PDA

View Full Version : The debate over the presidential debate moderators



Janice
08-14-2012, 07:28 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ZLhpP.jpg
This year's hosts are Jim Leherer, Candy Crowley, Bob Schieffer and Martha Raddatz.

The debate over the presidential debate moderators

They’re old, they’re white, and they rarely if ever use Twitter. They are also, arguably, the best people for the job.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the moderators of the 2012 presidential debates.

On Monday, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that PBS’s Jim Lehrer, CNN’s Candy Crowley, and CBS’s Bob Schieffer would host the three debates between President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney in October. ABC’s Martha Raddatz will host the vice presidential face off between Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan.

On the one hand, the choice of moderators marks progress: For the first time in 20 years, a woman will host a presidential debate. On the other hand, it reeks of the archaic: At an average age of 69 (72 if you exclude Raddatz), the debate hosts all come from old media and a familiar demographic that better represents the Commission than it does the American public. Moreover, as veterans of 20th century television journalism, none represent the Internet and social media-age that has largely come to define the 2012 campaign. >>>

Many voters will no doubt appreciate that the treasured public right of the presidential debate is being shepherded by experienced hands who do not explicitly adhere to a political ideology.

But many others already see the lack of demographic representation as a serious challenge for the Commission. >>>

None of the Commission’s arguments for an experienced, respected television journalist fully explain the absence of new media or minority representation. >>>

As to the question of whether the Commission will make room for new media or a better demographic representation down the line, Fahrenkopf says, “No question. But it’s a hard thing to do, when you’re trying to get diversity.”

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79690.html)

------------------------------------------

What a bunch of gibberish. "the presidential debate is being shepherded by experienced hands who do not explicitly adhere to a political ideology."? These are all far left liberal democrats.

Bailey
08-14-2012, 08:41 AM
Where are the Conservatives? Where is the balance?

Janice
08-14-2012, 09:36 AM
Where are the Conservatives? Where is the balance?

According to the GOP, this is it. This is only one of the reasons the GOP "leadership", the old guard, needs to be replaced with "tea party" republicans. 0bama and his merry band of thugs wouldnt get away with half the stuff they do against us and our constitution if they didnt have a compliant "go along to get along" elite GOP more than happy to play second fiddle.

Because of these clowns we cant have a fair nominating process (where the dems, the media and the GOP gang up together against serious conservative contenders) or a fair debate because the moderators (all liberal democrats) are all gunning to play "gotcha" against our side while protecting whoever the democrat candidate is from any serious questioning or embarrassment.

How can we ever get anything other than a watered down version of opposition to the lefts agenda like this? If the grass roots on our side doesnt wake up soon, it may be too late. Maybe it already is. Right now we must get some principled conservatives in there (able to articulate their conservatism) to push this linguini spine GOP and judiciary in the right direction.

Bailey
08-14-2012, 09:44 AM
I bet if you look at the GOPers that are against Ryan as the VP pick you'll find the McCains of the party. Just a hunch

Janice
08-14-2012, 11:09 AM
I bet if you look at the GOPers that are against Ryan as the VP pick you'll find the McCains of the party. Just a hunch

Yes. Many of them are former Bush and McCain advisers or people that served in the Bush admin.

Odysseus
08-14-2012, 06:45 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ZLhpP.jpg
This year's hosts are Jim Leherer, Candy Crowley, Bob Schieffer and Martha Raddatz.


What a bunch of gibberish. "the presidential debate is being shepherded by experienced hands who do not explicitly adhere to a political ideology."? These are all far left liberal democrats.
Was Michael Moore too busy to accept?

LukeEDay
08-14-2012, 10:38 PM
They are already trying to protect Captain Zero ...



Some Democratic lawmakers want to make sure that one question does not get asked at the upcoming first presidential debate - about Simpson-Bowles.

Three Democratic House members objected Tuesday to a request by four senators that President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney be asked which of the commission’s proposals to address the debt they support. The Democrats said such a question would force “candidates to choose solutions from one menu of options.”

In the original letter, Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman, (I-Conn.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) asked the debate commission to devote “specific and extensive attention to the question of how the candidates would get our nation’s fiscal house in order during the first debate dedicated to domestic policy.”

“Specifically, we request that you ask the presidential candidates which of the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform they would adopt as part of their plan to reduce the deficit,” they wrote.

But that caused Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) to cry foul, writing in their own letter to the debate commission on Tuesday that although the Simpson-Bowles commission’s plan “may contain proposals helpful to our recovery…to hold it out as the only pathway to fiscal responsibility and economic success is foolish and wrong.”

“We urge the [Debate] Commission to fight any effort to unnecessarily narrow such an important debate by placing disproportionate attention on one set of proposals over another,” they wrote, adding that such a question would “cheapen the debate” and “thwart the candidates’ ability to explain alternative proposals.”

The Democrats also criticized the Simpson-Bowles commission in their letter, saying that while it seeks to address the debt, it doesn’t address priorities in infrastructure, education, research and other investments, and that the plan “asks seniors, the middle class, and military personnel to sacrifice more, while those with the most are asked to do even less to help in our recovery.”

“Voters deserve to know where the candidates stand on these issues, the solutions to which are simply absent from the Simpson-Bowles plan,” they wrote.

The first debate will take place on Oct. 3 and will focus on domestic policy issues.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79718.html#ixzz23ZvvFbL3

Thorn
08-14-2012, 10:44 PM
Why do we continue to call these press soundbite meet ups debates? Get rid of the "moderators" and let them go head to head like Lincoln/Douglas.

Rockntractor
08-14-2012, 11:05 PM
Why do we continue to call these press soundbite meet ups debates? Get rid of the "moderators" and let them go head to head like Lincoln/Douglas.

That would be fine but you would never get the other party to agree to it and besides they would point the finger at you for not debating in the regular format and then the media would make you out the bad guy in front of the whole country.
How do you think that would go?

Thorn
08-14-2012, 11:33 PM
That would be fine but you would never get the other party to agree to it and besides they would point the finger at you for not debating in the regular format and then the media would make you out the bad guy in front of the whole country.
How do you think that would go?

I know that people of substance who are actually thoughtful about their votes would rather see substance. Which, as you said, of course means that no democrat candidate or voter would be interested. I say: fine by me. It's time we quit playing the game and break away from the brainwashing and control of the elitists and the political class. It's time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and send a message.

Rockntractor
08-14-2012, 11:46 PM
I know that people of substance who are actually thoughtful about their votes would rather see substance. Which, as you said, of course means that no democrat candidate or voter would be interested. I say: fine by me. It's time we quit playing the game and break away from the brainwashing and control of the elitists and the political class. It's time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and send a message.

You can join the 2 to 5% that will write in Ron Paul.http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/confused/smileys-confused-731584.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

LukeEDay
08-15-2012, 12:13 AM
You can join the 2 to 5% that will write in Ron Paul.http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/confused/smileys-confused-731584.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

Those 2 to 5% of Ron Paul supporters still think he is going to be nominated at the convention.

Rockntractor
08-15-2012, 12:36 AM
Those 2 to 5% of Ron Paul supporters still think he is going to be nominated at the convention.

They used to worship Ross Perot and before that Lyndon Larouche (who rhymed pleasantly with douche).

