.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Outed
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:52am.
As it would seem that your definition of "out" is someone who truely believes in liberty, I take it as a compliment. You, however seem to be closeted in that you claim to support freedom as a "conservative" but favor resticting freedoms of those who do not follow your beliefs lockstep.
I think you militant libertarians
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:57am.
Are lunatics.
Is that clear enough for you?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's certainly clear you are
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:04am.
It's certainly clear you are immature. The only person getting bent out of shape and responding uncivilly is you. Unfortunately, this is your normal.
Really?
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:06am.
So you call those that support freedom lunatics? At least you are not hiding behinds claims of supporting liberty. What separates you from the liberals? You want to exert just as much control as they do and both of you will base that control on your beliefs rather than what is best for the nation. You ma'am (or sir) are the lunatic.
Incestmo and his leg humping lap dog
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:07am.
They must be related.
What on earth are you yapping about?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:17am.
"Supporting Freedom" and "Supporting Liberty" equate to being a PAULBOT?
OMO! Someone call the paramedics, I'm dyin' of laughter here at the loonie libertarians!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Supporting freedom and
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:31am.
Supporting freedom and liberty certainly does not equate to being part of the current GOP. Who do you think, of the current candidates, believes in true freedom for all?
That's easy
Submitted by ckc1227 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 2:58am.
"Who do you think, of the current candidates, believes in true freedom for all?"
That would be the guy who publishes a racist, anti-semitic newsletter of course. Who else, lol?
Please
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:42pm.
You are nothing more than a spoiled brat who thinks freedom and liberty are there merely for the asking. The only way you have freedom and liberty is through the spilling of blood.
You? Support freedom and liberty? HAH! And neither does your pipsqueak reactionary hero.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"War is an ugly thing, but
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:52pm.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
It appears Mill had Satchmo and Jay in mind when he wrote this.
You do not believe in liberty. At all.
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:40pm.
You say you "truly believe in liberty" but yet you have revealed that nothing sickens you more than the military, an institution that DEFENDS it on behalf of whiny ingrates such as you.
You whine about how we have all these horrible military bases around the world yet we are going bankrupt at home. Please explain to me how this nation survived Eisenhower, who spent 10% of GDP on defense compared to 4% today.
We can, I suppose, slash defense spending to $0, which would fill you with glee as you want a weak, whiny pushover of a country. But that's only $500-600 billion out of $3 TRILLION of spending.
You are stupid enough to believe your freedom and liberty is there simply for the asking and never has to be earned. You can't be more wrong and history is replete with examples.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
A sleeper ronpaulbot,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 4:56pm.
from the last election cycle. Welcome to reality, Jay, now run over and sit in Incestmo's lap.
Because he believes debates
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:01am.
Because he believes debates should be open to everyone and that other viewpoints shouldn't be limited. He is opposed to censorship.
Thank you PaulBot Campaign Chair
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:18am.
You have so beyond outed yourself.
Find a new website to troll.
Please and Thank You.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
The reactionary
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:31pm.
Form Ron Paul and his loony followers, the Constitution and the United States are protected by magic. Freedom exists simply for the asking and never ever has to be fought for.
(As to how the Constitution came to be, and the bloodshed that in fact required, to say nothing of actually defending the document, those legions of dope-smokers and history deficient reactionaries of course have nothing to say.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Exactly! But the good news
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:12am.
Exactly! But the good news is he won't win. He does make some occasional good points outside of foreign policy, so let him go on and on.
Maybe if you took a step back
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:06am.
Maybe if you took a step back and asked yourself what right does any nation have to dictate what another nation can or can't do. Paul has also said that Israel should act in its own interests instead of kowtowing to the U.S. for approval. He believes if Israel wants to attack Iran's nuke sites to prevent them from successfully developing weapons, then that is their business. I believe it was the South Carolina debate in which he explained it. He rightfully believes that Israel has the sovereignty to defend themselves from threats how they see fit.
And they do this how, exactly?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:20am.
By themselves?
Without our huge influx of dollars to defend themselves?
Without the backing of the U.S., Israel would have been pushed back into the sea years and years ago...so Satch, are you cheering for Holocaust v.2.0, 3.0, 4.0?
What?
Israel is our one and only true ally in that region of the world. But of course, what is an ally? Not in your world view, is that word?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Yes, by themselves. Israel
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:27am.
Yes, by themselves, and yes without our money. Israel has always been capable of defending themselves, and they would be able to continue to do so. They are a nuclear power after all.
