|
They're throwing the questions to the candidates who are known for answering them. Why not throw the drug-war question to Perry, the "what would you do about poverty" question to Paul, and so on?
Economist, grey dude. I've got to see the transcript, but it sounds pretty accurate if the other debates are any indication
|
On January 17 2012 11:52 acker wrote:Show nested quote + They're throwing the questions to the candidates who are known for answering them. Why not throw the drug-war question to Perry, the "what would you do about poverty" question to Paul, and so on?
Economist, grey dude. I've got to see the transcript, but it sounds pretty accurate if the other debates are any indication data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt=""
I was just going to quote that in here. Thanks for pointing me towards The Economist's live blogging, helps give a bit of perspective on a lot of the candidates policies that I am uninformed on.
I have yet to really hear anything new, so I too agree with R.I.G.
|
You'd think being 2nd place would get him more than 3 questions an hour lol. Oh Fox News =D. Never cease to amaze me.
He also just blew that foreign policy question. Not blew it in that it didn't make sense, but it wasn't eloquent at all and that's what the sheep applaud for.
|
Sounds like Fox news wants Gingrich to be the candidate still. Color me surprised when once again he doesn't do well in the actual South Carolina Primary.
|
like i said earlier in the thread people wont support ging because he cant open his mouth without offending someone, so rightly or wrongly moderates wont vote for him, he cannot win an elections
even fox cant change this
|
God Ron Paul makes so much sense sometimes, I wish his economic policy didn't appear to be so radical. As I say that he seems to fall apart a little
|
"I'm just saying we should invoke the golden rule in our foreign policy." (Paul) *Extremely loud, prolonged, booing*
Republicans aren't growing on me, I'll tell you that much.
|
His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. *edit* Now, I'm not sure if that would have happened with a different economic policy, but this current trend (going on 40 years or so) is nothing worth holding onto for dear life.
|
Romney invoked the theory of the Roman Empire...
|
On January 17 2012 12:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney invoked the theory of the Roman Empire...
Could you to elaborate on what he said, or a link to the Economist debate transcript thing? Can't find it quite yet.
|
On January 17 2012 12:12 NtroP wrote: His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. come on that's impossible the inflation is only 1.5%... lol
|
On January 17 2012 12:17 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney invoked the theory of the Roman Empire... Could you to elaborate on what he said, or a link to the Economist debate transcript thing? Can't find it quite yet.
Basically that if one creates an army so strong that nobody can challenge it.
|
On January 17 2012 11:00 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 10:46 forgottendreams wrote:
It was a blow but in reality it was Gorbachev's underestimation of the forces of economic and political liberalization and his mishandling of the reform initiatives were far more important to the disintegration of the USSR than the Afghanistan War and Reagan's arm race. That makes more sense, thanks. But just where do you think those forces of economic and political liberalization came from? The Soviet Party lost a whole lot legitimacy back home because they were both 1: aggressors and 2: losing. And the war itself cost a lot of money, money wasted on military expenditure that could have been used back home. It certainly wasn't the only source of dissent or economic trouble, but it was quite large. Edit: I'm getting conflicting reports on total cost to the Soviet Union.
The reason there was dissent is because Khrushchev stopped killing people. It would have never collapsed the way Stalin was leading it, the reigns were tight, strict, and it kept the people motivated with fear. Khrushchev significantly reduced the amount of political enemies that were killed, or exiled, and although Brezhnev did a bit better, the doom became inevitable at that point.
Then Gorbachev decided to come in and introduce an idea of socialism with a "more human face," and that idea fell flat on its face, because it was basically impossible, as the people could only be kept in line by fear.
|
Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed.
|
On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military.
C'mon, man. I expect better.
|
On January 17 2012 12:17 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:12 NtroP wrote: His economic policy would simply pull our currency out of the grip of the federal reserve and tie it to something more than hopes and dreams. I've seen the price of FOOD jump about 50%+ in the last 5 years. come on that's impossible the inflation is only 1.5%... lol
Um? I can go to the grocery store and quote some prices to you... I'll let google help me.
Prices on beef: http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/beef.html
Chicken: http://www.mongabay.com/commodities/price-charts/price-of-chicken.html
I apologize for using one source, but if anyone else has been buying and cooking their own food in the last 5-10 years, I'm sure they can back me up.
Sorry for going off topic.
|
On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better.
Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating.
|
On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask.
|
On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask.
If only... The defense budget under Obama is greater than when Bush was President.
|
Canada11266 Posts
On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 17 2012 12:29 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. Like the republicans really had a choice? No sane person will ever mistake which party supports funding the military and which party is always looking to gut the military. C'mon, man. I expect better. Gut the military? The military in this country is massive even with the cuts it would still be the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. military is not in danger of being underfunded but in danged of excessive bloating. That's a matter of perspective. Only democrats share your view, and it's ridiculous for you or any other liberal to try and sluff off the blame/responsibility for military budget cuts onto republicans. It's your policy, so own it. That's all I ask.
Well how much do you need exactly? You already outspend all the defence budgets of the world combined. Who exactly can challenge American preponderance?
|
|
|
|