Debate Tonight!!!!!!!
CH156378
Posts: 1,539
Enjoy the show everyone. I'm looking forward to seeing Rick. I know I will be thouroughly entertained.
My favorite vice. Enjoying a bowl of green while watching a debate. Good Times!
My favorite vice. Enjoying a bowl of green while watching a debate. Good Times!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
However, I would probably get annoyed in about 10 seconds.....
it is just not worth the effort to try to digest their message when they say they want to cut everything. especially corporate taxes and taxes on the rich/job creators, and roll back everything, free market, evil oversized government blah blah, with no other solutions. it is the same things being said that have been said since obama won the election.
since pj20 i realize that arguing on here about this stuff is pretty pointless and is a waste of my life.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I missed the debate due to my work schedual but your summation, gimmesometruth27, is pretty much what I 'd have guessed it would be all about. I had an acceptionally difficult work day but I'll take that over being nausiated by watching this fiasco so I guess I can't complain!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Godfather.
* Herman Cain was the only one that actually offered logical solutions to problems ... too bad he is a bigot
* Rick Santorum is capable of rattling off in-depth answers similar to Will Ferrell when he debated James Carville in the movie Old School (What happened? I blacked out)
* Perry was batted around by everyone after Ron Paul lit into him for his HPV Vaccine Policy (a policy that seems more socialist then anything Obama has yet to do)
* Bachmann is fading away. Get the fork ready.
* Mitt Romney is boring as hell .... he will probably be the GOP pick. His strategy is to let the other candidates kill each other while he sits back and watches.
* Jon Huntsman looked like he caked his face with Spray n' Tan
* Worst showing for Ron Paul. The crowd was small and his supporters were a minority. Got nailed at the end when asked why he voiced dissent against Reagan in the late 80's ... never good when you are debating on Reagan's home turf.
* Newt Gingrich is not going to win but he made some brownie points with fellow republicans for going after MSNBC
* Speaking of MSNBC, the moderators were a bunch of wussies and could not control the debate. I think only about 5% of the questions were actually answered. Fox News was 20x more aggressive in their questions in the last debate. Perry benefited the most due to their lack of aggressiveness and I can see him getting pummeled in future debates.
I didn't watch but I think Herman Cain could be a good choice to beat Obama.
Didn't know he was prejudice....
Mitt seemed like he had a tough time communicating. Stumbling, etc, but that's ok really, no one is perfect.
Ron Paul said some good things, but also had a hard time communicating his thoughts some times which made him seem like he was rambling.
Those are the only 3 I really listen to much at all. Perry seems like a figure head type and not a true leader or idea guy. Bachmann isn't always crazy, but she has her moments.
Bottom line - Hunstman won the debate for me. I really wish this was where the GOP was headed.
Herman Cain was formerly on the board of Governors for the Fed in Atlanta, and to my knowledge really doesn't criticize the Fed publicly. He loves to talk about free markets and getting government out of the way of business, but I believe him to be disingenuous. As far as him being a bigot, he made some sort of statement about people of islamic faith not being permitted in his cabinet until they somehow proved their loyalty to America. He went on to clarify that he would hold everyone to that same standard.
Ron was NOT on point last night-- he wasn't bad, but he blew an opportunity to stand out from the pack. He's too used to having to rush his answers out. He should just take a deep breath and not try to squeeze it all in there. Speak a little louder and over top of the moderators if need be. Everyone else does it. Once again, he was not given the same amount of speaking time as everyone else, nor asked the same amount of questions, and was only asked questions that are aimed to make him appear "socially darwinist"-- getting rid of federally-funded school lunch programs, getting rid of FEMA, etc... They asked everyone else a question about the Fed. Why not ask the guy who wrote a book called "End The Fed"? Again, there is an incredible bias against this guy, and I think at some point it's going to boil over and help him more than it hurts him.
And once again, no Gary Johnson. This is complete bullshit. The guy is a legitimate contender and has more pollish and poise than Ron Paul, with identical ideas. He is getting the Ron Paul '08 treatment probably because he is just as dangerous to the establishment. The debates would be so much different if there were 2 people up there coming from that viewpoint.
