Who won the debate last night?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I fell asleep.

Did they talk about anything anyone would care about?

I think Huntsman is going to catapult to the top soon.

-spence

"Did they talk about anything anyone would care about?"

Nope. They didn't talk about blaming Dems for everytihing including the Lindburgh baby kidnapping. They didn't talk about how to make evertpne irrationally afraid of Democrats. They talked about how to actually fix the debt problem, so no, nothing you or your ilk would care about. It was a good night for you to howl at the moon instead.

"I think Huntsman is going to catapult to the top soon."

Wow. Very astute.

[Fly Rod]

I fell asleep.

Tired from debating Jim in Ct.

Did they talk about anything anyone would care about?

No!

I think Huntsman is going to catapult to the top soon.

Your a Dreamer!

-spence

[scottw]

pretty funny watching Obey-me tonight with Steve Croft .....

I read someone friendly to Obey-me once quoted describing him as "someone who always thinks he's the smartest in the room and out of the room and he's never wrong"...pretty accurate I think

even someone as friendly as Croft didn't buy the recycled bs that O was peddling, he didn't seem quite sure how to deal with the level of delusion that was exhibited..........

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...proval-rating/

Views of how he has handled the economy is the obvious drag on the president's ratings: While just 33 percent approve, 60 percent disapprove.

Similarly, just 35 percent approve his his handling of job creation while 58 percent disapprove.

Additionally, most Americans do not think the president's priorities for the country are in line with theirs. 54 percent say Mr. Obama doesn't share their priorities.

On the 2010 health care reform law, 51% of Americans disapprove of the law.

With nearly a year left before the 2012 election, 41 percent of Americans think Mr. Obama has performed his job well enough to be elected to a second term, but 54 percent don't think so.

66 percent of Americans say they do not have a clear idea of what he wants to accomplish in a second term.

[Jim in CT]

Gingrich is still on top, and he had the line of the night. Romney criticized Gingrich for being a career politician (which is untrue, Gingrich has been out of office for a long time), and Gingrich responded by saying "Mitt, the only reason you're not a career politician is because you lost an election to Ted Kennedy in 1994". When are people going to STOP asking Gingrich these "gotcha" questions, which he inevitably bashes you over the head with?

It also made me sick when the moderator, George Stefanapolis, asked all the candidates to gang up on Gingrich for his infidelity. I do think infidelity is fair game for a question. But I don't like it when a guy like Stefanopolis asks the question, because he was a senior policy advisor to Bill Clinton for 8 years. Bill Clinton is the patron saint of infidelity, and no one who worshipped at his altar for 8 years is in any position to challenge Gingrich for mistakes he made 15 years ago.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill Clinton is the patron saint of infidelity, and no one who worshipped at his altar for 8 years is in any position to challenge Gingrich for mistakes he made 15 years ago.

Let me get this right... Clinton is the patron saint of infidelity for getting some on the side, but Gingrich "made a mistake". I would think that someone like yourself with strong religious beliefs would find Gingrich, with his infidelity and 2 divorces, just as reprehensible as you find Clinton.

Yes, I understand that Clinton is a Democrat and therefore you hate him. However, remove the -D and -R, and they are both guys that fooled around on their wives.

I'm curious how you justify the double-standard. No politics. How is one man reprehensible for what he did and another "made a mistake"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Let me get this right... Clinton is the patron saint of infidelity for getting some on the side, but Gingrich "made a mistake". I would think that someone like yourself with strong religious beliefs would find Gingrich, with his infidelity and 2 divorces, just as reprehensible as you find Clinton.

Yes, I understand that Clinton is a Democrat and therefore you hate him. However, remove the -D and -R, and they are both guys that fooled around on their wives.

I'm curious how you justify the double-standard. No politics. How is one man reprehensible for what he did and another "made a mistake"?

"I would think that someone like yourself with strong religious beliefs would find Gingrich, with his infidelity and 2 divorces, just as reprehensible as you find Clinton."

You have some irrefutably valid points, as usual.

