Republican Debate: Send in the Clowns

[Bailey Guns]

I just watched the last half of the debate on MSNBC. I need to try to find the entire thing online somewhere so I can see it all.

At any rate, MSNBC is doing a debate analysis. The panel includes:

Rachel Maddow
Al Sharpton
Chris Matthews
Ed SchulzWith a combined IQ of about 17, it's hard to take any of them seriously.

[Scanker19]

Al Sharpton? Did some minorities (blacks) get beaten today?

[Byte Stryke]

I just watched the last half of the debate on MSNBC. I need to try to find the entire thing online somewhere so I can see it all.

At any rate, MSNBC is doing a debate analysis. The panel includes:

Rachel Maddow
Al Sharpton
Chris Matthews
Ed SchulzWith a combined IQ of about 17, it's hard to take any of them seriously.



you sir, are being far too generous with your flattery.

[Bailey Guns]

Has to be the best response to any question in the debate tonight. Way to go Newt!

KqaBPzGcTL4

[Batteriesnare]

An IQ of 17, damn you're too nice to those fuckin' morons.

[Byte Stryke]

Has to be the best response to any question in the debate tonight. Way to go Newt!

KqaBPzGcTL4

http://overheardinthesacristy.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/applause.gif

[Bailey Guns]

That has got to be the "Newt-tron Bomb" of answers.

SNAP! Bitches...

[Zundfolge]

At any rate, MSNBC is doing a debate analysis. The panel includes:
Rachel Maddow
Al Sharpton
Chris Matthews
Ed Schulz Wow ... that bunch of "journalists" analyzing a Republican debate ... basically the equivalent of Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and Rohem reviewing a Tel Aviv dinner theatre revival of Fiddler on the Roof.

[tmckay2]

im not joking when i say i think newt is a very strategic plant. hes not really electable, right or wrong, but he has been very staunch in his stance against democrats and this primary being about unity amongst republicans to get the best candidate. i don't think they all agree, they are politicians after all, but newt i think had his head on straight when it comes to that issue. he will be instrumental in unifying republicans once the candidate is chosen.

[Bailey Guns]

I've said it before...Newt is the smartest of the candidates. Not the most electable, but the smartest.

[Rooskibar03]

Has to be the best response to any question in the debate tonight. Way to go Newt!

KqaBPzGcTL4

That was effin brilliant.

[streetglideok]

Im not crazy about Newt, or his politics for that matter. Little to extreme right wing for me. He helped lead the witch hunt on Clinton for the monica blewinski mess, meanwhile he had his own strange he was tapping. That shot him in the foot, and he fled before it blew up too big. I must say however, that video clip of his remarks, pretty much somes it up. Instead of spending too much energy bashing each other, go after the throat of the liberals, the news media that puts on these dog and pony shows. I mean after all, they coached Obama thru the debates, by dogging Hillary.

[sneakerd]

Sharpest guy on the stage, and a true historian.

[sniper7]

glad he made those comments. of course you don't see that on the headlines...it is perry and romney battling it out.

until all of them jump on the same wagon like Newt was talking about and going after every screw up obama has made, the media will latch on to every outbreak between them all.

[jhood001]

I've said it before...Newt is the smartest of the candidates. Not the most electable, but the smartest.

There is truth in this statement, but honest to God... I'm so sick of all of us (myself included) being conditioned to the point of where we feel like we have to hedge our bets on something like electing officials.

We sit here and say something like 'he's the best man for this job, but he'll never win' or 'I agree with this candidate on almost everything, but there is one key issue holding me back...'. Honestly, where does this bullshit in our psyche come from?

I swear to God, if the entire country did nothing but watch the debates and see NO other 'news', we would end up with the best man for the job every single time. Why? Because the candidates would start basing their responses on their own principals and they would deliver without any fear of what the spin machine would do do it in the following days,weeks, etc.

This is why I'm still a Paul fan. He has been a straight shooter from the get-go, but if Newt keeps dropping logic bombs like this, I might switch pretty damn quick.

Thanks for posting the vid, you conservative hillbilly!

[n8tive97]

Way to go Newt! Call an ugly baby ugly! We need more of that on our side.

[bryjcom]

From what I here most of the time was spent on Romney and Perry. Now we know who NBC wants to be president.

[Bailey Guns]

There is truth in this statement, but honest to God... I'm so sick of all of us (myself included) being conditioned to the point of where we feel like we have to hedge our bets on something like electing officials.

