Skyhook79;1060675 wrote:There have already been about 75 debates how many more is really needed?

It was easy to debate when the media wasn't vetting you and there was no heat on your record.

In other words Romney is a great front runner, but now is where he needs to be a man and keep in the game now that the going is getting tough.

Willard loved the debates when they asked him cream puffs and didn't offer an resistance. Why the sudden change of heart now that his poll numbers are tanking and the media is being responsible as far as properly vetting him.

I love watching the debates.

rydawg5;1060689 wrote:I love watching the debates.

I don't mind them it's the same shit over and over.

I love watching these debates as well. Hell, they should do at least one per week, so we can get a better idea of how out of touch and extreme all of them really are. We're down to the Final Four, so let's take a look at what we've got:


Romney---Once acknowledged to be the shoo-in, he has tumbled quite a bit lately as more questions about Bain come to the surface. Now he is being coy about releasing his tax returns. Something sinister there? I don't really think so. I think he's embarrassed to show how much money he really makes and how he makes it.

Gingrich---The former Speaker has surged lately, primarily due to his debate performance (and that $5 million donation from the casino guy). A serial adulterer, he has shown a remarkable ability to turn his cheating into an indictment of the media. I almost feel sorry for his wife, except for the fact that she was the one he cheated with while still married (and wanted to be a kept woman if Newt's wife agreed to the three-way). She has to be wondering when Newt's eye will stray again. A lot of folks think Newt would clean Barry's clock in a debate, but I think his hair-trigger temper would get the best of him. He has a history of going ballistic, it's just a matter of time.

Santorum---The darling of the "Bedroom Police" and evangelicals everywhere. He wants to be the arbiter of our morals. In my opinion, the only thing more dangerous than Santorum's candidacy are those who blindly follow him off the cliff.

Paul---Ah, yes, Dr. Paul. He seems to be more ignored with each passing debate, and for good reason. Ross Perot without the charts, Captain Kirk without the transporter. I view him as the right-wing version of Jerry Brown. He will go away, but that possibility of a third-party run has many Republicans worried, and for good reason.


I was fortunate to have spent this past week in South Carolina and I was shocked to see the barrage of campaign ads that ran. Most of the pro-Romney and pro-Gingrich ads were run by the Super PACs and were negative to say the least, but the most negative ads I saw were the ones the Paul campaign ran against Rick Santorum. He actually ended them by saying " I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad".

Another observation was that, although Myrtle Beach has a large African-American population, I couldn't find one black face during the debate held there. I wonder if the audience was shipped in. That might explain all of the buses parked at the Convention Center that night. Who knows? Maybe there were an abnormally large contingent of spin doctors there that night.

You are everything wrong with this country.

1. Successful business man

2. Bill Clinton

3. Guy who believes his Bible teaching

4. A guy that has great ideas, but will never have legislative support to implement them.


Then you try to make it about race.

Take a look at your guy, fucking disgrace what his past had.

stlouiedipalma;1060776 wrote:I love watching these debates as well. Hell, they should do at least one per week, so we can get a better idea of how out of touch and extreme all of them really are.

It's wonderful that you are able to watch these debates and vet "how extreme" these candidates are.

Don't you wish the media was as aggressive with Obama when they tossed him media darling softballs during his "debates" with Queen Hillary? If they had, perhaps we wouldn't be enduring the out of touch extremist currently occupying the White House. :rolleyes:

stlouiedipalma;1060776 wrote:I love watching these debates as well. Hell, they should do at least one per week, so we can get a better idea of how out of touch and extreme all of them really are. We're down to the Final Four, so let's take a look at what we've got:


Romney---Once acknowledged to be the shoo-in, he has tumbled quite a bit lately as more questions about Bain come to the surface. Now he is being coy about releasing his tax returns. Something sinister there? I don't really think so. I think he's embarrassed to show how much money he really makes and how he makes it.

