|
On January 17 2012 13:13 Falling wrote: Wait. Why do they keep saying it's a two person race between Romney and Gingerich? Gingerich has been doing terrible at the primaries.
Because people want to pretend that there is a candidate, besides Romney, who is electable. A one horse race is pretty boring.
|
The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest.
edit: 3rd in iowa indeed
|
On January 17 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:02 Probulous wrote:On January 17 2012 12:55 xDaunt wrote:On January 17 2012 12:43 Probulous wrote:On January 17 2012 12:36 xDaunt wrote: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. I'm confused xDaunt. IIRC the republicans refused to go along with the Obama deficit proposal in August. This was just after the debt ceiling debacle. The reps were going on about reducing the deficit but wouldn't agree to the trillions of cuts that Obama was proposing. The subcommittee was supposed to solve this and the penalty for failure was these massive enforced cuts. Now yes, the democrats chose the target, but that was hardly what they pushing for. Obama's original plan was poo-pooed by the Reps and neither side could come to an agreement, hence these cuts. I don't see this as democrat policy, the policy was rejected by reps and this is the consequence. Am I missing something? I don't see what's so hard about this issue to understand. Who do you think insisted that the military spending cuts be part of the automatic budget cuts? DEMOCRATS. There was not one republican (other than possibly Ron Paul) who wanted to have those cuts in there. However, to get the deal passed, republicans relented, hoping (perhaps naively) that the super committee would come to an agreement that would prevent those cuts from going into effect. This obviously didn't happen. Here's the point. The democrat party has a long history of reducing military spending. This isn't new. They have continuously run on the platform of reducing military spending to further fund social spending since Jimmy Carter's administration. Obviously, I strongly disagree with that policy, but that's not the reason why I'm jumping all over StealthBlue. This is what he said: Romney said Obama will cut 1 trillion from defense budget yet fails to say that Republicans agreed to the cuts if the subcommittee failed. The obvious point that he was implying is that republicans are just as responsible for those cuts as Obama/the democrats. This implication is utterly absurd at best and disingenuous at worst. I accept that people are going to disagree with my political views. However, all that I ask is that they do so honestly. Fair enough, but you if the Reps agreed to the punishments set for the super committee failing, then they agreed to the cuts. Just because it is Dems policy doesn't mean the Reps didn't agree to it? I don't see the implication in the statement. He is saying the same thing as you, take responsibility for the decisions and positions you put forward. The fact was they made the decision to accept the agreement, blaiming the consequences on Obama is blatantly abdicating their responsibility in the matter. The alternatives were to refuse to raise the debt ceiling or to give Obama a blank check debt ceiling raise. Neither is particularly good. Basically, the democrats didn't give republicans much of a choice. Consequently, I have absolutely no problem laying 100% of the blame at the feet of democrats for the military reductions. Think about it this way, if the republicans introduced a bill to reverse the automatic military spending cuts (which they absolutely would if they thought it would pass), do you think that democrats would support it? Hell no.
Well you reap what you sow. The reps had been pushing Obama all year for major deficit reforms, they pushed the debt ceiling issue and it back-fired. Obama called their bluff with a huge bill that might actually do something and they balked. So in response they agree to the super committee and now blame Obama for that agreement? Sorry no dice with me. They had an opportunity to come to agreement prior to the debt ceiling issue and they chose to play the beligerent game. I am not saying Obama is not to blame but to absolve the Reps of any part of this is just not fair.
|
On January 17 2012 13:15 darthfoley wrote: The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest.
He didn't get 2nd in Iowa, he got 3rd.
|
On January 17 2012 13:19 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:15 darthfoley wrote: The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest. He didn't get 2nd in Iowa, he got 3rd.
Ah, you're right. My apologies. Either way he's been the arguably the second most consistent candidate.
|
On January 17 2012 13:15 darthfoley wrote: The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest.
and given the least amount of speaking time. Freaking absurd that he got to talk like 5 times when perry who is pretty much last in the polls got so much more speaking time
|
On January 17 2012 13:22 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:15 darthfoley wrote: The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest. and given the least amount of speaking time. Freaking absurd that he got to talk like 5 times when perry who is pretty much last in the polls got so much more speaking time
Perry's on life support, i'm surprised he hasn't quit yet.
|
On January 17 2012 13:23 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:22 Housemd wrote:On January 17 2012 13:15 darthfoley wrote: The audiences at these things never cease to amaze me. Ron Paul, after getting 2nd in every primary is somehow seat on the farthest right. Ha. Fox News at its finest. and given the least amount of speaking time. Freaking absurd that he got to talk like 5 times when perry who is pretty much last in the polls got so much more speaking time Perry's on life support, i'm surprised he hasn't quit yet.