We sit here and say something like 'he's the best man for this job, but he'll never win' or 'I agree with this candidate on almost everything, but there is one key issue holding me back...'. Honestly, where does this bullshit in our psyche come from?

I swear to God, if the entire country did nothing but watch the debates and see NO other 'news', we would end up with the best man for the job every single time. Why? Because the candidates would start basing their responses on their own principals and they would deliver without any fear of what the spin machine would do do it in the following days,weeks, etc.

This is why I'm still a Paul fan. He has been a straight shooter from the get-go, but if Newt keeps dropping logic bombs like this, I might switch pretty damn quick.

Thanks for posting the vid, you conservative hillbilly!

We may not like it, but it's true.

Let's face it...anybody can run for president. Not anybody can get elected. Whether we like it or not, that's a fact.

I hear what you're saying...don't get me wrong. It's just the world we live in.

[Ranger]

For all of Newts foibles I think he is the best man for the job right now. That being said, I don't think this country needs extremism on either side but rather a moderate that can bring everyone together because the chasm is getting so wide between parties that it will be beyond fixing soon. I like Perry and had hoped he would jump in the mix since the beginning - he's a good man, a good leader and principaled. As for him being far right, I don't see it but he's not exactly a moderate either, but I think he could help to fix the errs of our current administration.

I wish Newt had a chance, he's a very smart guy, but he doesn't and that's too bad.

[Bailey Guns]

I wish Newt had a chance, he's a very smart guy, but he doesn't and that's too bad.

I agree. But Newt has been his own worst enemy for a long time.

[alxone]

its a sad day when newt is the best candidate the gop has

[Zundfolge]

I like Newt ... he's a very smart man and is able to articulate conservative ideals in a way that few others can. That said, at this point I doubt he could get elected as dog catcher even in a district dominated by conservatives.

He should have a place in the next Republican cabinet ... I would say Secretary of State but I'm hoping John Bolton gets that job.

[Bailey Guns]

its a sad day when newt is the best candidate the gop has

I'm certainly not ashamed to say he probably is in terms of:

He's the most knowledgeable about the political process
He's a knowledgeable historian
Extremely well-versed in the Constitution
Savvy economistIt's not his political skills that are the problem. It's his personal life.

[Bailey Guns]

I like Newt ... he's a very smart man and is able to articulate conservative ideals in a way that few others can. That said, at this point I doubt he could get elected as dog catcher even in a district dominated by conservatives.

He should have a place in the next Republican cabinet ... I would say Secretary of State but I'm hoping John Bolton gets that job.

Good call. Huge John Bolton fan here.

[alxone]

I'm certainly not ashamed to say he probably is in terms of:
He's the most knowledgeable about the political process
He's a knowledgeable historian
Extremely well-versed in the Constitution
Savvy economistIt's not his political skills that are the problem. It's his personal life.
yep and if he tries to run for real the media is gonna have a field day . on the good side he could just take a, this has been said before now lets move on, stance .

[Ranger]

Newt has been one of the targets of attack from the left for a very long time. He's hated as much or more than Bush, so the media will eat him alive and his party knows it. The best role Newt can take on is that of an advisor to whomever we elect, should we take the White House (and I think there is a very good chance that is going to happen).

[Bailey Guns]

yep and if he tries to run for real the media is gonna have a field day . on the good side he could just take a, this has been said before now lets move on, stance .

What does he have to do to "run for real"?

[alxone]

What does he have to do to "run for real"?
as be the main candidate for the gop in the next election .

[Bailey Guns]

as be the main candidate for the gop in the next election .


Well, the election is over a year away. There will only be one "main" candidate and that person won't be chosen until the primaries, and they don't even begin until Feb 2012.

Gingrich appears to me to be a real candidate. He's certainly not the favorite at this point but he's in it as much as anyone else.

[alxone]

Well, the election is over a year away. There will only be one "main" candidate and that person won't be chosen until the primaries, and they don't even begin until Feb 2012.

Gingrich appears to me to be a real candidate. He's certainly not the favorite at this point but he's in it as much as anyone else.you are correct maybe real was a poor choice of words , but i think you know what i meant.

[Bailey Guns]

No...I wasn't sure what you meant. I'm thinking you don't really believe Newt has a realistic shot at the nomination...neither do I. But, stranger things have happened and it is still too early to know what might happen over the next several months.

[BPTactical]

Exactly-look what happened last election-Oblunder pretty much crawled from relative obscurity.

I am not a real fan of Newt but he knocked it out of the park. Good to see.

I am glad somebody that some folks will listen to finally called out the bias in the media. Long overdue.
Curious to see how the media takes a lashing.