Since Ron is retiring I think I'll take up the mantle and be their leader, it's my turn to make some money!
Has anyone used get under the hood and fix things yet?http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/confused/confused007.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

Thorn
08-15-2012, 08:28 AM
Those 2 to 5% of Ron Paul supporters still think he is going to be nominated at the convention.I'd take Paul over the other two any day, but I'm probably going to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Bailey
08-15-2012, 08:39 AM
I'd take Paul over the other two any day, but I'm probably going to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

In other words your vote will help obama, CONGRATS.

Rockntractor
08-15-2012, 10:02 AM
I'd take Paul over the other two any day, but I'm probably going to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Gee, who saw that coming?http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/expressifs/pensif/vil-reflechir.gif

Odysseus
08-15-2012, 10:36 AM
I'd take Paul over the other two any day, but I'm probably going to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Given how close this election will be, you really don't have the luxury of throwing your vote away on a candidate or party who has no chance of winning. If you oppose what the Democrats are doing, then your realistic options are to vote for the candidate who actually has a chance of beating Obama, or not voting for that candidate. Anything else is posturing.

AmPat
08-15-2012, 11:12 AM
I'd take Paul over the other two any day, but I'm probably going to vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Why don't you just cut to the chase and vote for the Marxist?:rolleyes:

Bailey
08-15-2012, 11:19 AM
Given how close this election will be, you really don't have the luxury of throwing your vote away on a candidate or party who has no chance of winning. If you oppose what the Democrats are doing, then your realistic options are to vote for the candidate who actually has a chance of beating Obama, or not voting for that candidate. Anything else is posturing.

I dont get it if you are against obama why vote for a loser nobody (libertarian) that doesnt have a prayer of winning. :Poster:

AmPat
08-15-2012, 11:29 AM
I dont get it if you are against obama why vote for a loser nobody (libertarian) that doesnt have a prayer of winning. :Poster:
People like that feel they are pure and better than the rest of us. They feel their principles cannot be defiled and would rather loose their country than compromise their precious purity.

Unreconstructed Reb
08-15-2012, 11:45 AM
I sorta feel sorry for the Ryan/Biteme moderator. She's gonna have a hard time keeping Biteme from sounding like more of an ass than usual when side by side with Ryan. It's gonna be the most fun of the debates. I wonder if Ryan will take pity on Ol' Plugs?................

m00
08-15-2012, 03:13 PM
Given how close this election will be, you really don't have the luxury of throwing your vote away on a candidate or party who has no chance of winning. If you oppose what the Democrats are doing, then your realistic options are to vote for the candidate who actually has a chance of beating Obama, or not voting for that candidate. Anything else is posturing.

I see the practical side of what you are saying, but I am somewhat offended by the concept of "throwing a vote away." Because it relies on the idea that the Republicans are "owed" the votes of conservatives. Just like the government is "owed" our paycheck. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy... if people only vote for a candidate because they think everyone else will... this is why we are in the mess we're in. I think if the Republican Party stopped taking votes for granted (aka, more conservatives voted their conscience rather than the "R") the GOP establishment would stop backing garbage candidates. We're in this mess because the GOP assumed that "well all Republicans will vote for McCain, they HAVE to, we are OWED their vote."

I know someone will say "sure, but this is the most important election ever!!!!!!" but I have to ask: when isn't it?

Rockntractor
08-15-2012, 03:18 PM
I see the practical side of what you are saying, but I am somewhat offended by the concept of "throwing a vote away." Because it relies on the idea that the Republicans are "owed" the votes of conservatives. Just like the government is "owed" our paycheck. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy... if people only vote for a candidate because they think everyone else will... this is why we are in the mess we're in. I think if the Republican Party stopped taking votes for granted (aka, more conservatives voted their conscience rather than the "R") the GOP establishment would stop backing garbage candidates. We're in this mess because the GOP assumed that "well all Republicans will vote for McCain, they HAVE to, we are OWED their vote."

I know someone will say "sure, but this is the most important election ever!!!!!!" but I have to ask: when isn't it?

I think you should just run out and get that Obama sticker, you would be a sure hit with that on your water bottle in Montreal.

Unreconstructed Reb
08-15-2012, 03:48 PM
I think you should just run out and get that Obama sticker, you would be a sure hit with that on your water bottle in Montreal.

He should get one for Soledad's forehead while he's at it. :evil-grin:

Rockntractor
08-15-2012, 04:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3ruuml-R4

Thorn
08-15-2012, 07:36 PM
In other words your vote will help obama, CONGRATS. Until we send a message that is loud and clear, they will continue to put up establishment candidates like McCain and Romney who are in the long run no different than Obama. They are all members of the political class and on those rare instances that a candidate of the people runs for office, they assassinate that person in the media. Sorry, but when my choices are between Romney-care and Obama-care, do I really have a choice?

Thorn
08-15-2012, 07:41 PM
Given how close this election will be, you really don't have the luxury of throwing your vote away on a candidate or party who has no chance of winning. If you oppose what the Democrats are doing, then your realistic options are to vote for the candidate who actually has a chance of beating Obama, or not voting for that candidate. Anything else is posturing.Close is an understatement. These candidate are so close as to be nearly identical.

In the past, I would have argued with you in total agreement. I just don't see the value any more. Once they get into office they all do what their overlords command no matter what they promise us during the run up to the election. I once castigated people for "throwing away their vote." I don't see it that way any longer. Now, the way I see it, any vote for a member of the political elite is a thrown away vote.

Thorn
08-15-2012, 07:42 PM
Why don't you just cut to the chase and vote for the Marxist?:rolleyes:

Which one? Romney or Obama?

Thorn
08-15-2012, 07:46 PM
People like that feel they are pure and better than the rest of us. They feel their principles cannot be defiled and would rather loose their country than compromise their precious purity.

If I participate in the destruction of liberty by voting for a man who is cut from the same cloth as the current holder of the office, how am saving the country? :apologetic:

Rockntractor
08-15-2012, 08:03 PM
If I participate in the destruction of liberty by voting for a man who is cut from the same cloth as the current holder of the office, how am saving the country? :apologetic:

Besides there is always that Obama tingle to think about!

AmPat
08-15-2012, 09:04 PM
If I participate in the destruction of liberty by voting for a man who is cut from the same cloth as the current holder of the office, how am saving the country? :apologetic:
I'd say you were in denial of what cloth the remnant came from. These two could not be more different than night and day. Just look at their picks for VP.

JB
08-15-2012, 09:32 PM
Until we send a message that is loud and clear...How exactly are you sending that loud and clear message?

Are you out on the street working for local conservative candidates? Knocking on doors, donating money, making phone calls? Are you attending rallys, registering voters, handing out literature? Are you working the polls, driving people to their polling place, making sure those that can't vote get absentee ballots?

Are you doing any of this or are you just posting on a fucking messageboard, whining about how we're all stoopid because we didn't vote for Ron Paul and then you write in his name on election day because, yeah, that will surely show the powers that be that you mean business. :rolleyes:

SaintLouieWoman
08-15-2012, 10:07 PM
I see the practical side of what you are saying, but I am somewhat offended by the concept of "throwing a vote away." Because it relies on the idea that the Republicans are "owed" the votes of conservatives. Just like the government is "owed" our paycheck. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy... if people only vote for a candidate because they think everyone else will... this is why we are in the mess we're in. I think if the Republican Party stopped taking votes for granted (aka, more conservatives voted their conscience rather than the "R") the GOP establishment would stop backing garbage candidates. We're in this mess because the GOP assumed that "well all Republicans will vote for McCain, they HAVE to, we are OWED their vote."