But it's good to see you on the record as being in favor of wealth redistribution. You are in favor of seizing the wealth of American citizens by force and giving it to the government of another country. Being an ally doesn't mean that we hand over our wealth and tell them what to do. That isn't an alliance.
I am in favor of promoting "National Interest"
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:39am.
And Israel, amongst our allies, qualifies in that regard, without qualification. As does Great Britain, Australia, and certain other countries. Stable, reliable allies. Unquestionable allies. Thick and thin allies. Allies who can be counted upon to SMITE the enemy.
But if you are ALL IN on another EXTERMINATION, Incestmo, by abandoning Israel to the Islamic lunatics...please, make your case.
Your little diatribe is laughable. Really, your "wealth redistribution and force to support another government" doesn't rise to the level of the third grade. Not the first grade, even.
There are only a few, very select, reasons for the feds to spend money. And securing, and protecting, our national interests are at the top of that list. Having stable, secure, and stalwart allies certainly meets that criteria.
Your incessant whine for "anything goes"....not so much.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Why
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:51am.
Why is it our business to fund and defend Israel? Is it because of your religious belief? There are many nations in Africa that are under threat from their neighbors. Should we send endless dollars to them as well? How about Central and South America, there are plenty of nations under threat there as well. When you can admit that it is your personal beliefs that drive you to send US dollars to Israel, then we can have a rational discussion on foreign aid.
Am I a Jew, Jay?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:06am.
Or a Muslim? Or an Athiest?
OH RIGHT!!!! You haven't a clue about that, do you? Because I've never said here, have I.
You presume.
Now, if you care to get rational, try again.
Tactical and strategic advantage for the U.S. of A. THAT is what I'm interested in.
Now apologize for your presumptuous stupidity.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Four and a third years on board, and Jay doesn't know---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:26am.
whether to address Blonde as sir or ma''am.
Astute individual, eh?
MD
Excuse me
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:29am.
I come to NB for the articles and usually do not post, so no, I do not know the gender of each and every poster here. Why is this your concern and what does it bring to conversation anyway?
You may want to pay attention, then
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:34am.
....before you "presume" *ahem* to address me, or anyone else here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Well, Jay-bird, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:53am.
if you think it is not my concern, what are your plans to address the situation?
Gonna castigate me severely - electronically?
Ignore me?
As a Paul-Bot, there is no way you are going to out debate any of the non-Libertarians around here - so I suspect you have done more than just read the articles at NB's for four plus years. No doubt you peeked occasionally at the threads, and it has taken this long to get up the nerve to post.
As far as "bringing something to the conversation" - no one has a conversation with a Paul-Bot.
if you are not the Libertarian involved, you are basically engaged in listening to a long winded diatribe.
MD
BS, ma'am
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 5:00pm.
er, jay.
Presume?
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:27am.
How can I presume when I asked what your motivation was? We could easily have no dealings with the middle east if we simply drilled and produced our own energy. So why do we care about what happens there? The religious right support Israel as they are the chosen people according to the Bible. Why do you support them? While I belive that they have every right, and are right, to defend themselves, why is it our business?
Um...YES! PRESUME!!!!
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:33am.
When you can admit that it is your personal beliefs that drive you to send US dollars to Israel, then we can have a rational discussion on foreign aid.
THAT is how you presumed, little man. All the rest of your "insulting questions" (which, BTW, bother me not in the least) you can shove.
I had you pegged at my first post. You've been outed as yet another lunatic PaulBot.
Toodles.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Israel
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:51pm.
Why do you hate Israel so much?
I know nothing makes you more sick than a United States capable of defending itself (except maybe studying history, which is something you show yourself to be deeply allergic to), but by protecting Israel, we protect this country.
I stand by Israel because it is an island of sanity in a sea of insanity.
By the way, I don't have a religious bone in my body.
What nations in Africa, or Central or South America, are "under threat"? And from what?
I could explain to you on a case by case basis on why protecting and defending various allies around the world makes perfect sense. But considering your "blame America first" mentality, and your clinging to a policy that died in a harbor in the Pacific nearly 70 years ago, I think it would be the equivalent of casting pearls before swine.
It isn't the 1790s anymore and we cannot hermetically seal off the United States from the rest of the world, as badly as you and your hero want to.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ah, yes, that vague and
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:53am.
Ah, yes, that vague and protean "National Interest," government's get-out-of-jail-free card that justifies any action taken and attempts to shut down debate.
