scottheisel Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Did anyone else watch these? I tuned in halfway through the Republician half, and it was awesome to see John McCain zing Mitt Romney (what a bag of douche) over and over again. Ron Paul came off a little like a crazy old coot, I could easily see why everyone likes Mike Huckabee so much (great public speaker), and everyone else was a non-factor. The Democratic debate after that was really, really awesome. First off, it was incredible to look at the candidates up there. You went from six relatively old, mostly white-haired men for the Republican debate to four more youthful, diverse vibrant candidates, including a Hispanic, an African-American and a woman. Bill Richardson was totally on point the entire time; it's a shame the media aren't getting behind him as they are Obama (maybe it's because he looks like Horatio Sanz's father or something). Watching John Edwards jump to Obama's defense and take down Hillary in the process was pretty exciting. I think all four of them came out looking pretty good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickbuysvinyl Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 i didnt see it, but i think, if it were to come down to Hillary or McCain, I'd go with McCain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtz Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 i didnt see it, but i think, if it were to come down to Hillary or McCain, I'd go with McCain. Same here, although I'm really not a fan of either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 cnn reported that hilary is starting to attack obama as a flip-flopper. that shit fucking pisses me off. fuck her. obama 08. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfiction Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 i didnt see it, but i think, if it were to come down to Hillary or McCain, I'd go with McCain. I'll pick Hillary. McCain can't seem to make up his old-fragile mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magalvsr13 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 im with you on richardson...ive been for him the entire time but there is no way that he is getting past obama and hillary unless something insane happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted January 6, 2008 Author Share Posted January 6, 2008 im with you on richardson...ive been for him the entire time but there is no way that he is getting past obama and hillary unless something insane happens Yeah, it's really a bummer. I feel like he just wants to stand up and yell, "Is everyone taking crazy pills? I HAVE EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!" If this was a job interview, dude would get it over the other three candidates hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickbuysvinyl Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 i didnt see it, but i think, if it were to come down to Hillary or McCain, I'd go with McCain. I'll pick Hillary. McCain can't seem to make up his old-fragile mind. well, if it comes down to Hillary as the Dem. pick, then im going with whoever is running against her. I guess thats what I meant to get at. Unless its Romney. Anyone but Hillary and Romney will get my vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skumbucket Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 i know a wilhelm scream doesn't like mitt romney, but could someone enlighten a partially-informed canadian on why everyone thinks he's a dick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottheisel Posted January 7, 2008 Author Share Posted January 7, 2008 Glad you asked! http://www.who-sucks.com/politics/12-reasons-why-mitt-romney-sucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skumbucket Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 that is a brilliant web site. i've always wondered why some people suck so much...now i know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skumbucket Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 wow. i did not know a lot of those facts. the dog thing? seriously, WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbypuckett Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 That Huckabee guy freaks me out, but he does have a sweet last name. If Hilary won the Democratic party I would probably vote for her, because she's a woman and it represents a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skumbucket Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 yeah, represents a change but that doesn't guarantee one. politicians of both sexes can be liars, assholes, and flip-floppers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 im with you on richardson...ive been for him the entire time but there is no way that he is getting past obama and hillary unless something insane happens Yeah, it's really a bummer. I feel like he just wants to stand up and yell, "Is everyone taking crazy pills? I HAVE EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE!" If this was a job interview, dude would get it over the other three candidates hands down. As much as I want Obama to take him as his vice-pres, he wont, he'll take Edwards, because that'll ensure his victory. Richardson is a brilliant man and if Obama wins, he should be appointed in his cabinet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 That Huckabee guy freaks me out, but he does have a sweet last name.If Hilary won the Democratic party I would probably vote for her, because she's a woman and it represents a change. only chance she represents is a change in sex. her idea's are going to be no different than her husbands when he was in office. she couldn't change anything as first lady, whats to say she will as president? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baseball Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 only chance she represents is a change in sex. her idea's are going to be no different than her husbands when he was in office. she couldn't change anything as first lady, whats to say she will as president? Well seeing as how the first lady holds no actual real power, that's not really fair to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 only chance she represents is a change in sex. her idea's are going to be no different than her husbands when he was in office. she couldn't change anything as first lady, whats to say she will as president? Well seeing as how the first lady holds no actual real power, that's not really fair to say. okay, I guess influence means nothing? A First Lady Finds Her Own Way By Jimmy Carter 25 Jan 1996 This article appeared in the Jan. 25, 1996, edition of The Atlanta Journal and Constitution. One of the most challenging, difficult, controversial and sensitive positions in America is that of first lady. Public interest in the wife of a president is intense, and expectations are high. Although my wife, Rosalynn, didn't have an independent professional career, she was