[Ronin13]

Exactly-look what happened last election-Oblunder pretty much crawled from relative obscurity.

I wouldn't say relative obscurity- there was plenty of stuff about Obeyme, the only problem was by the time he beat out Clinton, Palin came on the scene and the media spent all their time trying to destroy her and didn't focus on Obama and his ulterior motives and ludicrous agenda from years before.

[Bailey Guns]

...and didn't focus on Obama and his ulterior motives and ludicrous agenda from years before.

But why would the MSM want to do that?

[Mtn.man]

I just watched the last half of the debate on MSNBC. I need to try to find the entire thing online somewhere so I can see it all.

At any rate, MSNBC is doing a debate analysis. The panel includes:

Rachel Maddow
Al Sharpton
Chris Matthews
Ed SchulzWith a combined IQ of about 17, it's hard to take any of them seriously.

Those 4 can't even spell IQ.

And Newt really has a way with answers.

[Ronin13]

Just read something pretty funny- it said "Why watch Obama when you can watch NFL pre-game? NBC is airing the Obama speech, however the NFL Pre-Game show is being aired on 5 different cable networks: SyFy, USA, Versus, G4 and the NFL Network."

[Beer]

[Pancho Villa]

GOP is very disappointing. As usual, they talk a good game, but I have 0 confidence in anyone's ability to follow through, except Ron Paul, who will be a mixed bag at best.

- All talk about free markets, no one will actually support free markets
- All talk about defending America, but no one repudiates the way the Iraq & Afghan wars have been fought and promise to change our foreign policy to ensure our victory vs empowering our enemies

Ron Paul:

- Is serious about free markets
- Blames America for the world's problems

I would actually rate Ron Paul's foreign policy as slightly less disastrous than the typical conservative approach, because Ron Paul at least won't be making us any weaker, nor sending hundreds of billions of $ in bribes to our enemies, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the near-20k coalition casualties, mostly done so that our future enemies will have better infrastructure with which to use to better attack us.

I really hate his foreign policy but until someone else actually talks sense about the WoT I will advocate disengagement vs counterproductive offensives.

[Bailey Guns]

I would actually rate Ron Paul's foreign policy as slightly less disastrous than the typical conservative approach, because Ron Paul at least won't be making us any weaker...

I really hate his foreign policy but until someone else actually talks sense about the WoT I will advocate disengagement vs counterproductive offensives.

Dude...WTF? How many times can you possibly contradict yourself in one post?

Ron Paul's foreign policy approach has been tried before and has pretty much resulted in world wars both times. How will an isolationist foreign policy make us safer?

I am not tracking on what you're saying at all.

[Byte Stryke]

GOP is very disappointing. As usual, they talk a good game, but I have 0 confidence in anyone's ability to follow through, except Ron Paul, who will be a mixed bag at best.

- All talk about free markets, no one will actually support free markets
- All talk about defending America, but no one repudiates the way the Iraq & Afghan wars have been fought and promise to change our foreign policy to ensure our victory vs empowering our enemies

Ron Paul:

- Is serious about free markets
- Blames America for the world's problems

I would actually rate Ron Paul's foreign policy as slightly less disastrous than the typical conservative approach, because Ron Paul at least won't be making us any weaker, nor sending hundreds of billions of $ in bribes to our enemies, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the near-20k coalition casualties, mostly done so that our future enemies will have better infrastructure with which to use to better attack us.

I really hate his foreign policy but until someone else actually talks sense about the WoT I will advocate disengagement vs counterproductive offensives.

and to be honest, Obamao has more than doubled our hostile involvement on the international scene, not saying one is better or worse than the other, but that but that one is no better than the other.

I Don't believe bad foreign policies have a party affiliation, really.



want an extreme foreign policy?

I Say we stop paying anyone "Aid" unless you have stood with us 100% against our enemy. None of this "We sent 4 nursing station tents." Crap
Get hostile with us? We do REALLY well at making Large Bombs and allot of them... They are cheaper than Trucks, tanks and the Lives of our soldiers. Carpet Bombing policies in now effect.

Borders closed. Have a visa? Welcome!
You Don't? You are invading the Sovereign Nation of the United States and are subject to deadly force without further provocation.

[Pancho Villa]

Dude...WTF? How many times can you possibly contradict yourself in one post?

Ron Paul's foreign policy approach has been tried before and has pretty much resulted in world wars both times. How will an isolationist foreign policy make us safer?

I am not tracking on what you're saying at all.

