GOP Debate

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

First impressions:
Newht- sharpest tack in the room, would kill Obama in any debate.

YOU NAILED IT.

Gingrich is a genius, with actual ideas that address actual problems, and he can explain why his solution has worked in the past, and why the liberal alternative has always been a disaster.

I would pay anything to see Gingrich debate Obama. Anything. It would be an absolute bloodbath. Because not only is Gingrich smarter than Obama, he's not afraid to take off the gloves.

Sadly, while I believe Gingrich would do the best job, he has very little chance to win the primary, and less of a chance in the general election...too much historical baggage. Which is too bad, because IMHO, he is exactly what we need.

In 2008, I was the first person to predict that Palin would be the VP choice. For the last year, I have been saying that Marco Rubio would be the VP choice for 2012, if he was elected US Senator from FL, which he was. Rubio is the most important Republican in the country right now...he gives the GOP a shot at Florida (which will be a key state in 2012), he gives them Catholics, he placates the tea party (very important to get them energized), and MOST IMPORTANT, he gives them a shot at the Hispanic vote (Rubio is Cuban-American). He is the GOP's ticket for the next decade.

If Hispanics start voting for the GOP, you watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration. In the next nanosecond, liberals will build a one-way, high-speed train to the Mexican border, and stick anyone with brown skin on that train...

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

YOU NAILED IT.

Gingrich is a genius, with actual ideas that address actual problems, and he can explain why his solution has worked in the past, and why the liberal alternative has always been a disaster.

I would pay anything to see Gingrich debate Obama. Anything. It would be an absolute bloodbath. Because not only is Gingrich smarter than Obama, he's not afraid to take off the gloves.

Sadly, while I believe Gingrich would do the best job, he has very little chance to win the primary, and less of a chance in the general election...too much historical baggage. Which is too bad, because IMHO, he is exactly what we need.

He is smarter and surely better but he can screw up too and I think we can do better. But he would wreck O in a debate.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In 2008, I was the first person to predict that Palin would be the VP choice.

When in 2008 and where is your proof ?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He is smarter and surely better but he can screw up too and I think we can do better. But he would wreck O in a debate.

I think O could hold his own, granted McCain wasn't a great debater but he didn't really give Obama much of a challenge.

Newt has a deep knowledge of history he draws from to make parallels. He's also often very selective and manipulative. Perhaps that's why Jim thinks... "liberal alternatives always been a disaster."

The biggest factor against Newt in a debate is that he often comes off as smarmy. People really don't like him all that much.

Additionally, Newt relies on well thought out angles to make his points, but often misses the heart of what people really care about.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Spence, on Monday when the market was tanking, Obama gave a speech where he basically said "we're Americans, and now that I am your leader, we can get through this". After his speech, the DOW dropped another 400 points. If Gingrich gave that speech, he would have outlined a specific plan to get us out of this (with SPECIFIC DETAILS), and the market would have gone up 500 points. Obama's life experience has been academic, theoretical discussions. Gingrich spends his time figuring out specifically, what solutions work, and which do not.

"Perhaps that's why Jim thinks... "liberal alternatives always been a disaster."

Spence, want to know why I think liberalism has been a disaster? Look at the economic state of every place that has embraced liberalism...Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Illinois, Europe...Come down to CT, and drive around the liberal Utopias of Hartford and Bridgeport, see just how well liberal policies are faring...

The red states are adding jobs. The blue states are bleeding jobs and will soon face bankruptcy.

When I say liberalism is a disaster, I DO NOT say that because that's what I'm rooting for. I say that because when you look at the current (or historical) economic landscape with an open mind, there simply is no other conclusion.

HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED?

If Sean Penn said that 2 plus 2 equals 12, you'd believe it. There's simply no talking to you people, because you do not respond to fact, only to ideology...

[fishbones]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;879313]
Spence, want to know why I think liberalism has been a disaster? Look at the economic state of every place that has embraced liberalism...Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Illinois, Europe...Come down to CT, and drive around the liberal Utopias of Hartford and Bridgeport, see just how well liberal policies are faring...

The red states are adding jobs. The blue states are bleeding jobs and will soon face bankruptcy.
QUOTE]

Don't forget RI. One of the bluest of the blue.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If Gingrich gave that speech, he would have outlined a specific plan to get us out of this (with SPECIFIC DETAILS), and the market would have gone up 500 points. Obama's life experience has been academic, theoretical discussions. Gingrich spends his time figuring out specifically, what solutions work, and which do not.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I'm including the entire body of ScottW (as one big inane thought) in that remark.

So Newt speaks and the market instantly reverses course. I think you forgot the part about him farting perfume, dancing on water and fixing the roads in Rhode Island.

The red states are adding jobs. The blue states are bleeding jobs and will soon face bankruptcy.