I'll try to explain it so that even you may understand: the United States gives money to Israel (and other countries). The money given by the United States comes from its citizens, the taxpayers. Taxes - the wealth of citizens - are seized by force at the point of a gun (just try to refuse to pay your taxes and see what happens). That wealth, in the form of 'taxation,' is then given to someone else, in this case the government of a foreign nation. Now you tell me how this isn't wealth redistribution.
National interest. That's funny.
*Yawn*
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:04am.
Why don't I esplane it to you, Loocy....so even ju can understand?
National Interest. Allies. IOW (big people language here) countries upon whom we can rely to support us when we find it necessary to WAGE WAR.
So...now that you can't possibly waffle on my meaning, don't you address your desire to see another Holocaust, Satch?
You know, by abandoning the ONLY ally in the Middle East who can possibly be relied upon?
P.S. Read some Milton. As in Friedman.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So what could you have
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:28am.
So what could you have possibly taken issue with in my correct assessment of your position? You are in favor of wealth redistribution, but in order to somehow allay any cognitive dissonance, you use the opiate of "National Interest". It doesn't matter what you call it, the result is the same: you are in favor of seizing Americans' wealth and giving it to foreign governments.
Good thing we gave all that money to Libya, right? And Iraq. And Egypt. It makes total sense for us to seize Americans' wealth, give it to these foreign governments, and then turn around and bomb them. That's lunacy. Oh, but that's "National Interest"...both giving them money and then bombing them.
More presumptions
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:36am.
Why don't you first address your predeliction for genocide?
You know....killing of all of the peoples of Israel? Like that, just in case you get confused by my question (for the third or fourth time).
We are WAITING!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
There wasn't a single
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:06am.
There wasn't a single presumption in my post.
Your premise and question, like the majority of your posts, are absurd.
Wow!!!
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:41am.
So you support Bammy's Libya excursion. Because you said "Right"?
See how easy it is to turn your stupidity back on you, Incestmo?
Now, get serious, answer my question. Because Lachlan's not here any more.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Israel bad, giving dollars to
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 2:29am.
Israel bad, giving dollars to lazy shiftless entitlement americans,muslim terrorists, leftists unions and communist front organiztions good. Satchard you should be on special ed's show.
No, seizing American's wealth
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:03am.
No, seizing American's wealth and giving it it any nation or redistributing it in any way is bad.
Yes, there certainly are some pretenders in the crowd
Submitted by JamesPhilip on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:52pm.
Thank Goodness Perry and Bachmann Got Re-Elected Last Year, Right?
Can you imagine either of those two running for president if they hadn’t just been re-elected to their current jobs, aided in part by Gov. Palin, who made personal appearances in their states drawing between 8,000 and 11,000 people and raising hundreds of thousands for their re-election coffers?
Me neither.
And just for kicks, shall we just take a little trip back down memory lane — to last year — as Kay Bailey Hutchison threatened Perry in Texas and Nancy Pelosi made Bachmann enemy #1 in Minnesota? Shall we?
April 2010
More than ten thousand conservatives flocked to the Minneapolis convention center Wednesday afternoon for a rally on behalf of Rep. Michele Bachmann, who was joined by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, two heroes of the Tea Party movement. Though the rally was for Bachmann’s reelection campaign, the controversial Minnesota lawmaker was the warm up act for Palin …
July 2010
Rep. Michele Bachmann pulled in a whopping $1.7 million for her campaign in the second quarter of this year … Bachmann was the second-best fundraiser in the House during the first quarter. Her second quarter more than doubled it.
[T]oday, Bachmann penned a piece in Politico demonstrating that she knows exactly who’s responsible for the avalanche of cash into her coffers:
It is important to recognize Palin’s effect on our fundraising numbers. Our successful fundraising is due, in part, to the fact that she dedicated her time and efforts to come to Minnesota in April to help my reelection campaign. … As to my campaign’s fundraising, I know House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has a very different plan for my life — something other than serving in the House. Pelosi is no small threat.
This is why Palin graciously agreed to make me one of the first 2010 candidates for whom she campaigned.
Just to be clear, the Pelosi plan for Bachmann not serving in the house, is different than the Bachmann plan for not serving in the house. Two different plans for not serving in the house. I hope that clears up any confusion.
But let’s hear from the other Palin endorsee, Perry, shall we?
Feb. 2010
“I have a lot of faith in the Lord. I hope he’s gonna let me live for four years and if he does I’m gonna serve out my governorship,” Perry promised in a debate with Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
Whoops! That was the wrong out-take! Forget you saw that! Because Perry certainly did.