Gingrich---The former Speaker has surged lately, primarily due to his debate performance (and that $5 million donation from the casino guy). A serial adulterer, he has shown a remarkable ability to turn his cheating into an indictment of the media. I almost feel sorry for his wife, except for the fact that she was the one he cheated with while still married (and wanted to be a kept woman if Newt's wife agreed to the three-way). She has to be wondering when Newt's eye will stray again. A lot of folks think Newt would clean Barry's clock in a debate, but I think his hair-trigger temper would get the best of him. He has a history of going ballistic, it's just a matter of time.

Santorum---The darling of the "Bedroom Police" and evangelicals everywhere. He wants to be the arbiter of our morals. In my opinion, the only thing more dangerous than Santorum's candidacy are those who blindly follow him off the cliff.

Paul---Ah, yes, Dr. Paul. He seems to be more ignored with each passing debate, and for good reason. Ross Perot without the charts, Captain Kirk without the transporter. I view him as the right-wing version of Jerry Brown. He will go away, but that possibility of a third-party run has many Republicans worried, and for good reason.


I was fortunate to have spent this past week in South Carolina and I was shocked to see the barrage of campaign ads that ran. Most of the pro-Romney and pro-Gingrich ads were run by the Super PACs and were negative to say the least, but the most negative ads I saw were the ones the Paul campaign ran against Rick Santorum. He actually ended them by saying " I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad".

Another observation was that, although Myrtle Beach has a large African-American population, I couldn't find one black face during the debate held there. I wonder if the audience was shipped in. That might explain all of the buses parked at the Convention Center that night. Who knows? Maybe there were an abnormally large contingent of spin doctors there that night.

What am I invisible??

bases_loaded;1060917 wrote:You are everything wrong with this country.

1. Successful business man

2. Bill Clinton

3. Guy who believes his Bible teaching

4. A guy that has great ideas, but will never have legislative support to implement them.


Then you try to make it about race.

Take a look at your guy, fucking disgrace what his past had.

Much closer to accurate. Reps to come.

The reference to the lack of African-Americans isn't intended to "bring up race", so much as it is to show how little the Republican party has changed over the years. It still resembles a private country club.


And here could be no greater example of "lobbing a softball" than the one John King tossed Newt's way Thursday night. Virtually all of the pundits knew that, when asked about his ex-wife's interview, Newt would turn it into a diatribe against the media. King knew this and gave Newt a nice big steak bone, with plenty of meat and fat on it. Newt did exactly what was expected and was given a standing ovation for his efforts. Hell, if that audience had half a brain they would have applauded King for giving Newt the opportunity to hit the home run.


The biggest reason I watch these debates isn't to learn anything new. I know what their positions are. I watch to see the audience get whipped into a frenzy by their idols. These guys are actually pretty smart. During the primary season they play to their base, however extreme they may be. The trick for the eventual nominee this fall will be toning it down in order to swing the Independent vote. I don't think that they will be enraptured by the extreme positions currently on display.

stlouiedipalma;1061163 wrote:The reference to the lack of African-Americans isn't intended to "bring up race", so much as it is to show how little the Republican party has changed over the years. It still resembles a private country club.


And here could be no greater example of "lobbing a softball" than the one John King tossed Newt's way Thursday night. Virtually all of the pundits knew that, when asked about his ex-wife's interview, Newt would turn it into a diatribe against the media. King knew this and gave Newt a nice big steak bone, with plenty of meat and fat on it. Newt did exactly what was expected and was given a standing ovation for his efforts. Hell, if that audience had half a brain they would have applauded King for giving Newt the opportunity to hit the home run.


The biggest reason I watch these debates isn't to learn anything new. I know what their positions are. I watch to see the audience get whipped into a frenzy by their idols. These guys are actually pretty smart. During the primary season they play to their base, however extreme they may be. The trick for the eventual nominee this fall will be toning it down in order to swing the Independent vote. I don't think that they will be enraptured by the extreme positions currently on display.

Other than that's not what you said, it's exactly why you said you didn't see "one black face" there.

stlouiedipalma;1061163 wrote:It still resembles a private country club.

Since when can black people not join a private country club?

Racist.

So does Romney now not get the Iowa delegates? Have they officially been given to Santorum?