Yea me too. and he still gets so much time to speak.
|
On January 17 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote:
The alternatives were to refuse to raise the debt ceiling or to give Obama a blank check debt ceiling raise. Neither is particularly good. Basically, the democrats didn't give republicans much of a choice. Consequently, I have absolutely no problem laying 100% of the blame at the feet of democrats for the military reductions. Think about it this way, if the republicans introduced a bill to reverse the automatic military spending cuts (which they absolutely would if they thought it would pass), do you think that democrats would support it? Hell no.
Obama offered both a 3:1 and a 2.5:1 spending:tax deal during the debt ceiling fight. Guess which party rejected it?
I mean, seriously, you're trying to paint the Democrats for hard-lining when they offered the most spending cuts to tax increases since Reagan, and the Republicans rejected the deal, before it even got to specifics? And blaming Democrats for tying defense cuts to the trigger because the Republicans rejected tax hikes as part of the trigger?
What kind of parallel universe do you live in?
|
On January 17 2012 13:36 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 13:09 xDaunt wrote:
The alternatives were to refuse to raise the debt ceiling or to give Obama a blank check debt ceiling raise. Neither is particularly good. Basically, the democrats didn't give republicans much of a choice. Consequently, I have absolutely no problem laying 100% of the blame at the feet of democrats for the military reductions. Think about it this way, if the republicans introduced a bill to reverse the automatic military spending cuts (which they absolutely would if they thought it would pass), do you think that democrats would support it? Hell no. Obama offered both a 3:1 and a 2.5:1 spending:tax deal during the debt ceiling fight. Guess which party rejected it? I mean, seriously, you're trying to paint the Democrats for hard-lining when they offered the most spending cuts to tax increases since Reagan, and the Republicans rejected the deal? And blaming Democrats for tying defense cuts to the trigger because the Republicans rejected tax hikes as part of the trigger? What kind of parallel universe do you live in?
Well said.
|
Canada11266 Posts
Hm. I missed most of the debate, but reading some summaries, I take it the gladiator crowd is back? Cheering about American soldiers pissing on dead bodies?
|
Ok so I'm not stupid, well that's good.
|
One of the worst debates do date. :/
|
On January 17 2012 13:41 Falling wrote: Hm. I missed most of the debate, but reading some summaries, I take it the gladiator crowd is back? Cheering about American soldiers pissing on dead bodies?
Basically, booing ron paul for saying basically "think of it from their point of view"
|
|
I notice only Newt Gingrich is juxtaposed with Barack Obama in the above,. Good ad, of course.
|
Solid ad.
It really is true - Ronnie boy is the only one who never strays from his ideals.
|
On January 17 2012 13:05 Housemd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2012 12:56 durza wrote:On January 17 2012 12:53 Falling wrote: Post-debate analysis. Debate was awesome-sauce. :S Yeah that made me cringe, interesting debate, Romney didn't screw up majorly at all so he should still be a easy favorite. I think that romney definitely screwed up. He didn't seem as confident with his answers and newt plus rick slammed him hard both at the start and at the end of the race. And god that crowd seemed hostile towards pauls foreign policy. At least he was able to redeem himself with the war mongering idea that he uses. I read before that fox hires their crowd specifically those that are as biased as the news organization. Anyone confirm or deny that fact
Well we know they tell crowds to yell what and when in the background when they are showing stuff from the field. Wouldn't put it past them to only give seats to those people who are for whoever canidate they endorse.
Anyway I think of myself a liberal and democrat in most senses and I just think most of the Republican candidates just seem like major retards tbh. I'd only possible think about voting for Paul because he seems like he actually knows what hes talking about and would get something done, though some of his views I don't agree with. Still voting for Obama though because I feel like hes the better decision.
|
|
Ratio-wise, did Ron Paul get that amount of time to talk?
That video sickens me. They phrase the question so it looks like Ron Paul doesn't get a shit about national security and then a bunch of war-mongering idiots boo him.
|
|
|
|