Feb. 2010
On Super Bowl Sunday, Rick Perry handed the ball to star runner Sarah Palin, who joined the governor’s team in bashing big-spending Washington.
She urged the crowd to stick with Perry as someone whose conservative policies are succeeding, but she also received a huge cheer from the crowd of about 8,000 when she said she’d heard some mention of Texas seceding.
The Berry Center outside of Houston was filled with an enthusiastic crowd – most supportive of Perry, but ecstatic for Palin.
Faye Roberson of Friendswood said she wouldn’t stand in line for 90 minutes in the cold weather on Super Bowl Sunday for just anyone. And that includes Perry, whom she hopes wins, but, “Most of us wouldn’t be here just for him.”
Perry did try to warm up the crowd by yelling and gesturing with high-amp energy. His speech was almost a complete berating of Washington-style government.
[...]
But it was Palin who brought the crowd to its feet. Her speech was filled with comparisons between her home state and Texas.
Lot of words in that post, James Philip---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:29am.
did you have a point to make?
MD
We need to 'Win America Back' in 2012.
Submitted by Retired Geek on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:54pm.
We will have NO help from RonPaulBots, they will only try to divide us and ensure the Country keeps going in the wrong direction.
We will have NO help from Liberals, they will only attack ANYTHING about America that is fair, just and good..
We will have NO help from the MSM, they will only demonize and attack anyone who stands up for America.
We Conservatives will have to do this by ourselves - isn't that the way it usually is?
It's interesting that your
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:16am.
It's interesting that your link goes to a page described as "Commentators from Town Hall who want America to return to the vision of our Founding Fathers," yet you denigrate Ron Paul and libertarians.
Right on
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:28am.
Those that invoke the Founders while wanting to limit personal freedom have no clue. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson understand freedom better than most of the current GOP. The Dems had total control for a couple of years and did nothing that their party currently stands for, i.e. raising taxes and expanding freedom while the Repubs ran on jobs for 2010 and have done little to nothing to create a job friendly environment, but they sure as hell were quick to pass bills based on their outdated ideology.
Ingrates
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:54pm.
Actually, considering that Ron Paul is running on a campaign promise to REFUSE to follow the oath of office, and that he will REFUSE to defend freedom, he has no clue about freedom. And neither do you or Incestmo.
All of you are nothing but ingrates, spoiled brats who have zero clue what REAL tyranny is like.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yep that's the way it usually
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:18am.
Yep that's the way it usually is. We conservatives can do it though!
Why 'SOME' of the Libertarians want Barack Obama re-elected.
Submitted by Retired Geek on Thu, 08/11/2011 - 11:56pm.
It is more likely that Libertarian Goals (some libertarians) will be met by Barack Obama, rather than a Conservative President.
1) Unfettered and unrestricted abortion.
2) Pornography completely legalized and available on Broadcast Television.
3) Prostitution legalized in all 50 States.
4) All current illegal drugs made legal and available.
5) Elimination of Statutory rape laws.
6) Elimination of age of consent laws and allow each person, at whatever age to decide for themselves when they are old enough to have sex.
Sex and drugs are more important to these people than saving America from economic destruction.
So far off base
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:20am.
1) State issue
2) Not even considered appropriate and not on the platform
3)State issue
4)State issue
5) Not even close to true
6) Again, not even close
The Libertarians are for truely free market capitalism as opposed to the semi-socilaized/subsidized fiasco that we currently have. While the Founders favored individual rights and liberty, today's party's favor greater control of those that are not like them. While many "conservatives" are against true liberty, they sure do talk the talk, but fail to walk the walk. You cannot be for the Constitution and liberty while trying to restrict the rights and choices of others based on your personal beliefs. The Constitution specifically says what the government can do and the restrictions you wish to place on the individual are just as bad the restrictions that liberals propose.
I would say that in regards
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:43am.
I would say that in regards to 2, the libertarian position would be that the FCC should be eliminated, and that the airwaves are not public, a view that would be aligned with the Founders. It was a complete power grab by government to seize and control a means of information dissemination, something the Founders rejected with the guarantee of a free press. It's certainly the position of this libertarian.
Doesn't matter what Libertarians are for,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:34am.
because neither they nor Ron Paul have enough traction to get him elected to the presidency.
MD
Hey, MD, has anyone
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 5:08pm.
seen incestmo and jay in the same room at the same time? Just askin', it would seem that these 2 may be joined at the hip.