You should take the Blue counties out of your Red states and then see how they're doing.

Even better, why don't you correlate the job growth to federal funding...you do know that the Red states consume much more Federal tax dollars per capita don't you? Perhaps if the Red states are so successful they should stop taking funds so the Blue states can balance their books.

Have you factored in geography to your analysis?

It might explain why MI is still s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g wind while TX is booming. A few years ago an IT Director at an oil equipment company remarked to me "the only way I see to optimize our business any further would be to just print money directly."

Didn't Texas raise taxes some years ago to invest in education? Perhaps they're reaping the rewards of that action.

When I say liberalism is a disaster, I DO NOT say that because that's what I'm rooting for. I say that because when you look at the current (or historical) economic landscape with an open mind, there simply is no other conclusion.

That's because you came to your own conclusion before the question was even raised.

You know...for someone who professes his love for facts, we sure don't see you around them very often. Kind of like this geek I knew in grade school who always talked his hot girlfriend, that went to another school...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I'm including the entire body of ScottW (as one big inane thought) in that remark.


You know...for someone who professes his love for facts, we sure don't see you around them very often. Kind of like this geek I knew in grade school who always talked his hot girlfriend, that went to another school...

-spence

love the insults...it's all that your type have left sadly...I'll be sure to let you know the next time that you are actually right about something....anything...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

love the insults...it's all that your type have left sadly...I'll be sure to let you know the next time that you are actually right about something....anything...

Those aren't insults, they're love kisses

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

I think O could hold his own, granted McCain wasn't a great debater but he didn't really give Obama much of a challenge.

Newt has a deep knowledge of history he draws from to make parallels. He's also often very selective and manipulative. Perhaps that's why Jim thinks... "liberal alternatives always been a disaster."

The biggest factor against Newt in a debate is that he often comes off as smarmy. People really don't like him all that much.

Additionally, Newt relies on well thought out angles to make his points, but often misses the heart of what people really care about.

-spence

I agree he is "smarmy", prolly not well liked and does have a deep knowledge of history.
But what does Obama have a deep knowledge of?

[Rob Rockcrawler]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree he is "smarmy", prolly not well liked and does have a deep knowledge of history.
But what does Obama have a deep knowledge of?

College hoops maybe.

All kidding aside. And im not ashamed to say that i lean to the left in most instances. But Paulenti (sp) and his comments about abortion are scary. Saying that not even in cases of rape should it be allowed. I know that during these type of debates its all about rah rah for your party but damn dude. Do you seriously think that having such a hard line on that subject will go over in a national election? Not a straw pole with a bunch of cow tippers. If Bachman made a statement like that i would at least respect her a bit since she has a VAGINA.

And who needs the EPA. I love my mercury and PCB's they never hurt anyone. I am always looking at more ways to add just a little more smog on those hot as a bastard days when they issue health warnings to the old and people with breathing problems. But hey, if it makes corporations more profitable it must be a good idea. Lower their taxes, relax environmental protections, maybe we can have air like beijing.

On the environment, and im just thinking on fisherman's terms. Lets take away regulations on pesticides so farms can be more profitable. The runoff heads to the Chesapeake and screws up the water more than it is now. Even lower spawning success of our beloved stripers. That would equal more time on S-B in the political forum, a place a rarely visit.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Rob Rockcrawler

College hoops maybe.

All kidding aside. And im not ashamed to say that i lean to the left in most instances. But Paulenti (sp) and his comments about abortion are scary. Saying that not even in cases of rape should it be allowed. I know that during these type of debates its all about rah rah for your party but damn dude. Do you seriously think that having such a hard line on that subject will go over in a national election? Not a straw pole with a bunch of cow tippers. If Bachman made a statement like that i would at least respect her a bit since she has a VAGINA.

And who needs the EPA. I love my mercury and PCB's they never hurt anyone. I am always looking at more ways to add just a little more smog on those hot as a bastard days when they issue health warnings to the old and people with breathing problems. But hey, if it makes corporations more profitable it must be a good idea. Lower their taxes, relax environmental protections, maybe we can have air like beijing.

On the environment, and im just thinking on fisherman's terms. Lets take away regulations on pesticides so farms can be more profitable. The runoff heads to the Chesapeake and screws up the water more than it is now. Even lower spawning success of our beloved stripers. That would equal more time on S-B in the political forum, a place a rarely visit.

Rob no need to be ashamed of leaning left, everyone is entitled
to their opinion based on what is important to them.
Most important thing in the end is what's best for America and our
way of life. Extremes on either side are not good for the country,imho.

Like Slip said in the other tread what we need now is a Great Leader.
I don't see one anywhere on either side, but who knows.

Rob, you still making plugs? I remember you showing me your first
and it was a beaut.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Like Slip said in the other tread what we need now is a Great Leader.
I don't see one anywhere on either side, but who knows.