The delegates were split between the candidates. I believe romney ,santorum and paul all got 7 if I remember. Iowa was not a winner take all.

stlouiedipalma;1061163 wrote:The reference to the lack of African-Americans isn't intended to "bring up race", so much as it is to show how little the Republican party has changed over the years. It still resembles a private country club.

How is that not bringing up race?

Tobias Fünke;1061202 wrote:So does Romney now not get the Iowa delegates? Have they officially been given to Santorum?

Iowa's delegates are not bound to anyone. They can vote for whoever they want at the convention. So no one really has any delegates yet from Iowa. That's why many Ron Paul voters stayed late at the caucuses, to be elected delegates. There is a good chance Paul has half or more of Iowa's delegates.

bases_loaded;1060917 wrote:You are everything wrong with this country.

1. Successful business man

2. Bill Clinton

3. Guy who believes his Bible teaching

4. A guy that has great ideas, but will never have legislative support to implement them.


Then you try to make it about race.

Take a look at your guy, fucking disgrace what his past had.

So are we supposed to applaud Frothy being a bigot because it's what he's been taught/believes the bible says?

I Wear Pants;1061239 wrote:So are we supposed to applaud Frothy being a bigot because it's what he's been taught/believes the bible says?

Only if you applaud BHO for believing white people are the devil, properity is evil, and his wifes belief that the only time she's ever been proud to be an American is when her husband was nominated for president.

bases_loaded;1061252 wrote:Only if you applaud BHO for believing white people are the devil, properity is evil, and his wifes belief that the only time she's ever been proud to be an American is when her husband was nominated for president.

First and second things simply aren't true and the third was in all likelihood a poorly phrased way to express what she was feeling. (Though I don't know I'm not her).

Santorum we don't have to make any logical leaps or skew anything. He plainly says things that indicate him to be completely and utterly intolerant of those he finds distasteful. If you are an asshole because of what you believe religiously you are still an asshole.

The reference to the lack of African-Americans isn't intended to "bring up race", so much as it is to show how little the Republican party has changed over the years. It still resembles a private country club.

You're are right...it hasn't changed. It is still the party that empowers people of all races. Colin Powell, Herman Cain, Condi Rice (highest office held by a black woman), Micheal Steele (immediate past head of the RNC)...etc etc. Same thing with women and other minorities. Democrats like to think that these minority members don't really represent their races beause they don't need the Democratic party's assistance to achieve. Now which party are the REAL racists?

I Wear Pants;1061303 wrote:If you are an asshole because of what you believe religiously you are still an asshole.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright would agree.

believer;1061324 wrote:Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright would agree.

All three are assholes.

SC is officially filled with morons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/21/rick-santorum-equality-islam-religion-south-carolina_n_1220767.html

That guy got more votes than Ron Paul in SC.

I Wear Pants;1061509 wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/21/rick-santorum-equality-islam-religion-south-carolina_n_1220767.html

That guy got more votes than Ron Paul in SC.

I agree, Islam is known for equality. Especially gender equality :rolleyes:

I Wear Pants;1061404 wrote:All three are assholes.

SC is officially filled with morons.

They are, but the media had a lot to do with it too. Ron got some endorsements from some high profile state senators in SC, including Tom Davis who is a rising star in the party (although probably not anymore). No one even knew about it, because it was not covered anywhere in the media. After the CNN debate, someone counted the number of times each candidate was mentioned in the analysis, Gingrich was mention 87 times, Romney 82 times, Santorum 60 or 70 times, and Ron Paul was mentioned once. Yes, one fucking time.

The corporations that own the media make billions from bailouts and war contracts and what not, so they are going to make sure Ron doesn't get a fair shot. And he doesn't get banker money and special interest money like the other candidates get, which is an even bigger disadvantage because the others get free advertising in the form of positive media. Ron Paul has to pay for any positive television he gets. It is quite the uphill fight.

bases_loaded;1061518 wrote:I agree, Islam is known for equality. Especially gender equality :rolleyes:

You've got to be shitting me. You agree with what he said? No one but christians has a right to want equality because in his dumb head the bible invented the idea?