I know someone will say "sure, but this is the most important election ever!!!!!!" but I have to ask: when isn't it?

This is the same conversation we all had 4 years ago. For those who "threw" away their vote, did it help? Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? Not that many are.

The dems are Buof contemptible behavior, but they sure have each others' backs. The Republicans are a minority party anyway. Yes, they don't please everyone all the time, or maybe all that often. But we keep getting to the inevitable argument, is it worth it to make the point and contribute to the O's reelection? I personally thank would be a catastrophe for our country. I couldn't live with aiding, in any way, the reelection of Barack Obama.

Rockntractor
08-15-2012, 10:16 PM
Some day these Paulbots can turn the lights out and in hushed tones tell their children how they stood up for what is right, of course their children will rat them out the next day and the authorities will haul them off to a reeducation camp.

LukeEDay
08-15-2012, 10:34 PM
Paulbots are more out there than Dr. Nuts and Alex 'conspiracy agitator' Jones .....

Thorn
08-15-2012, 10:34 PM
I'd say you were in denial of what cloth the remnant came from. These two could not be more different than night and day. Just look at their picks for VP.

Both men picked someone who is politically expedient and who balances their ticket. Obama needed a white man, Romney needs a man with a record of financial conservatism. They are cut from the same cloth, the political cloth.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150795727/are-obama-and-romney-the-same-guy

Thorn
08-15-2012, 10:35 PM
How exactly are you sending that loud and clear message?

Are you out on the street working for local conservative candidates? Knocking on doors, donating money, making phone calls? Are you attending rallys, registering voters, handing out literature? Are you working the polls, driving people to their polling place, making sure those that can't vote get absentee ballots?

Are you doing any of this or are you just posting on a fucking messageboard, whining about how we're all stoopid because we didn't vote for Ron Paul and then you write in his name on election day because, yeah, that will surely show the powers that be that you mean business. :rolleyes:

When did I say I was going to vote for Paul? :rolleyes:

NJCardFan
08-15-2012, 11:10 PM
There are times to vote with your principles and there are times to vote out someone very dangerous to our way of life. For the past 3 1/2 years, Obama and his cast of clowns have been running this country into the ground at a record pace. So when going into the voting booth your question needs to be should I vote with my principles and hope for the best or should I do what I can to remove this person who is destroying my country? If you choose the former and the country goes to shit, you have only yourself to blame.

Odysseus
08-15-2012, 11:11 PM
I see the practical side of what you are saying, but I am somewhat offended by the concept of "throwing a vote away." Because it relies on the idea that the Republicans are "owed" the votes of conservatives. Just like the government is "owed" our paycheck. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy... if people only vote for a candidate because they think everyone else will... this is why we are in the mess we're in. I think if the Republican Party stopped taking votes for granted (aka, more conservatives voted their conscience rather than the "R") the GOP establishment would stop backing garbage candidates. We're in this mess because the GOP assumed that "well all Republicans will vote for McCain, they HAVE to, we are OWED their vote."

I know someone will say "sure, but this is the most important election ever!!!!!!" but I have to ask: when isn't it?

It's not a case of the Republicans being "owed" our vote. You have a choice between two viable options. Anything else is just posturing. The libertarian will not win, or even come close to winning. Romney was nobody's first choice here. He wasn't even the second choice for most of us, but since he clinched the nomination, he's made most of the right moves, and his veep pick is a solid conservative who understands the issues that face us. He's not perfect, but he's a damned sight better than Obama, and he will not proceed to destroy the country as a matter of policy. Voting for a third party as a protest won't punish Romney, it will reward Obama, and he'll take your protest and file it with all of the other protests against his policies as he drags us further into the kind of socialist hellhole that he and his party are clamoring for. You don't owe the Republicans your vote, but you owe your children and grandchildren a future, and a second Obama term is no future at all.


Close is an understatement. These candidate are so close as to be nearly identical.

In the past, I would have argued with you in total agreement. I just don't see the value any more. Once they get into office they all do what their overlords command no matter what they promise us during the run up to the election. I once castigated people for "throwing away their vote." I don't see it that way any longer. Now, the way I see it, any vote for a member of the political elite is a thrown away vote.

If you really feel that way, then why are you bothering posting here? This isn't Nihilist Underground.


If I participate in the destruction of liberty by voting for a man who is cut from the same cloth as the current holder of the office, how am saving the country? :apologetic:

Romney has his flaws, but by no means is he as bad as Obama. If you can't see the difference, then you really are out of your depth here.

Hawkgirl
08-16-2012, 12:53 AM
If I participate in the destruction of liberty by voting for a man who is cut from the same cloth as the current holder of the office, how am saving the country? :apologetic:

You are participating in the destruction of liberty if you keep Obama in office by voting for the third party. People like you deserve another 4 years of Obama. You don't see the irony in keeping Obama in office because Romney is not conservative enough for you?

Thorn
08-16-2012, 01:55 AM
You are participating in the destruction of liberty if you keep Obama in office by voting for the third party. People like you deserve another 4 years of Obama. You don't see the irony in keeping Obama in office because Romney is not conservative enough for you? I'm sick to death of compromise and compromise candidates. Look at what is being said: No one is making a case for Romney and why he is a good candidate. Instead the case is being made that he's not Obama. Really? That's the best choice? As long as we continue to play their game their way the political elite will continue to manipulate, control, and enslave us. I will not cast my vote for "Not Obama."

Thorn
08-16-2012, 02:01 AM
Romney has his flaws, but by no means is he as bad as Obama. If you can't see the difference, then you really are out of your depth here. So make the case FOR Mr. Romney rather than against Mr. Obama. If all there is to offer is: "vote for Romney! He picked a decent VP" I'm voting third party. Looking at his record, I see nothing that recommends him to the office.

Gina
08-16-2012, 03:00 AM
It smells like mike128 in here.

Janice
08-16-2012, 07:58 AM
It smells like mike128 in here.

My thought too ...

AmPat
08-16-2012, 11:44 AM
Both men picked someone who is politically expedient and who balances their ticket. Obama needed a white man, Romney needs a man with a record of financial conservatism. They are cut from the same cloth, the political cloth.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150795727/are-obama-and-romney-the-same-guy

See what you did there? You stated a huge difference in criteria for those picks, failed to list any of the vast differences in the quality of those picks, then summed up your conclusion after having never evaluated the evidence. I submit that choosing a VP for being "White vs financial conservatism" is far from equivalence. You cannot shift or ignore the standards like this and then declare they are the same because they are "political." You might as well have made the same claim by stating that they are both homosapien or bipedal, or they both have hair.:rolleyes:
I suggest you start READING and EVALUATING the posts here before you commit to this line of illogical reasoning. You are making a fool of yourself much like a couple of past posters and CU laughing stock.