Disengagement as a foreign policy is a bad idea, especially when there are objective threats out there like Iran/Saudi arabia. So I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Its still better than Republitard "herp derp lets go in there and spend billions of dollars winning 'hearts and minds' and allowing two countries to vote themselves as Islamic Republics with Islam as the Highest Law of the Land and say 'democracy is democracy!'"

Disengagement does no good, but Republican warmaking strategies so far have done very little harm to the enemy and done them much good, including transferring two regimes from international pariahs to internationally recognized, acclaimed and supported Islamic "Republics" that recognize no law above the Koran.

They're already murdering people in Afghanistan for converting from Islam, and we aren't even gone. All we're doing is providing a training ground, billions of bucks and tons of expertise / infrastructure for a murderous enemy who will turn on us the second we are gone.

[Ronin13]

and to be honest, Obamao has more than doubled our hostile involvement on the international scene, not saying one is better or worse than the other, but that but that one is no better than the other.

I Don't believe bad foreign policies have a party affiliation, really.



want an extreme foreign policy?

I Say we stop paying anyone "Aid" unless you have stood with us 100% against our enemy. None of this "We sent 4 nursing station tents." Crap
Get hostile with us? We do REALLY well at making Large Bombs and allot of them... They are cheaper than Trucks, tanks and the Lives of our soldiers. Carpet Bombing policies in now effect.

Borders closed. Have a visa? Welcome!
You Don't? You are invading the Sovereign Nation of the United States and are subject to deadly force without further provocation.

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/clap%20clap%20clap/grand/applause_gif.gif

[Bailey Guns]

OK...that I pretty much understand. But there's a simple fix for that whether, as president, you're a R or D.

Define the mission for military commanders:

"General. Country X is a direct threat to the security and safety of the United States. Take your troops and make them not a threat to the United States. As soon as you've done that, bring your troops home and report back to me when you're done."
Reassure your military commanders that you support them:
"Mr President. You do understand in order to do that I'm going to have to break stuff and hurt people? Maybe innocent people?"

"Yes, General. I understand. Go break stuff and hurt people and report back to me as soon as you've accomplished the mission. Let me know if you need anything else to accomplish your task."
If only it worked like that in real life. That's how easy it would be to make the US the safest country in the world.

[Bailey Guns]

Now...Ron Paul will NOT make us safer. He's said he would immediately bring ALL troops home from overseas and close all our overseas bases.

That's a disaster in the making.

I don't need to know anything else about Ron Paul.

[tonantius]

I took a candidate policy test at this URL:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

You get a percentage correlation with each candidate and they give you references. My results were:

90% Newt
88% Santorum

I never thought I was that close to Santorum. I think I will look at him more closely.

I agree that Newt is not electable, but he would make a good candidate for a cabinet position.

[alxone]

No...I wasn't sure what you meant. I'm thinking you don't really believe Newt has a realistic shot at the nomination...neither do I. But, stranger things have happened and it is still too early to know what might happen over the next several months.yes sir ^this

[Bailey Guns]

Mine came up:

Newt 95%
Santorum 89%

Not too surprising.

[Byte Stryke]

Newt Ftw!

[jmg8550]

All of you Ron Paul supporters need to read some books from people who were there, and were both leading troops and were also ground level troops. They were also privy to high level intel that was at one point classified.

Here are some that come to mind:
American Soldier; General Tommy Franks
Seal Team Six, Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper; Howard E. Wasdin
Lone Survivor; Marcus Luttrell

These books will help you further understand why we were/are there and maybe, just maybe, make you think before you keep spewing the typical Ron Paul rhetoric. All I hear from you all is the same thing over and over again.

Do some research, learn from people who were actually there before running your mouth about Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there, or why are we still there. There absolutely is good being accomplished there and the people want/need our help. We helped Germany rebuild after we defeated them in WWII, and it took until 1980 to do so.

Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?

[Irving]

Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?

Because running Libertarian is a sure way to not be elected. Perhaps you should read All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren.

[mcantar18c]

All of you Ron Paul supporters need to read some books from people who were there, and were both leading troops and were also ground level troops. They were also privy to high level intel that was at one point classified.

Here are some that come to mind:
American Soldier; General Tommy Franks
Seal Team Six, Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper; Howard E. Wasdin
Lone Survivor; Marcus Luttrell

These books will help you further understand why we were/are there and maybe, just maybe, make you think before you keep spewing the typical Ron Paul rhetoric. All I hear from you all is the same thing over and over again.

Do some research, learn from people who were actually there before running your mouth about Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there, or why are we still there. There absolutely is good being accomplished there and the people want/need our help. We helped Germany rebuild after we defeated them in WWII, and it took until 1980 to do so.

Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?

Amen to all of the above, and in response to the bold...
I would support staying in Afghanistan and raining hell on them for the next 100 years for revenge for what happened on that mission.
RIP Danny Dietz.

[Byte Stryke]

Amen to all of the above, and in response to the bold...
I would support staying in Afghanistan and raining hell on them for the next 100 years for revenge for what happened on that mission.
RIP Danny Dietz.


I Still think we need to pull all of our guys out to the borders and carpet bomb Afghanistan until its flatter than Kansas

[tonantius]

The Founders envisioned these United States to be more like Switzerland. Not to interfere in other nation's affairs, not entering into any foreign alliances and entanglements. But still having a strong navy.

U.S. Grant wrote that it was a lie that the Mexican Army attacked us in 1846, but it was used as an excuse to provoke the Mexican-American War.

The Maine blew up due to a problem in the coal bunker, but it was used as an excuse to invade Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.

The US also got involved in the rebellion in Panama to get rights to build a canal across it.

Wilson sold munitions to Great Britain and put them on passenger vessels to provoke the Germans to use unrestricted submarine warfare. Thus launching the US into World War I. then he tried to get us into the League of Nations. Don't forget that the population of the US at the time was mostly pro-German, but media propaganda was used to favor the British.

FDR moved the Pacific BB Fleet from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor to provoke a Japanese response (plus his embargoes). This launched the US into WW2. Then he formed the United Nations.

And the list goes on.

I am not an isolationist, but I think we may have been better served by not being interventionists.

Now admittedly, communism is a big problem in the post-WW2 era, but maybe the Nazis and Stalinist might have collapsed from continued warfare. The Japanese Empire may have been a problem, too. OK. The US would have gotten drawn into it anyway.

I disagree with Congressman Paul that we should just pull out overnight. we still need a strong Air Force and Navy. But we certainly could look at ways to slowly pull back.

[jmg8550]

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/tinfoilhatsmile.gif (http://www.millan.net)

Someone needs to stop listening to Alex Jones.

Tonantius, show factual documentation for your last post, Especially those statements where we started the wars you mention.

Irving, Isn't All the Kings Men about Humpty Dumpty and how he fell off the wall?[ROFL1]

[Bailey Guns]

Because running Libertarian is a sure way to not be elected.

Exactly. So much for being principled.

[BushMasterBoy]

Alot of what tonantius says is true. Americas past is strewn with excuses to declare war. Look at Bush's invasion of Iraq, the "theme" was to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. Then when no WMD's were found, the "theme" became regime change. Same with Afghanistan, Osama Bin Ladin was in Pakistan. Sun Tzu's writings state that "all war is based on deception" and this is true.
I have stated this before and I will state it again, the U.S. invaded Iraq to secure the worlds fourth largest known oil reserves and we invaded Afghanistan to secure the future route of a large natural gas pipeline.
U.S. war policy is a sort of an international eminent domain action. Do business with us our way, or face military might! As the British have been known to say "The Americans will eventually get it right."
I will summarize this posting by saying, we will in the future have to elect a national leader with vision. Someone who is proactive and selfless, not someone who is out playing golf while our military is risking their lives for us.


*Disclaimer "Above statement is an educated opinion and not the official view of the U.S. Government"

[Irving]

Exactly. So much for being principled.

Does a rose by any other name still smell as sweet as a rose?

[Byte Stryke]

Alot of what tonantius says is true. Americas past is strewn with excuses to declare war. Look at Bush's invasion of Iraq, the "theme" was to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. Then when no WMD's were found, the "theme" became regime change. Same with Afghanistan, Osama Bin Ladin was in Pakistan. Sun Tzu's writings state that "all war is based on deception" and this is true.
I have stated this before and I will state it again, the U.S. invaded Iraq to secure the worlds fourth largest known oil reserves and we invaded Afghanistan to secure the future route of a large natural gas pipeline.
U.S. war policy is a sort of an international eminent domain action. Do business with us our way, or face military might! As the British have been known to say "The Americans will eventually get it right."
I will summarize this posting by saying, we will in the future have to elect a national leader with vision. Someone who is proactive and selfless, not someone who is out playing golf while our military is risking their lives for us.


*Disclaimer "Above statement is an educated opinion and not the official view of the U.S. Government"

+1

the deceptions and "misdirection" goes way back.

you should really see what they teach about US History abroad...

your beloved forefathers aren't as squeaky clean as some would believe nor are any of the latter presidents.