Perry really is starting to become a caricature of himself.
I may not know all the rules of politics, but the two I do know are, never get involved in a fight about conservative principles with Ron Paul and never get involved in a battle of wits with a Sicilian when death is on the line...
Perry seems like he has thin skin. You wouldn't do this during a commercial break if you were able to handle criticism.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Proof that Rick Perry doesn't belive in a hands-off approach! Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Perry stated once again that he doesn't belive in science or man -made climate change. And he's not sold on evolution. Electing Perry would be like taking a time machine back to the 50's.
Jon Huntsman made the comment again about the republican party needing to not be known as the party against science. He basically said that 98% (I think that was what he said) of scientist believe their is a correlation between man-made greenhouse gases and climate change. he really made Rick Perry look like a complete idiot because Perry didn't offer up any alternative scientists that say different. he just said, the science isn't settled.
I, for one, do question how much we really know and understand about climate change and how man effects it (if at all). But I like Jon Huntsman's approach that you go with the best info you got and deal with it. he seemed very practical in a lot of ways and really helped me challenge my own beliefs in some other areas...to try to be more practical.
Close the garage door and sit in your car while it's running for an hour and it'll kill you! That's the shit we're pumping in the air. Why is it hard to believe that if it kills us it will kill the planet?
it's hard to believe because a) you don't want to believe it and b) you lack the ability to think critically
I think you may have read this guy wrong. I think he DOES believe that climage change is because of human interaction. That's how I read it anyway. His previous post backs it up.
no ... i got it ... i was just answering his question why people would not believe it ... i should change you to something else ...
It's easy to see there could be impact. It's more difficult to decide what you have to do, versus what would be nice to do, versus what is just overkill and doesn't meet a cost-benefit equation.
sorry ...
but we already see there is an impact not could be
we already know what we have to do and the only real losers are big corporations
until you can give me a metric of what a life is worth - overkill shouldn't even be in the discussion
"the royal we"?
anyway, the best we can do is treat the earth like we treat our houses...your mother at home would only clean up after you for so long before she exploded, mother nature isn't any different. Even a half hearted effort will have lasting changes...but I digress from my main point, Copernicus be damned, science is heresy.
I will say this, as soon as it becomes profitable, private industry will make the switch to clean energy, just hope we can hold on that long. The more the government looks like it is forcing people to change rather than trying to massage the market forces into speeding up the green energy progress, they will meet resistance.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
My bad. I definitely didn't get YOU there for a second.
Man you are a killer for semantics. All I meant was the science of it shows that is could be an impact (CO2 emissions can create a warming effect). The further studies that it is effecting our environment, seems like a lot of them out there. So, even if you don't think it is causing any climate change, a lot of scientists do, the basic science shows it could, so why not do something about it?
I don't think overkill should ever be out of the discussion. Cars kill people, so should we limit all driving to speeds that will not cause fatal injuries? What speed would that be exactly?
I try to understand that there are people who aren't convinced that humans have played a major role in climate change- there is a lot of misleading info out there that says otherwise. Two of my best friends doubt human influenced climate change. Now I don't mean at all to sound pretentious or give the impression that I have all the answers but I have read literally thousands of pages on the subject, have corresponded with a number of climate science writers and a few scientists with whom I am friends or am related to, and have read both sides of the argument. I cannot fathom the possibility that climate change is NOT real and I cannot fathom that climate change is NOT hugely human caused. I wish I could believe otherwise because without immediate action, the outlook is not good. And, as Bill McKibben say in his book EAARTH, my biggest fear is that this knowledge will cause some people to throw their hands up in the air and say, " why bother". We still can and should make a positive difference! I hope some of our presidential hopefuls feel the same way.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The world wants and demands stuff. If environmental standards are raised to the point that a U.S. business closes, that doesn't change the fact that the world wants stuff. A company will rise to fill in the gap (most likely in Asia somewhere) and they sure as hell won't be filling out environmental permits.
Instead of increasing regulations and penalties, why don't we focus on setting standards and incentives? Why not make it profitable for a company to be green?
(actually, I know that answer .... government spending is out of control and congress needs every dime they can wring out of us)