JB
08-16-2012, 06:34 PM
When did I say I was going to vote for Paul? :rolleyes:Fine. Who did you want to be the Republican nominee?

Hawkgirl
08-16-2012, 07:21 PM
So make the case FOR Mr. Romney rather than against Mr. Obama. If all there is to offer is: "vote for Romney! He picked a decent VP" I'm voting third party. Looking at his record, I see nothing that recommends him to the office.


I'll take a stab at this.

He's a business man, a successful, wealthy one at that. He's a former CEO who understands how corporations run.
He knows more about the economy than Obama. He ran a state as a Governor as opposed to our current junior Senator who could not even commit to a yes or nay in the legislature.
Romney, being a Mormon, can show other religious minority groups that they can be successful and accepted by the country, if they embrace our laws.
He's a blue state Republican, he can help show other blue states that conservative ideals can be good for them.
If another Supreme Court justice retires, he won't appoint another Sotomayor or worse, Ginsburg.
He's conservative enough to be endorsed by Rush and Marc Levin.
He prefers market-oriented reform to Medicare as opposed to system wide cuts.
He says he will repeal Obamacare.
If Congress sends him tax increases, he will veto them...whereas the Savior, would not.
He MAY even cut the Corporate Tax rate, which is the highest in the world.
He would protect the Defense Budget and not screw over our military, like Obama intends
He's a family man-only thing he has in common with Obama.

Thorn
08-16-2012, 11:44 PM
Fine. Who did you want to be the Republican nominee?

Who did I want? I want a statesman. Someone with actual standards and a voting record to back it up. I want someone who walks the talk he talks. I want man brave enough to seriously work at dismantling the government machine and returning power to the people. I want a man who is actually factually fiscally conservative. I want a man who will get out of my affairs and get this nation of every other nations affairs. That's who I want. If you know his name, let me know so I can write him in.

Thorn
08-16-2012, 11:49 PM
I'll take a stab at this.

He's a business man, a successful, wealthy one at that. He's a former CEO who understands how corporations run.
He knows more about the economy than Obama. He ran a state as a Governor as opposed to our current junior Senator who could not even commit to a yes or nay in the legislature.
Romney, being a Mormon, can show other religious minority groups that they can be successful and accepted by the country, if they embrace our laws.
He's a blue state Republican, he can help show other blue states that conservative ideals can be good for them.
If another Supreme Court justice retires, he won't appoint another Sotomayor or worse, Ginsburg.
He's conservative enough to be endorsed by Rush and Marc Levin.
He prefers market-oriented reform to Medicare as opposed to system wide cuts.
He says he will repeal Obamacare.
If Congress sends him tax increases, he will veto them...whereas the Savior, would not.
He MAY even cut the Corporate Tax rate, which is the highest in the world.
He would protect the Defense Budget and not screw over our military, like Obama intends
He's a family man-only thing he has in common with Obama. A businessman? How do you define "businessman?" Seems to me that he was a flavor of corporate raider rather than a businessman. I'm not interested in someone who knows how to manipulate corporations. I want someone who knows how to make money through hard work and dedication not through accounting tricks and shipping jobs overseas.

You do have a point about judges. Something to consider. Of course, having a senate that actually did it's job would also save us from activist judges.

LukeEDay
08-17-2012, 12:20 AM
Who did I want? I want a statesman. Someone with actual standards and a voting record to back it up. I want someone who walks the talk he talks. I want man brave enough to seriously work at dismantling the government machine and returning power to the people. I want a man who is actually factually fiscally conservative. I want a man who will get out of my affairs and get this nation of every other nations affairs. That's who I want. If you know his name, let me know so I can write him in.

Reagan :)

Hawkgirl
08-17-2012, 12:21 AM
A businessman? How do you define "businessman?" Seems to me that he was a flavor of corporate raider rather than a businessman. I'm not interested in someone who knows how to manipulate corporations. I want someone who knows how to make money through hard work and dedication not through accounting tricks and shipping jobs overseas.

You do have a point about judges. Something to consider. Of course, having a senate that actually did it's job would also save us from activist judges.

His business experience GREATLY outweighs the lack of business experience our current CIC doesn't have. You ignored the fact that he also ran a state...no corporate raiding there. The fact that he was elected in Kennedy-land says a lot about his ability to win people over as well.

Hawkgirl
08-17-2012, 12:27 AM
Who did I want? I want a statesman. Someone with actual standards and a voting record to back it up. I want someone who walks the talk he talks. I want man brave enough to seriously work at dismantling the government machine and returning power to the people. I want a man who is actually factually fiscally conservative. I want a man who will get out of my affairs and get this nation of every other nations affairs. That's who I want. If you know his name, let me know so I can write him in.

You need to buy a ticket out of Delusional land and face reality. You'll have three choices to make in November...4 if you plan to sit it out.

You'll have to choose the candidate who most CLOSELY aligns with your ideals. You have the current failure CIC. You have the Libertarian vote which has a ZERO chance in actually winning, so in actuality, you are voting for Obama. You have Romney who is a departure from the current policies in place.

Your fantasy man doesn't exist. He sounds great in fantasy, but since you can't vote for him, you vote for the next best thing.

Rockntractor
08-17-2012, 12:30 AM
A businessman? How do you define "businessman?" Seems to me that he was a flavor of corporate raider rather than a businessman. I'm not interested in someone who knows how to manipulate corporations. I want someone who knows how to make money through hard work and dedication not through accounting tricks and shipping jobs overseas.

You do have a point about judges. Something to consider. Of course, having a senate that actually did it's job would also save us from activist judges.

Assuming you were old enough in 2008 which candidate did you vote for for president?

Hawkgirl
08-17-2012, 12:39 AM
Assuming you were old enough in 2008 which candidate did you vote for for president?

Judging by his earlier Isolationist statement, I'd say Ron Paul.

Unreconstructed Reb
08-17-2012, 09:34 AM
Who did I want? I want a statesman. Someone with actual standards and a voting record to back it up. I want someone who walks the talk he talks. I want man brave enough to seriously work at dismantling the government machine and returning power to the people. I want a man who is actually factually fiscally conservative. I want a man who will get out of my affairs and get this nation of every other nations affairs. That's who I want. If you know his name, let me know so I can write him in.

That would be me. IM me and I'll give you my name and you can write me in. Better yet, just use my screen name. If I'm somehow elected I'll go by President Reb.

JB
08-17-2012, 04:41 PM
...If you know his name, let me know so I can write him in.Hold on a second.

You're in here trashing Romney and Obama and you have no idea who you want to be your Presidential nominee? Of all the people that could run for President you could not give me one name and yet you have the audacity to sit in here and critique those that are actually running? You give us no opportunity to compare our candidate to yours and you expect people here to take you seriously?

Am I on TV? Did Candid Camera come to CU when I wasn't looking?

Who is this doofus?

Thorn
08-17-2012, 08:21 PM
Hold on a second.

You're in here trashing Romney and Obama and you have no idea who you want to be your Presidential nominee? Of all the people that could run for President you could not give me one name and yet you have the audacity to sit in here and critique those that are actually running? You give us no opportunity to compare our candidate to yours and you expect people here to take you seriously?

Am I on TV? Did Candid Camera come to CU when I wasn't looking?

