A few things on the YouTube debate
R o n P a u l (forgive the spaces but I don’t want the usual suspects hijacking the post with how I’m not a real man because I say he can’t win) seems to have lost his cool. He came across badly this time. He was nervous and fidgety.
I was a bit annoyed with the way the candidates treated the gay general. They had that whole Thanks for your service but you have gay cooties. Ick. thing going on. Turns out, the gay general is a member of Hillary Clinton’s Gay Steering Committee. An effective plant too. He made the candidates look bad.
No matter what he does, Mitt Romney comes across as either 1) a guy saying anything to get elected; or 2) a total douchebag. Nice job on the Bible question there, Sparky. As far as I can tell, the only folks who support you are the religious folks and you blew that. And, for the love of God, don’t answer every question while staring at the camera. You’re freaking people out. Look at your moderator.
Thompson, P a u l and Giuliani seemed to be the only candidates who knew what they were talking about while the others seem to repeat talking points.
I think the question about why Republicans couldn’t get votes from blacks despite blacks often having conservative views was a good one. Of course, the counter to that is why can’t Democrats get the South?
Update: CNN really screwed up.
Also, it looked like Anderson Cooper was as annoyed with Romney as me. Boy, he rode him hard.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Anderson Cooper is gay as AIDS. These debates are so shitty because they can’t debate each other – they just answer gay questions that cnn picks.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I really liked Huckabee. For the first time, he looked presidential.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I thought Ron did well with the few questions they asked him, and with the last comment knocked it out of the park! But the man never said he was a great debater.
The MSM still lists his supporters as a minority, we will just see what the minority vote looks like in less than 30 days!
When the early numbers come in and Feb 5th approaches just keep one thing in mind:
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds”
Benjamin Franklin.
Keep the faith!
BT
November 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Turns out that four of the questions selected were put up by dem ops. What a suprise. Malkin has the proof.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Why is everyone calling the gay guy a retired general? From what I saw, he’s a retired colonel.
The general thing comes from the state guard, which means squat.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Paul self-destructed
November 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Where do you feel Dr. Paul self destructed?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
So Uncle, et al, are you saying that you base your support of a candidate on their delivery of their message rather than the ideology of their message? Are you saying your would rather vote for a good public speaker such as Bill Clinton, in spite of their platform and what they stand for?
November 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
nope
November 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Who is Sparky and why does he have that nickname?
November 29th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
So Uncle, et al, are you saying that you base your support of a candidate on their delivery of their message rather than the ideology of their message?
Not entirely, but someone who can’t articulate his position very well isn’t going to be very successful at pushing my issues. Look at George W. Bush if you want an example. Ideology matters, but without delivery, it won’t matter much. Politics is a lot more about delivery than ideology, unfortunately.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
“No matter what he does, Mitt Romney comes across as either 1) a guy saying anything to get elected; or 2) a total douchebag”
How about; “Mitt Romney comes across as a total douchebag who’ll say anything to get elected”? Mitt’s as worthless as tits on a chicken.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Personally I found it distasteful that he kept going over his time limits, and I’m going to vote for the guy.
He’s got to stop trying to push the “end foreign occupation” mantra at the beginning and end of every question.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
**WARNING – RON PAUL SUPPORTER POST – NEO CONS PLEASE DISREGUARD – NOTHING TO SEE HERE**
Every candidate went over their time, please re-watch the debate. Somehow in the two questions Dr. Paul was asked you felt out of the line up, he was the one that over stepped his bounds?
His only mistake I could detect in three viewings is he says he is not an isolationism and then restates isolationist. So I guess that is where he self destructed.
I am glad that you are voting for him Justin, but the fact is he is in the political arena and 70% of Americans support the idea of leaving Iraq, and thus it is very important to restate his ideas as he gets zero positive media coverage, unlike all other pro corporate,pro war, pro spending candidates and has to pick his shots when he is actually getting unbiased media time.
The fun will begin soon watching the neo cons scramble as the Ron Paul faithful declare in one voice that they will support Dr. Paul even as a write in and ruin any chance for the same old same old pro war neo con in the White House, and simply giving them the choice of Dr. Paul or Hillary. This will be the turning point, unless of course the Ron Paul supporters are not the minority the media plays us out to be and the primaries tell the tale.
The one question I wanted answered is how the neo con war mongers planned to pay for the continuing war? How were they planning on saving social security when it is backed by a dollar that is at an all time low?
If anyone that truly cares about their families future I urge you to read Ron Paul’s book “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” and you will be converted in the first 5 chapters as the things Dr. Paul stated in the 70s apply to the fall of the dollar and issues that we face today, and in 30 years of politics has not changed his views based on big business.
RON PAUL 2008!
November 30th, 2007 at 3:13 am
blounttruth Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
**WARNING – RON PAUL SUPPORTER POST – NEO CONS PLEASE DISREGUARD – NOTHING TO SEE HERE**
You’ve got a real hangup on the term “neo-con”. Maybe you could be so kind as to explain what a “neo-con” is, if you can.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
There are many official definitions of Neoconservative, but I would rather try and put it in simple terms about the movement and the present administration.
NEOCONSERVATIVE: Liberals that leaned conservative post cold war, with a desire of world domination. To govern their subjects by removing their rights and dominating them as opposed to governing them, with the illusion that their social status bestows that right upon them.
Don’t get me wrong, I know that the movement came from Liberals, but the fact is that over the last 25 years the movement has evolved into a George Bush/Hillary Clinton mix. That is why the Liberal congress was thought to be a huge up swing on the left, but then they found out that their hero’s were really in bed with the fake conservatives and hence nothing has changed, nor will anything change if any on the right or many on the left are put into office, as they love the power that it would give them, not to mention the cooperate pandering. So in today’s political arena, Republicans and Democrats often share the same ideals that have been brought on from the Neoconservative movement, but none are the ideals of the traditional conservative of the past.
