capricorn Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 The Gingrich campaign sought to explain its candidate’s lack of aggressiveness at the debate by saying that he had been astonished at what Mr. Romney was saying.“I asked him afterwards, ‘What were you doing?’ ” said R. C. Hammond, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman. “And he goes, ‘I was just so shocked he would lie that much.’ ” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/us/politics/as-primary-nears-florida-poll-favors-romney.html So Newt got as good as he gave and he's shocked? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Moonlight Graham Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 I think the debates are a bit ridiculous now. The candidates all seem to agree, they should be debating the issues instead of talking about this or that allegation. Romney's tax returns and whatnot are relevant but when these sorts of things clog up a debate and are the main things to appear on newsreel highlights for those who didn't watch the debate it's ridiculous. I would think people should be voting mostly based on policy and who will be most adequate at governing, not who had the best zinger based on questions about extra-martial affairs and whatnot. The fact that Newt kicked butt in South Carolina largely based on an answer to a q about his love-life instead of what his policy stances are and his record in gov't is pretty scary. All four GOP candidates have records that speak more truthfully than any debate quips can and is the most effective measure of what each would do as President, so does the primary process have to be so dragged out and sensationalized? These momentum shifts based on what a candidate said and/or was accused of yesterday instead of how he voted/governed/achieved over the last couple of decades is ridiculous. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
bud Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 Btw, Ron Paul is having a really great debate tonight! Not sure if any of you are watching, but it's work a second look. it's refreshing to see you being truthful. it really is. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Guest Manny Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 I think Biden was one of Obama's obvious blunders. Picking him must have been some kind of pay off or trade. Because they needed an old, white man. It's all about image... Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 Btw, Ron Paul is having a really great debate tonight! Not sure if any of you are watching, but it's work a second look. Probably because he had a chance to talk a lot more than in the other debates. But it's still clear that he's the outsider among the group. A good thing, in my opinion. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 Because they needed an old, white man. It's all about image... At the time there wasn't a ton of choices. He wasn't going to pick Hillary. If not Biden then who? John Edwards? Bill Richardson? That's about the other choices. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
punked Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 At the time there wasn't a ton of choices. He wasn't going to pick Hillary. If not Biden then who? John Edwards? Bill Richardson? That's about the other choices. Tim Kaine or Howard Dean maybe? Quote
punked Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 Newt's SuperPac has Short movie out calling out another one of Mitts debate lies about Bain never working with the Federal government even though they were involved with a Company who defrauded through Medicare the tax payers 40-100 Million dollars. Again it was a good debate the problem is Romney had a good debate by telling lies and those lies are going to be a bunch of tiny cuts which slowly kill the candidate. He might get through Florida and even the Primaries but the general is looking bad. I posted this is another thread but it is a worth a look because it spends 6 minutes breaking down a bunch lies Mitt has told and only about one specific subject. Never mind the rest of the lies pointed out in this thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVUQuJDEs04&feature=player_embedded Quote
Shady Posted January 28, 2012 Report Posted January 28, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/us/politics/as-primary-nears-florida-poll-favors-romney.html So Newt got as good as he gave and he's shocked? I agree. It's funny to see him complain about being bested because of a crowd at the debate. That's exactly how he won South Carolina. it's refreshing to see you being truthful. it really is. He did. I thought Santorum had a pretty good debate as well. Even though most of the attention in the media went to Mitt and Newt. Quote