Who is this doofus? OK. Tell me why I should vote for Romney rather than against Obama. So far, the best reasons I've gotten from people for why Romney is a good candidate is that he's not Obama.

Thorn
08-17-2012, 08:24 PM
Assuming you were old enough in 2008 which candidate did you vote for for president?

Truth be told, I held my nose and voted for McCain and the crazy lady.

Thorn
08-17-2012, 08:29 PM
You need to buy a ticket out of Delusional land and face reality. You'll have three choices to make in November...4 if you plan to sit it out.

You'll have to choose the candidate who most CLOSELY aligns with your ideals. I'm fairly confident that I will find candidates other than Romney and Obama.
You have the current failure CIC. True.
You have the Libertarian vote which has a ZERO chance in actually winning, so in actuality, you are voting for Obama. Not at all. Every candidate has a chance of winning. What they need to win is for people like you and me to stop buying this lie. I'm done buying it.
You have Romney who is a departure from the current policies in place. In what way? Please tell me the specifics.


Your fantasy man doesn't exist. He sounds great in fantasy, but since you can't vote for him, you vote for the next best thing. True. We do need to vote for the next best thing. Are you certain that of all the candidates running that Romney truly is the next best thing?

Rockntractor
08-17-2012, 08:31 PM
Truth be told, I held my nose and voted for McCain and the crazy lady.

You should like Palin, I'm beginning to think you are an all out scam and an Obama supporter.

Thorn
08-17-2012, 08:32 PM
His business experience GREATLY outweighs the lack of business experience our current CIC doesn't have. You ignored the fact that he also ran a state...no corporate raiding there. The fact that he was elected in Kennedy-land says a lot about his ability to win people over as well. And I'll wager that the vast majority of the people here on this form have more actual business experience than does Romeny. And lets not forget that the state he ran was the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts and as the governor of one of the most left leaning states in the Union he did quite a few very leftist things, not the least of which was Romney-care.

Rockntractor
08-17-2012, 09:21 PM
And I'll wager that the vast majority of the people here on this form have more actual business experience than does Romeny.
You are making less sense all the time kid.

AmPat
08-17-2012, 09:59 PM
OK. Tell me why I should vote for Romney rather than against Obama. So far, the best reasons I've gotten from people for why Romney is a good candidate is that he's not Obama.
That should be enough. The fact that O Blow Hard is a hard left Marxist should be enough to vote for Howdy Doody. This is not just another incumbent. This man is deliberately destroying the country. When are you going to see enough evidence to actually conclude that all by your widdle self?

LukeEDay
08-17-2012, 10:50 PM
I would vote for a tree before I would vote for Captain Zero.

Rockntractor
08-17-2012, 11:09 PM
I would vote for a tree before I would vote for Captain Zero.

A thorn tree?

LukeEDay
08-17-2012, 11:35 PM
A thorn tree?

I am thinking more along the lines of a cherry tree.

Janice
08-18-2012, 12:47 AM
Truth be told, I held my nose and voted for McCain and the crazy lady.


And I'll wager that the vast majority of the people here on this form have more actual business experience than does Romeny.

2 very telling statements. I can see where this going.

SaintLouieWoman
08-18-2012, 01:00 AM
I would vote for a tree before I would vote for Captain Zero.

I've said it before, I'd vote for Darlene the dawg, our little black greyhound, before I'd vote for Captain Zero. At least she'd do no harm and she's a heck of a lot cuter. :biggrin-new:

Romney might not be perfect, but he's such an improvement over our current pres. I think that he will do a more than decent job. The world is too scary to have an incompetent in the White House. The times are too serious to go with a libertarian or any other 3rd party now. We can't take the chance of another 4 years of US decline. If the 3rd parties want to have a credible shot at the presidency, they need to organize now for 2016 instead of being a spoiler now,

LukeEDay
08-18-2012, 01:42 AM
And I'll wager that the vast majority of the people here on this form have more actual business experience than does Romeny.

So you are saying that a vast majority of people on this board have an MBA from a Harvard? And you are saying a vast majority of the people on this board owned and ran a private equity firm? Well, I am currently working on an MBA, and it isn't at Harvard. I don't own a private equity firm, would love to, but that is in a couple of years, if things work out right. What say you? Anyone else have the vast degree and business knowledge that Romney has?



I've said it before, I'd vote for Darlene the dawg, our little black greyhound, before I'd vote for Captain Zero. At least she'd do no harm and she's a heck of a lot cuter. :biggrin-new:

Romney might not be perfect, but he's such an improvement over our current pres. I think that he will do a more than decent job. The world is too scary to have an incompetent in the White House. The times are too serious to go with a libertarian or any other 3rd party now. We can't take the chance of another 4 years of US decline. If the 3rd parties want to have a credible shot at the presidency, they need to organize now for 2016 instead of being a spoiler now,

I know exactly what you mean. I also agree that Romney may not be perfect, but he is a lot better than who we have now. For that I think he will win, because a lot of people feel the same way.

Rockntractor
08-18-2012, 02:15 AM
I know exactly what you mean. I also agree that Romney may not be perfect, but he is a lot better than who we have now. For that I think he will win, because a lot of people feel the same way.

Thorn is just a little past being a child, he is just parroting something an adult in his family that he looks up to believes, hopefully he will grow out of it.

JB
08-18-2012, 08:31 PM
OK. Tell me why I should vote for Romney rather than against Obama. So far, the best reasons I've gotten from people for why Romney is a good candidate is that he's not Obama.No, nice try. That is not how our conversation went but I will play along:

First, vote for anyone you want, I don't care.

Now, you came in here trashing Obama and Romney. I asked you a very simple question several posts ago that you still haven't answered:

Who did (or do) you want to be your Presidential nominee? Please give me a name.

Unreconstructed Reb
08-19-2012, 12:04 PM
Truth be told, I held my nose and voted for McCain and the crazy lady.

Another Palin hater. I've deduced that most of these libtards that call Sarah Palin stupid, crazy, etc are simply parroting some moonbat gibberish that they heard from likes of Maher, Moore, etc. I always ask for an example of her craziness or stupidity and most of the time they just respond with the typical libtard "she's just stupid!!!!!!" non-answer.

Now, in your case, Mr. Thorn, we have empirical data to support the argument for your craziness.

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:25 PM
You should like Palin, I'm beginning to think you are an all out scam and an Obama supporter. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm not a supporter of any member of the political class least of all for a sell out like Obama.

AmPat
08-19-2012, 12:26 PM
I predict this Thorn has run its season. He will be gone banned before he grows up.

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:27 PM
You are making less sense all the time kid.

Really? I'm betting that there are quite a few people on here who have more hands on experience building an actual business with their own hands and producing an tangible product.

What tangible product did Romney produce?

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:29 PM
That should be enough. The fact that O Blow Hard is a hard left Marxist should be enough to vote for Howdy Doody. This is not just another incumbent. This man is deliberately destroying the country. When are you going to see enough evidence to actually conclude that all by your widdle self?

You're giving me reasons to vote against Obama not for Romney. You could use the same argument as reasons to vote for a peach pit.

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:30 PM
2 very telling statements. I can see where this going.

Where would that be?