"neither they nor Ron Paul have enough traction to get him elected", and that's what drives them crazy, er, crazier. If Ronpaul were to appear on the ballot as the R nominee, I truly do think I'd write in my own name, as I have as much chance at winning as he does. And, I'm not bat-crap crazy, or I would have to abstain, but, I will not vote for him.
Santorum isn't running for
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:11am.
Santorum isn't running for president; he's running for authoritarian tyrant. The guy is a danger to the Republic. Thankfully, he has no chance.
Too true
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:23am.
Santorum would the sell the country out for his personal beliefs, freedom be damned. While it is prefered to have a leader who believes in a higher power, they should not use that belief to impose their will on the people. The Congress shall make no law respecting religion. Practice what you believe, but do not base our laws on those beliefs, rather create laws that serve the whole of the people and not just the base.
What are you running for, Incestmo?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:25am.
I think it might be "NB Official Troll".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I thought the winners
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:22am.
I thought the winners were:
Gingrich
Bachman
Cain
Mediocre:
Romney
Santorum
Losers:
Pawlenty
Huntsman
LOL, Okie
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:27am.
We were chatting about this earlier, and I ranked them basically the same as you did.
And of course, forgot RON PAUL as well.
He falls in the "JAZZ HANDS" category.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Who is Ron Paul?
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:31am.
Who is Ron Paul?
Okie
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:43am.
We need emotes, here!
I'd give you a "hands down bow" for that comment, fella.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Thank ya, thank ya very much.
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:46am.
Thank ya, thank ya very much.
The only conservative in the
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:46am.
The only conservative in the race and one who would not argue that government should ban alcohol.
Ban Alcohol?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:47am.
Cites, please, Incestmo.
From the other 7 candidates on the stage tonight who have advocated for that.
Tick tock, troll.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
None of them have. I was
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:59am.
None of them have - at least none to my knowledge. I was referring to okie-pastor, and he knows that.
If he wins the nomination he
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 12:48am.
If he wins the nomination he has my vote. Lol
Reactionary
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 9:56pm.
Conservatives do not hate free trade and conservatives do not want to render America defenseless.
By the way, conservatives don't think federal money should pay for city buses or the shrimp industry.
Ron Paul is, in fact, a reactionary.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!!!
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:07am.
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul!!!
Double post
Submitted by jay_1975 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:23am.
Disregard
Smoke
Submitted by hayate1 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 1:36am.
".... Bachmann, who has risen in polls since entering the race this summer and has eclipsed Pawlenty, quickly responded with a list of what she called Pawlenty's liberal policies when he was Minnesota's governor, including his support for legislation to curb industrial emissions."
She is attacking his 'liberal' policies like curbing pollution!! That's what being conservative is about these days, no regulations, curbs, oversight or retribution for polluting. MMMM, it is gonna be nice outside, just don't breath, don't drink water and don't try to do any liberal crap like protect the environment. Damn commies.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
hayate, you are an idiot,
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 2:32am.
hayate, you are an idiot, some of that polluted air won't hurt you, looks like the airplane glue already took care of it
Good answer
Submitted by hayate1 on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 11:03pm.
I'm an idiot druggie who loves power but is plagued by my dependence on welfare, incest and a mediocre mind. So what? What is the issue, me or the blog I respond to? Never see , well almost never, answers to the points raised.
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
We will see how you feel about it
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 9:36am.
After the new epa regs kick in and your light bill doubles or triples, well your folks bill anyway. Cartoons are not real
The free market, if allowed,
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 10:11am.
The free market, if allowed, would address and take care of it. Yes, limited government is, allegedly, what conservatism is (supposed to be) about.
Man, why are you here?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 7:00pm.
You are the whiniest "supposed conservative" I have ever had the displeasure to listen too. Your a jerk ta boot. For someone who professes to be a conservative, you sure as hell spend a lot of time defending libtard policies.
Drugs, incest, same sex marriage, reduce defense, it's everyone for themselves with you. Meanwhile, I would bet dollars to donuts your on the dole yourself.
Go cry someone else a river for a change!!
Oh my gosh! I didn't watch the debate, but I just caught a
Submitted by Rush Fan on Fri, 08/12/2011 - 2:27am.
portion of the debate rerun on Fox News. It was the part where Ron Paul rants against labeling terrorists as terrorists, the foolishness of wars, etc.
In a previous post I described Ron Paul as 'eccentric.' But after watching his diatribe tonight, I'm going to go out on a limb, and change my description of Paul to "nuts".