kimmy Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 Because they needed an old, white man. It's all about image... They must have had to look awfully hard to find an old white man in Washington. Seriously, they could have put on a blindfold, thrown a rock, and hit an old white man who would have been a better choice than Biden. Why did they pick Biden? Maybe because of his anti-drug history. The only thing he's done in his political career is fight against drugs. Maybe they wanted a strong anti-drug guy on the ticket to address worry that despite having used pot once upon a time, Obama wasn't going to be soft on drugs. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ノ(° -°ノ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 They must have had to look awfully hard to find an old white man in Washington. Seriously, they could have put on a blindfold, thrown a rock, and hit an old white man who would have been a better choice than Biden. I take it that you have never lived in the DC area. Why did they pick Biden? Maybe because of his anti-drug history. The only thing he's done in his political career is fight against drugs.... Not really...instead, see "incorporation" and "Delaware". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) I seem to remember Biden in a leadership role on the Anita Hill hearings. At any rate, he tried to shut down the republican side of the proceedings late into the evening after the Dems had monopolized the time for most of the time. A truly unjust effort and just dirty. I've had no use for him since. There are lots of old white men to choose from among politicians in the area, though maybe not among the citizens. Edited January 29, 2012 by sharkman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 ...There are lots of old white men to choose from among politicians in the area, though maybe not among the citizens. The "old white men" are citizens too. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted January 29, 2012 Report Posted January 29, 2012 Okay, I think I misunderstood you. At any rate the point is that Obama should have picked someone besides Biden. Quote
Guest Manny Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 When Obama runs for re-election, does he have to stick with Biden as VP again? Or can he change his selection. And if so, is that a common thing for a president in their second term to do? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 When Obama runs for re-election, does he have to stick with Biden as VP again? Or can he change his selection. And if so, is that a common thing for a president in their second term to do? Not that common. I think the last one may have been Ford, who dumped Rockefeller for Bob Dole in 76. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest American Woman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 When Obama runs for re-election, does he have to stick with Biden as VP again? Or can he change his selection. And if so, is that a common thing for a president in their second term to do? Not common at all, and it likely would be perceived as a weakness in the presidency. ...no elected VP has been dropped from the ticket since 1944, when Henry Wallace was removed at the national convention that year in favor of Sen. Harry Truman. link Quote
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Hey, has anybody seen this? Around the time of this debate Nancy Pelosi came out with a statement that Newt would not be president as she has 'something' on him. I don't think I've ever seen that kind of attempt to influence the voting public before. Quote
LonJowett Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 I don't think I've ever seen that kind of attempt to influence the voting public before. Goodness. Politicians are trying to influence the voting public? In an election year? Unthinkable! Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Goodness. Politicians are trying to influence the voting public? In an election year? Unthinkable! Uh, I think the subtleties are lost on you Lonnie. This is about someone in office, who is not campaigning for re-election, threatening to reveal 'something' damaging to a contender in an opposing party. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Uh, I think the subtleties are lost on you Lonnie. This is about someone in office, who is not campaigning for re-election, threatening to reveal 'something' damaging to a contender in an opposing party. And.....? What is the issue? Politics is a blood sport. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Yes it is. So when was the last time a politician not in an election race threatened to release something damaging on a politician who is running for president? Edited January 30, 2012 by sharkman Quote
LonJowett Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Actually she didn't threaten to release anything. She said she knew of something that would likely come out. She may well be expecting Romney supporters to let it slip. Edited January 30, 2012 by LonJowett Quote Oliver: Now why did you get two tickets to Chicago when you know that I wanted to spend my honeymoon in Saskatchewan? Stanley: Well, the man said there was no such place as sus - -Swee - Sas...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Yes it is. So when was the last time a politician not in an election race threatened to release something damaging on a politician who is running for president? If I go to the trouble of finding one, will it make any difference to you? Let's start with Senator Tom Eagleton's comments about candidate George McGovern, revealed secretly to Robert Novak in 1972. "Amnesty, abortion, and acid". Edited January 30, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
GostHacked Posted January 30, 2012 Report Posted January 30, 2012 Hey, has anybody seen this? Around the time of this debate Nancy Pelosi came out with a statement that Newt would not be president as she has 'something' on him. I don't think I've ever seen that kind of attempt to influence the voting public before. It's actually something that runs rampant in American politics. They all have 'dirt' on them in some way. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.