AmPat
08-19-2012, 12:32 PM
Really? I'm betting that there are quite a few people on here who have more hands on experience building an actual business with their own hands and producing an tangible product.

What tangible product did Romney produce?
He invented air, didn't you hear? :rolleyes: Seriously, what is your point? You are bashing Romney, the ONLY person that has a chance at unseating a KNOWN destroyer and Marxist extremist. What is your masterful plan to do the same?:rolleyes: So far it seems comprised of uneducated assertions and a lame and ineffective suggestion that you will throw your vote away on a third party.

Brilliant strategy there brainiac.

NJCardFan
08-19-2012, 12:33 PM
You're giving me reasons to vote against Obama not for Romney. You could use the same argument as reasons to vote for a peach pit.

Admit to the class that you want 4 more years of Obama. Oh and I think Thorn is a sock puppet of Mike128.

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:34 PM
So you are saying that a vast majority of people on this board have an MBA from a Harvard? And you are saying a vast majority of the people on this board owned and ran a private equity firm? Well, I am currently working on an MBA, and it isn't at Harvard. I don't own a private equity firm, would love to, but that is in a couple of years, if things work out right. What say you? Anyone else have the vast degree and business knowledge that Romney has?
An MBA doesn't make you a businessman. Neither does running a corporate raiding firm.




I know exactly what you mean. I also agree that Romney may not be perfect, but he is a lot better than who we have now. For that I think he will win, because a lot of people feel the same way. Can anyone make an argument for why Romney should be president rather than arguments for why Obama shouldn't?

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:35 PM
No, nice try. That is not how our conversation went but I will play along:

First, vote for anyone you want, I don't care.

Now, you came in here trashing Obama and Romney. I asked you a very simple question several posts ago that you still haven't answered:

Who did (or do) you want to be your Presidential nominee? Please give me a name.General George Washington.

Thorn
08-19-2012, 12:55 PM
Another Palin hater. I've deduced that most of these libtards that call Sarah Palin stupid, crazy, etc are simply parroting some moonbat gibberish that they heard from likes of Maher, Moore, etc. I always ask for an example of her craziness or stupidity and most of the time they just respond with the typical libtard "she's just stupid!!!!!!" non-answer.

Now, in your case, Mr. Thorn, we have empirical data to support the argument for your craziness.

Empirical data? McCain/Palin isn't enough?

Zathras
08-19-2012, 01:01 PM
General George Washington.

Funny...not. Now how about a name of someone who is alive today that you'd like to see for President and the reason(s) for that choice.

LukeEDay
08-19-2012, 01:29 PM
The main thing that still remains is that the moderators are going to ask Captain Zero all the lovey dovey, snuggy wuggy questions; and ask Romney all the ignorant, back stabbing, unanswerable questions.

JB
08-19-2012, 02:48 PM
General George Washington.Oh yeah, you're definitely a Ron Paul douche.

Trolling troll needs banning.

Janice
08-19-2012, 02:56 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm not a supporter of any member of the political class least of all for a sell out like Obama.

A sell out eh? That is the language of the left who dont think Maobama went far enough to the left.

Thats the third statement youve made that is telling.

Gina
08-19-2012, 03:01 PM
A sell out eh? That is the language of the left who dont think Maobama went far enough to the left.

Thats the third statement youve made that is telling.

*nod*

Rockntractor
08-19-2012, 03:52 PM
Really? I'm betting that there are quite a few people on here who have more hands on experience building an actual business with their own hands and producing an tangible product.

What tangible product did Romney produce?

Nickelodeon has a forum, practice there first and come back when your a big boy, now run along.



http://www.nick.com/blab/messageboards/messageboards.jhtml?_requestid=8292561nickelodeon

LukeEDay
08-19-2012, 06:14 PM
You're giving me reasons to vote against Obama not for Romney. You could use the same argument as reasons to vote for a peach pit.


An MBA doesn't make you a businessman. Neither does running a corporate raiding firm.
Can anyone make an argument for why Romney should be president rather than arguments for why Obama shouldn't?



Just because he wasn't involved in tangible things, does not make him a business loser. Even though the businesses he helped sold tangible items.

Here is the list (Under Romney time there):


Staples
Brookstone
Sealy
Sports Authority
Domino's Pizza
Steel Dynamics
Experian
Ampad
Mead
Totes
Alliance Laundry
Armco
Baxter International

They were all successful. Captain Zero had one (That was a total failure) - That was GM, which was nothing more than a UAW payoff; and is now losing money hand over fist. In fact, GM still owes $30 billion. That is probably money us tax payers will never see again.

Now, tell me, what successful business did you start, or run?

Romney has a lot more business knowledge, and private sector knowledge than Captain Zero ever will. Romney spent 20 years working in a successful career within the private sector. Captain Zero hasn't worked 20 minutes in the private sector.

Note: If Bain Capital was a corporate raiding firm. What do you call the government take over of GM? They did the same thing that Bain does. --- I know, i know, you will probably say it was a good thing that government took it over. or at least, I know you probably want to.

And lastly, don't even start to try and argue with me about private equity, investing, and company take overs. You are talking to someone who deals in this stuff all the time.

m00
08-19-2012, 06:33 PM
Just because he wasn't involved in tangible things, does not make him a business loser. Even though the businesses he helped sold tangible items.

Here is the list (Under Romney time there):



They were all successful. Captain Zero had one (That was a total failure) - That was GM, which was nothing more than a UAW payoff; and is now losing money hand over fist. In fact, GM still owes $30 billion. That is probably money us tax payers will never see again.

Now, tell me, what successful business did you start, or run?

Romney has a lot more business knowledge, and private sector knowledge than Captain Zero ever will. Romney spent 20 years working in a successful career within the private sector. Captain Zero hasn't worked 20 minutes in the private sector.

Note: If Bain Capital was a corporate raiding firm. What do you call the government take over of GM? They did the same thing that Bain does. --- I know, i know, you will probably say it was a good thing that government took it over. or at least, I know you probably want to.

And lastly, don't even start to try and argue with me about private equity, investing, and company take overs. You are talking to someone who deals in this stuff all the time.

Not sure if this really matters to you, but Romney wasn't called in to "help" businesses. He wasn't like one of those efficiency/agile gurus that get called into consult and streamline a failing business. He was called in to engage in LBOs to return profit for Bain's investors where the focus was short term ROI on the money spent on the LBO. The only business he really, actually helped intentionally was Bain. Not saying this is a bad thing, but it was what it was. Ironically, he exploited the crap out of government regulations (tax shields) which is how LBOs are profitable... regulations that shouldn't exist in any sane conservative-led government. Just sayin'

GM was close-ish to what Romney was doing at Bain. Obama sought to return a short term ROI for taxpayers (who were forced "investors"). Romney, of course, is much much better at this.

What Obama really should have done was tapped Romney to oversee government buy-out. Then the taxpayers would have at least gotten some money back.

Hawkgirl
08-19-2012, 06:35 PM
A sell out eh? That is the language of the left who dont think Maobama went far enough to the left.

Thats the third statement youve made that is telling.

Yes, caught that as well.

Thorn, you are running on empty.