Great leaders don't just show up with a "I'm destined to be a great leader" placard draped across their chest.....the current occupant is not anything resembling a leader and he's the most expensive, most overhyped candidate in history.....he's better at starting and fanning fires than putting them out(community organizer).....the opposition will fight it out and even then, there are no guarantees because unforseen future events will determine the "quality" of their leadership skills, it's foolish to do what the dems do each time they've crowned a saviour and build them up as the greatest, smartest most desirable ever....before they've ever been tested in any meaningful way, Obama had no leadership skills to begin with...hasn't developed any and won't.....every election season it's the same freaking thing...the republicans are boring and stupid....the dems are all brilliant policy wonks and masterdebaters, even Al Sharpton.....it's very early in the process

[spence]

Originally Posted by Rob Rockcrawler

All kidding aside. And im not ashamed to say that i lean to the left in most instances. But Paulenti (sp) and his comments about abortion are scary. Saying that not even in cases of rape should it be allowed. I know that during these type of debates its all about rah rah for your party but damn dude. Do you seriously think that having such a hard line on that subject will go over in a national election?

It's a litmus test.

Not a straw pole with a bunch of cow tippers.

Hey, speaking as an Iowan first and a Rhode Islander second I resent that remark. You have no idea how hard it is to actually tip a cow.

If Bachman made a statement like that i would at least respect her a bit since she has a VAGINA.

Seeing that word all in CAPS makes me think it would look good on the side of a ship.

And who needs the EPA. I love my mercury and PCB's they never hurt anyone. I am always looking at more ways to add just a little more smog on those hot as a bastard days when they issue health warnings to the old and people with breathing problems. But hey, if it makes corporations more profitable it must be a good idea. Lower their taxes, relax environmental protections, maybe we can have air like beijing.

On the environment, and im just thinking on fisherman's terms. Lets take away regulations on pesticides so farms can be more profitable. The runoff heads to the Chesapeake and screws up the water more than it is now. Even lower spawning success of our beloved stripers. That would equal more time on S-B in the political forum, a place a rarely visit.

Yes, corporations have a great track record of what's in the interest of the general population. Let them police themselves, hey shouldn't they more than anyone know what pollution looks like?

As for the EPA, let the states do it. With all these rivers, aquifers, wind currents crossing their borders etc... they're ideally positioned to regulate pollution, most of which I'D NOTE THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE!

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I agree he is "smarmy", prolly not well liked and does have a deep knowledge of history.
But what does Obama have a deep knowledge of?

Hey Spence, my question almost slipped by . " But what does Obama have
a deep knowledge of?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Hey Spence, my question almost slipped by . " But what does Obama have
a deep knowledge of?

You can start with his background...the Constitution, Civil Rights, criminal justice etc...

It was interesting in the Woodward book (Obama's Wars) how the Generals and policy makers remarked how much a departure working with Obama was vs Bush. Bush was a listener while Obama is engaged, inquisitive and really challenges the substance of what's being presented to him on just about everything.

He's also reported to be a work-a-holic. I really doubt his vacations are all that relaxing...he still probably puts in an 8 hour day.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You can start with his background...the Constitution, Civil Rights, criminal justice etc...

-spence

WTF?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

You can start with his background...the Constitution, Civil Rights, criminal justice etc...

LOL, you musta thought I meant Mark Levin.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=justplugit] Hey Spence, my question almost slipped by, but what does Obama have a deep knowledge of?

Originally Posted by spence

You can start with his background...the Constitution, Civil Rights, criminal justice etc...

Does his "deep knowledge" of the Constitution inform him that what he seems to consider his mission is actually unconstitutional? He seems to have admitted as much when he lamented that the Constitution basically limits the government to certain negative liberties but does not say what it can "do for" the people. Does his "deep knowledge" of "Civil Rights" lead him to understand that his unconstitutional doing for the people deprives them of their civil right to do for themselves? Does his "deep knowledge" of criminal justice let him know that his unconstitutional usurpation of power is a crime of political malfeasance, even, dare I say, of treason against the Constitution he swore to defend? As for his deep knowledge of "etc.", he's undoubtedly very proficient at etcetera . . .etcetera . . . etcetera.

It was interesting in the Woodward book (Obama's Wars) how the Generals and policy makers remarked how much a departure working with Obama was vs Bush. Bush was a listener while Obama is engaged, inquisitive and really challenges the substance of what's being presented to him on just about everything.

And Woodward's opinion shows Obama's "deep knowledge" of what? Perhaps listening acquires more knowledge than challenging.

He's also reported to be a work-a-holic. I really doubt his vacations are all that relaxing...he still probably puts in an 8 hour day.

-spence

Is being a work-a-holic a sign of "deep knowledge"?