a full partner in all our farming, business and political affairs, and she was always a key player in political strategy meetings. There are no legally prescribed duties of the first lady, but she is endowed with almost unlimited access to influential people, interest groups, members of Congress and the news media. Traditionally, she is expected to use this influence for some worthy purpose, but always in a proper and demure manner. Regardless of her professional and personal qualifications, she risks condemnation if she is too forthright in adopting projects that are deemed suitable for male officials to address. The first lady will almost certainly be involved in shaping political strategy. A heavily burdened leader must have a few associates who are totally loyal, with whom he can share the most sensitive questions. Naturally, his wife is a top choice. With the exception of a few secrets involving foreign policy and military weaponry, I shared almost all problems and questions with Rosalynn. In fact, we met in the Oval Office for regular weekly luncheons devoted exclusively to public affairs. The Oval Office is intimidating. Some lifetime friends became almost inarticulate when they visited me there, and top staff members and Cabinet officers were sometimes reluctant to discuss unpleasant issues with me. Quite often, particularly when personnel issues were involved, they went to Rosalynn, and she would then find a good time to broach the subject with me. An unrecognized fact is the importance among foreign leaders of any personal contact with a member of the American first family. During my first year in office I met with 68 heads of state. That same year, we were under urgent pressure from Latin Americans to learn more about my policy toward the region. Since I couldn't find time to visit all of them, we decided that Rosalynn would go to a few key countries to discuss the most important issues. She was thoroughly briefed, and the leaders knew she had the ear of the president. They were delighted to have her represent me when they saw that she was intensely interested in their problems and that diplomatic niceties did not keep her from addressing them bluntly and directly. But there was a storm of criticism from the Washington news media. When she decided to attend Cabinet meetings to stay abreast of what our administration was doing, some reporters almost had apoplexy. Performing under microscopic scrutiny, members of the first family do make mistakes. We were forced to spend a small fortune on legal fees and hundreds of hours in researching old records to refute false allegations involving our political associates, our family and the use of campaign funds before assuming office. Our truthful explanations just tended to perpetuate the controversies. I see a lot of parallels between our experiences and those involving other strong and active first ladies, including Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton. The fact is, all these women have rendered great service to our nation. Some have not been able to walk the political high wire between serving effectively and pleasing the American public and the White House press corps. We can be thankful that most first ladies have chosen to ignore the fault-finding and continue to serve our country as dedicated and effective volunteers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I tuned in to listen for about 15 minutes... Ron Paul started talking about the gold standard as an answer to the price of oil/gas due to the over-circulation of the US dollar and the depreciation of its value compared to the price of oil... and how gold has stayed the same price as oil the entire time... it made me wonder if the Saudi's and Kuwaitt and other Oil nations sell oil to each other using gold instead of paper currency? If I do recall hearing that those nations have a LARGE amount of gold currency... also< i liked how he also said "When we went into Iraq to protect the Oil it was $27 a barrel, now its $100 a barrel... blah blah blah" Also, Fred Thompson should drop out, he dodged his question about if there should be a penalty/tax on the enormous profits being made by oil companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest baseball Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 okay, I guess influence means nothing? First, why are you posting an article written by Jimmy Carter? Aren't we talking about Hillary Clinton? That's barely relevant at all. You can't use anecdotal 'evidence' from another presidency to support your statement. It's fine if you want to believe she had that much influence. We have no way of really knowing, so we have to rely on the actual power of her position. And that would be none. The only quasi-power she ever had was when she led the Clinton health care plan. And that was just setting her up for failure anyway, since Congress was not going to 'take orders' from the wife of the president when she had no real power. She was not a decision maker, and therefore cannot be held accountable for a lack of change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew13 Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I tuned in to listen for about 15 minutes... Ron Paul started talking about the gold standard as an answer to the price of oil/gas due to the over-circulation of the US dollar and the depreciation of its value compared to the price of oil... and how gold has stayed the same price as oil the entire time... it made me wonder if the Saudi's and Kuwaitt and other Oil nations sell oil to each other using gold instead of paper currency? If I do recall hearing that those nations have a LARGE amount of gold currency... also< i liked how he also said "When we went into Iraq to protect the Oil it was $27 a barrel, now its $100 a barrel... blah blah blah" Also, Fred Thompson should drop out, he dodged his question about if there should be a penalty/tax on the enormous profits being made by oil companies. gold is way up in value. it's over doubled since dubya took office i believe. so i have no clue what paul is talking about there. silver is way up to.... from like $6-7 to $15-16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirbypuckett Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 That Huckabee guy freaks me out, but he does have a sweet last name.If Hilary won the Democratic party I would probably vote for her, because she's a woman and it represents a change. only chance she represents is a change in sex. her idea's are going to be no different than her husbands when he was in office. she couldn't change anything as first lady, whats to say she will as president? The sex change is indeed all that would change and that's exactly what I meant. I think it would be huge for America to elect a female or a non-white person. There's really no Republican I'd rather see in office, so I'm more than likely just going to vote Democrat no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.