LukeEDay
08-19-2012, 06:42 PM
Not sure if this really matters to you, but Romney wasn't called in to "help" businesses. He wasn't like one of those efficiency/agile gurus that get called into consult and streamline a failing business. He was called in to engage in LBOs to return profit for Bain's investors where the focus was short term ROI on the money spent on the LBO. The only business he really, actually helped intentionally was Bain. Not saying this is a bad thing, but it was what it was. Ironically, he exploited the crap out of government regulations (tax shields) which is how LBOs are profitable... regulations that shouldn't exist in any sane conservative-led government. Just sayin'

GM was close-ish to what Romney was doing at Bain. Obama sought to return a short term ROI for taxpayers (who were forced "investors"). Romney, of course, is much much better at this.

What Obama really should have done was tapped Romney to oversee government buy-out. Then the taxpayers would have at least gotten some money back.

Well, when it comes to investors, you want to make the most on their return. And nothing Romney did was illegal. Whether or not he was called into help, fix, or mend the situation. He did, and whatever the case may be, the companies are still in business and are profitable. Which is a lot more than you can say about obama.

AmPat
08-19-2012, 07:16 PM
You're giving me reasons to vote against Obama not for Romney. You could use the same argument as reasons to vote for a peach pit.
Exactly the point child. A peach pit would do less damage than this Marxist. Getting through your thick skull yet?:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
08-19-2012, 10:50 PM
No one else is convinced that Thorn is Mike128?

Rockntractor
08-19-2012, 10:53 PM
No one else is convinced that Thorn is Mike128?

Mike128 was social conservative, when Thorn isn't in this thread he is playing gay apologist, that would be a 180. I don't know who he is other than a silly kid, it could be a M00sock.

m00
08-19-2012, 11:01 PM
I don't know who he is other than a silly kid, it could be a M00sock.

You are a moderator, presumably you can check IPs. I think insinuating this person is my sockpuppet (when you know its not) is both lying and irresponsible for a moderator.

By the way, I offered to vote for Romney in the other thread. You didnt want to take me up on it.

Rockntractor
08-19-2012, 11:04 PM
You are a moderator, presumably you can check IPs. I think insinuating this person is my sockpuppet (when you know its not) is both lying and irresponsible for a moderator.

By the way, I offered to vote for Romney in the other thread. You didnt want to take me up on it.

You sound the same.

Rockntractor
08-19-2012, 11:08 PM
Y is both lying and irresponsible for a moderator.



Now as to this comment, if you want to go after me as a poster fine, but if you want to go after me as a moderator it won't go well for you, I have no Idea how many ISP's you have access too and have many people that have several ISP's that have been issued many more IP's as members. Some posters have a different IP every time they log on.

m00
08-19-2012, 11:10 PM
Now as to this comment, if you want to go after me as a poster fine, but if you want to go after me as a moderator it won't go well for you, I have no Idea how many ISP's you have access too and have many people that have several ISP's that have been issued many more IP's as members. Some posters have a different IP every time they log on.

I use two. You can see them.

Yes, it is irresponsible for a moderator to publicly suggest a person is specifically someone else's sockpuppet. Unless you can see we use the same IP logs, in which case ban the sock and reprimand the poster. Which you arent going to do, because I dont use sockpuppets.

Rockntractor
08-19-2012, 11:11 PM
I use two. You can see them.

Yes, it is irresponsible for a moderator to publicly suggest a person is specifically someone else's sockpuppet.

On every topic so far you and he are the same.

m00
08-19-2012, 11:17 PM
On every topic so far you and he are the same.

Then why arent you banning him for being my sockpuppet and giving me a suspension or whatever you do? Since last I checked sock puppetry isnt allowed on CU.

Rockntractor
08-19-2012, 11:19 PM
Then why arent you banning him for being my sockpuppet and giving me a suspension or whatever you do? Since last I checked sock puppetry isnt allowed on CU.

I told you to drop the moderator crap, now.
Read the first part of the sentence and quit being an idiot.

I don't know who he is other than a silly kid, it could be a M00sock.

Hawkgirl
08-19-2012, 11:26 PM
Then why arent you banning him for being my sockpuppet and giving me a suspension or whatever you do? Since last I checked sock puppetry isnt allowed on CU.

I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about what we're planning to do with Thorn.

m00
08-19-2012, 11:30 PM
I told you to drop the moderator crap, now.
Read the first part of the sentence and quit being an idiot.

Oh, I read it. I just didn't know there was a separate entity that was normal-poster-rockntractor, and this was mere speculation on his behalf. :smile-new: Thats cool, because apparently this individual prides himself on not actually reading my posts, and during debates comes across as functionally illiterate and/or willfully ignorant. So it seems unlikely that the charge of "On every topic so far you and he are the same" is true. I wouldn't know, I haven't read the dude's posts either.

m00
08-19-2012, 11:32 PM
I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about what we're planning to do with Thorn.

It just seemed pretty crap I was publicly accused of having a sock by a moderator. I didnt realize, as I now do, that the accusation was not being made from the standpoint of someone who was wearing his moderator cap at the time. My apologies. :smile-new:

Hawkgirl
08-19-2012, 11:36 PM
It just seemed pretty crap I was publicly accused of having a sock by a moderator. I didnt realize, as I now do, that the accusation was not being made from the standpoint of someone who was wearing his moderator cap at the time. My apologies. :smile-new:

A thin skin will do you no good on this board....:evil-grin: I like to eat those types with hot sauce. :cool:

m00
08-19-2012, 11:40 PM
A thin skin will do you no good on this board....:evil-grin: I like to eat those types with hot sauce. :cool:

I wouldn't worry about it. There's enough going on in my life right now that I'm really not emotionally worked up over an internet message board. But I still reserve the right to call out nonsense when I see it. :cool:

Thorn
08-20-2012, 12:28 AM
Funny...not. Now how about a name of someone who is alive today that you'd like to see for President and the reason(s) for that choice.

Off the top of my head, Allen West. Other good candidates would be Mike Pence or Pat Toomey.

Thorn
08-20-2012, 12:31 AM
Oh yeah, you're definitely a Ron Paul douche.

Trolling troll needs banning.

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/pull_up_your_big_girl_panties_and_deal_trollcat.jp g

Thorn
08-20-2012, 12:34 AM
A sell out eh? That is the language of the left who dont think Maobama went far enough to the left.

Thats the third statement youve made that is telling. He is a sell out. He's been bought and is owned by his handlers. Look at the promises he made and never delivered on.

Thorn
08-20-2012, 12:37 AM
Exactly the point child. A peach pit would do less damage than this Marxist. Getting through your thick skull yet?:rolleyes:

I'm not interested in voting AGAINST a candidate. Voting against a candidate is what got us Obama. Remember: Obama ran as "not Bush." I'm not willing to compromise in that way. Sorry.

NJCardFan
08-20-2012, 01:17 AM
http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg/220px-Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg&sa=X&ei=XMgxUPOfJKfV6wGY_IHoBg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEXxv12GOQeCjss_cK2sYDY6_XyiQ
Fixed for derpness.

NJCardFan
08-20-2012, 01:21 AM
Off the top of my head, Allen West. Other good candidates would be Mike Pence or Pat Toomey.
How many of those are running for president?

LukeEDay
08-20-2012, 01:37 AM
How many of those are running for president?

Pat Toomey is my Senator. I also voted for him.