However, someone with my religious beliefs understands that we're all imperfect. As far as anyone knows, Gingrich has been happily married for 15 years, is a devout Catholic, and he admits his sins and has asked for forgiveness. I don't see that as morally equivalent to Clinton using a 20 year-old girl's sexual organs as an ashtray, and then angrily denying it the next day, and suggesting that my problem is that I don't understand the definition of the word "is".

I find Gingrich's past actions there to be disgusting. I also believe in redemption for those who are sorry. By all accounts, Gingrich has been sorry for his flaws, and has been an above-the-board person, since he converted to Catholicism.

"I understand that Clinton is a Democrat and therefore you hate him. "

You understand me a whole lot less than you think. There are lots of Democrats I like, and lots of republicans I despise. I think very rationally about these things. I also think Clinton was a pretty good president, especially after he adopted conservative economics.

"I'm curious how you justify the double-standard. "

A double-standard is when you treat 2 things differently when they are, in fact, the same. Gingrich appears to me to be a sincere, devout Catholic who fully admits his sins. Clinton (while a good president in my opinion) is a weasel. I'd bet Clinton is still unfaithful to Hilary, and I'd bet that Newt has straightened himself out. That's the difference.

It's not a double standard when you treat 2 different things, as if they are different.

Here's a real double-standard...saying that Bush trampled civil liberties by passing the Patriot Act, but not holding it against Obama. Or calling Bush a war criminal for using predator drones and Guantanimo Bay, but calling Obama a good leader for doing the same, and even giving him the Nobel Peace Prize.. Those would be real double standards.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I would think that someone like yourself with strong religious beliefs would find Gingrich, with his infidelity and 2 divorces, just as reprehensible as you find Clinton."

You have some irrefutably valid points, as usual.

However, someone with my religious beliefs understands that we're all imperfect. As far as anyone knows, Gingrich has been happily married for 15 years, is a devout Catholic, and he admits his sins and has asked for forgiveness. I don't see that as morally equivalent to Clinton using a 20 year-old girl's sexual organs as an ashtray, and then angrily denying it the next day, and suggesting that my problem is that I don't understand the definition of the word "is".

I find Gingrich's past actions there to be disgusting. I also believe in redemption for those who are sorry. By all accounts, Gingrich has been sorry for his flaws, and has been an above-the-board person, since he converted to Catholicism.

"I understand that Clinton is a Democrat and therefore you hate him. "

You understand me a whole lot less than you think. There are lots of Democrats I like, and lots of republicans I despise. I think very rationally about these things. I also think Clinton was a pretty good president, especially after he adopted conservative economics.

Appreciate and can respect the opinion. Maybe it's my cynicism, but I personally don't have much confidence that either of them are all that great of human beings - mostly due to my distaste of most national level politicians.

"I'm curious how you justify the double-standard. "

A double-standard is when you treat 2 things differently when they are, in fact, the same. Gingrich appears to me to be a sincere, devout Catholic who fully admits his sins. Clinton (while a good president in my opinion) is a weasel. I'd bet Clinton is still unfaithful to Hilary, and I'd bet that Newt has straightened himself out. That's the difference.

It's not a double standard when you treat 2 different things, as if they are different.

Whether it is or is not a double-standard is essentially an "in the eyes of the beholder" type of situation. Due to your opinion that Newt has converted and is repentant while Clinton has never been, eliminates the possibility of it appearing as a double-standard to you.

Here's a real double-standard...saying that Bush trampled civil liberties by passing the Patriot Act, but not holding it against Obama. Or calling Bush a war criminal for using predator drones and Guantanimo Bay, but calling Obama a good leader for doing the same, and even giving him the Nobel Peace Prize.. Those would be real double standards.

Aside from you posts about Unions, I haven't agreed with you more than with the above. The quiet, continued support for extending the Patriot Act, his push for actions that erode our rights domestically, the increased warrant-less tracking of Americans at home and many other attacks on our right to privacy.... these are some of my biggest issues with Obama. It was my biggest issue with Bush and now is my biggest issue with Obama.