This movement has been shifted around over many years, and represents as many ideals as the so called two party systems. The truth is depending on the individual they have free reign to “make it up as they go”, but they all feel that government domination is the only way to govern the populace.
The official definition is different and general in that it states the genesis of the movement, but history is yet to be written as to how the movement came into its own with G.W. Bush in office. The lies and deceit from his first term campaign trail, to the second term all out lies and secrecy, while trying to methodically destroy and re-write the Constitution. I feel it will only be a few years before history shows that the present administration hijacked the conservatives and used the support to push this new idea. I am not sure if they will be labeled neo conservatives in the history books, or if they will invent a new term to identify the group that attempted to destroy the true conservative movement.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
The fun will begin soon watching the neo cons scramble as the Ron Paul faithful declare in one voice that they will support Dr. Paul even as a write in and ruin any chance for the same old same old pro war neo con in the White House, and simply giving them the choice of Dr. Paul or Hillary. This will be the turning point, unless of course the Ron Paul supporters are not the minority the media plays us out to be and the primaries tell the tale.
You are very much in the minority, and I’ve been listening to libertarians say they are going to change the world for a decade now, and it’s always a fizzle. If Ron Paul wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him. Hell, I might even vote for him in the primaries if it comes down to him and Rudy or Mitt the Shit. But there’s a reason libertarians lose, and it has a lot to do with the crap I’m seeing here.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
His explanation is a prime example of how libertarians have never been willing to build a political movement a lot of people could live under. They are about feeling good about themselves by wrapping their movement in their comforting blanket of ideological purity. It feels good to be better, and more freedom loving than everyone else doesn’t it?
It might feel good, but it doesn’t win elections. And I’m being an ass about this because I like a lot of libertarian ideas, and would like to see them get traction, but libertarians aren’t willing to seriously engage in the political process, so neither political party takes libertarian ideas seriously. Built a tent a lot of people want to stay under. That’s the only way you’re going to get your ideas taken seriously.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“NEOCONSERVATIVE: Liberals that leaned conservative post cold war, with a desire of world domination. To govern their subjects by removing their rights and dominating them as opposed to governing them, with the illusion that their social status bestows that right upon them.”
Uh, that describes liberals, who’re anything but conservative. I could’nt make heads or tails out of the rest of your post as it wanders around more than a mountain trail.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
“and it has a lot to do with the crap I’m seeing here”
Which is?
“It feels good to be better, and more freedom loving than everyone else doesn’t it?”
Damned skippy it does and I will never apologize for my convictions to anyone. You may be an authority on Libertarian campaigns of the past, but this is unlike anything in history that you or anyone else has ever seen, and that is a fact!
“might feel good, but it doesn’t win elections. And I’m being an ass about this because I like a lot of libertarian ideas, and would like to see them get traction, but libertarians aren’t willing to seriously engage in the political process”
Where has this campaign failed to seriously engage the political process? Was it when Dr. Paul set a single day fund raising drive record of 4.3 million dollars? When did the last un-serious libertarian candidate pull that off? Received the most military contributions of any candidate on either side of the isle, has supporters from all parties, all walks of life, all colors and religions.
Take note that the fund raising drives, Ron Paul blimp, most yard signs, meet up groups and so on cost the campaign ZERO, who was the last Libertarian that had that kind of following, oh, you say no one? 10 million cash on hand and zero in debt, another massive money drive on November 16th, the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (be sure and look for the blimp, as millions will get to see the good doctors name even with the media blackout).
No sir, I do not accept that this is a campaign of people that “aren’t willing to seriously engage in the political process”, and if you did some reading you would find that this is far from just another campaign, but rather a movement to change this country and I will continue to say it. I would rather say it now and be called a kook and win then to back away from it and try to fully enjoy the victory from the side of doubt. I don’t have anything left to loose, but the few constitutional rights and paychecks.
November 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Sorry Cactus jack, I tried to explain it as best I could:
“Uh, that describes liberals”
Exactly right, the neo cons started as Liberals (like I stated) and moved towards a more conservative view point. You did want my definition, right?
“who’re anything but conservative”
Common Jack, seems you understood more than you were letting on! They were Libs that moved to a more conservative way of thinking or more distorted way in their case, and that is why gas is 5 dollars a gallon and the dollar is worth 10 cents less than the brown stain in your drawers. With me so far?
To make things a touch easier I will post an exert about the beginning of the neo con movement and hopefully better explain it to you, as I was trying to give you a definition, but the post is actually an essay on the beginnings of the movement itself:
A neo-conservative (abbreviated as neo-con or neocon) is part of a U.S. based political movement rooted in liberal Cold War anticommunism and a backlash to the social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s. These liberals drifted toward conservatism: thus they are new (neo) conservatives. They favor an aggressive unilateral U.S. foreign policy. They generally believe that elites protect democracy from mob rule. Sometimes the spelling is “neoconservative.”
You had the right mountain trail, you just mounted the wrong mule. Liberals from the 60s that were anti communist that started swaying towards conservatism (obviously in their older age of reason), which slowly but surely distorted the true American conservative political party to what we have today. To further assist in your learning about this movement please go to:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservative
This should help really understand where bush and the others are coming from, and you may just determine after the read that Hillary is the true leader and G.W. Bush is just a Cheney whipping boy to push the limits of parties constitutional boundaries, but make no mistake, the changes that have been made are positive in the eyes of the candidates drooling to take over and use the new powers appointed by Mr. Bush, all but Dr. Paul that is.