Thorn
08-20-2012, 10:00 AM
Fixed for derpness.

http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/hurr-durr-derp-face-hurr-hurr-hurr-derts-furrny.jpg

Thorn
08-20-2012, 10:01 AM
Pat Toomey is my Senator. I also voted for him. As did I. :smile-new:

Janice
08-23-2012, 01:45 PM
Debate moderators still cut from the same cloth

It’s hard to believe that it’s been 20 years since a woman moderated a presidential debate. But it’s true.

Fortunately, that streak ends this year. CNN chief political correspondent Candace Crowley has been selected to moderate one of the three debates between President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney.

The last woman in that role was ABC News’ Carole Simpson, who moderated the debate among President George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.

The other moderators announced this week by the Commission on Presidential Debates are Jim Lehrer of PBS and CBS’s Bob Schieffer. A vice-presidential debate will be moderated by Martha Raddatz of ABC News.

All four moderators are respected journalists. But they’re also cut from the same cloth, coming from mainstream outlets with largely liberal staffs. Conservatives rightly ask for representation, too.

And the commission noticeably omitted racial diversity this year. Commission co-chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr. said the panel “picked the people we thought were the best, regardless.”

Crowley was chosen after three high school girls from Montclair, N.J., lobbied for a woman to get the job. They collected more than 180,000 petition signatures. “Just three teenage girls making a change,” said Elena Tsemberis. Girl power made a difference.

FremontTribune (http://fremonttribune.com/news/opinion/editorial/debate-moderators-still-cut-from-the-same-cloth/article_2ccc7524-ed2e-11e1-bbf2-0019bb2963f4.html)

-----------------------------------------

Mr. Ryan, The first question goes to you. Why do you want to kill seniors?
All right Mr Ryan that's enough of that.

Mr. Biden Can you spell Cat if I spot you the "C"and the "T"?
Thank you Mr. Biden, I think we have a clear winner of this VP debate.

Janice
08-23-2012, 01:52 PM
http://i.imgur.com/JbIuq.jpg

Marital, personal ties link Obama administration to Commission on Presidential Debates

The moderator of the lone October vice presidential debate was previously married to a top Obama official, an association both ABC News and the left-leaning Commission on Presidential Debates do not view as a conflict of interest.

ABC Senior Foreign Correspondent Martha Raddatz, whose role as moderator was announced on August 13, was previously married to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski — an Obama appointee.

Genachowki and Raddatz were married in 1991, the same year he graduated from Harvard Law School. Their marriage ended in 1997; the two have a son together. Raddatz does not report on the FCC for ABC News.

Genachowski and classmate Barack Obama worked together on the Harvard Law Review, Genachowski as notes editor and Obama as the publication’s president. They graduated in the same class.

ABC did not consider the disclosure of Raddatz’s ties to an Obama appointee necessary when it issued a press release announcing that the Commission on Presidential Debates had selected her to moderate the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican nominee Rep. Paul Ryan.

More@Dailycaller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/marital-personal-ties-link-obama-administration-to-commission-on-presidential-debates/)

Zathras
08-23-2012, 02:53 PM
I'm not interested in voting AGAINST a candidate. Voting against a candidate is what got us Obama. Remember: Obama ran as "not Bush." I'm not willing to compromise in that way. Sorry.

Ummm, by voting for a candidate other than Obama, by default you're voting against him. And your "not willing to compromise" will have just one effect if you do not vote for Romney....help re-elect Obama for another 4 years.

Zathras
08-23-2012, 02:55 PM
http://chzderp.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/hurr-durr-derp-face-hurr-hurr-hurr-derts-furrny.jpg

We don't want to see any pictures of you on this site. You want to post pictures like that? DU is over thata way....they love that sort of thing.

Janice
08-24-2012, 07:34 AM
http://i.imgur.com/lFE9z.gif

Debate Questions Obama Won't Be Asked

If you could submit just one question to be asked of President Obama during a televised presidential debate, what would it be? Once you have formulated your best idea, ask yourself this: do you think any of this year's line-up of debate hosts and moderators would ever actually ask your question, as you framed it? Your answer, I am sure, is almost as self-evident as is the importance of your imaginary debate question. The questions that matter most are precisely the ones that will not be asked, and for that very reason. >>>

The fact that we can't ask Obama himself makes little difference. The figurative empty chair to which our questions must be posed has an eloquence of its own. Its silence helps to highlight that scurrying sound of the mainstream media mice among the rocks. If they who hold the microphones were men, they would be asking the hard questions, rather than crawling up Obama's well-creased pant leg in search of an honored position as Big Brother's top-rated propagandist. >>>


(1) Mr. President, you speak frequently of "fairness," of doing one's "fair share," and so on. Of course, "fairness" is an abstract concept. Furthermore, it is not a political system. Rather, it expresses the intended result of one political system or other, depending on how one defines "fairness." For example, one might say that the free market promotes fairness, if by fairness we mean that everyone has what he is able to earn by his own effort, with his own talent, and through uncoerced interaction with others. On the other hand, a socialist would define fairness as everyone getting an equal share of the available material wealth, by means of continuously regulated and maintained government redistribution.

So I would like you to explain as clearly as possible what you mean by fairness, and which politico-economic system -- the free market, socialism, or some other system -- is most conducive to your understanding of fairness. In short, is freedom or socialism fairer, in your view, and why?

(2) The American founders, following John Locke and others, were strong defenders of property rights. Specifically, they believed, as Locke explained, that all human beings inviolably own themselves as individual material beings, and hence that the product of their effort and voluntary exchange with others belongs to them, by extension from their initial and natural ownership of their own bodies and minds.

Various federal government programs and regulations you support, such as ObamaCare and many EPA initiatives, fly in the face of this notion of a natural right to property. Do you believe in private property as a right? And if so, on what grounds do you believe that this right can be violated? >>>



These offerings are merely the tip of the iceberg, of course. With the most concealed and protected president of modern times, one could literally go on all day with these questions, each one as vital as the last: about drugs, about Fast and Furious, about whispering promises of post-election accommodation to a Russian president, about his hidden university career and transcripts, and on and on.

There is a significant segment of the population that can no longer be reached. There is, however, probably at least as large a segment that merely falls into the category of the passively ignorant. These people must be reached, because the civilizational renewal that is needed is impossible without them. They will not be reached by anything that happens on their televisions. >>>

Thinking is, to a large extent, a matter of asking questions and of pursuing answers with enthusiasm, and without fear of the truth one might discover. A thinking population is an anti-leftist population. The job of those who are already thinking is not to bludgeon the late arrivals into submission, but to pique their interest in that which has hitherto been concealed from them -- to teach them, in other words, the joys of thinking for themselves.

Keep asking the empty chair those hard questions. The answers you get will be no less informative than the ones the real Obama -- if there is such a thing -- will give during the actual debates. And your shadow debate just might attract a thoughtful audience of its own. Lord knows Bob Schieffer isn't going to attract one.

Americanthinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/debate_questions_obama_wont_be_asked.html)

--------------------------------------------------

First question; Did you attend any college as a Foreign Exchange Student? Then; When, in the history of the planet, has socialism ever been successful, and for whom, and for how long? And perhaps; When did you renounce Islam?