Republican candidates for 2012

• stlouiedipalma

  QuakerOats;887660 wrote:Why republicans continue to agree have the enemy asking the questions is curious. As a group, it is about time they tell the leftstream media to forget it.
  
  And, as an aside, I like the idea for tonight of not even responding to another obama redistribution speech -- that is a good move. Let the guy sink all the way on his own without pounding it in.

  believer;887692 wrote:Maybe the Repubs would be smart to let Fox News host their debates and then let moronic milquetoast anchors like Williams lob softballs at the Bammer and let the final Repub candidate answer the hard ball questions.
  
  I'm glad the Repubs are not doing a rebuttal on Barry's desperation speech tonight. If it pisses off Nancy Pelosi, it has to be a great move!

  
  Hey, guys, that sounds like a novel idea! The Republicans will only talk to "news organizations" friendly to them and their "cause". I think Sharron Angle beat you to this last fall when she ignored all but Fox and the Christian Science Monitor. It worked so well for her that....OMG, she LOST???
  
  I guess the only thing left is to refuse to participate in any debates. That would be in keeping with the great Republican strategy of allowing the economy to tank until the next Republican wins the Presidency. Good luck with that.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  BGFalcons82;888752 wrote:Awesome responses by Herman Cain in the face of lame arguments - http://nation.foxnews.com/herman-cain/2011/09/08/herman-cain-schools-entire-nbc-news-panel
  
  Hey Sergeant Schultz - Can you beat that class warfare drum any louder? What he fails to realize that in Cain's 9-9-9 plan, the last "9" is a retail tax. This means even the evil scum rotten rich must pay 9% on every yacht, Mercedes, and sterling silver set they purchase. It also means the drug dealers, income-tax evaders, foreigners, and money-launderers have to pay their 9% as well if they plan on eating, driving, smoking, etc. Wonder how much $$ that creates, Schultz???
  
  I'm seriously considering Herman right now. Every time he says something, I find myself agreeing more and more. Hell, team up with Colin Powell and let him have domain over foreign policy as a VP. Might be unconstitutional, but we're living in that realm right now with Barry.

  I didn't tune in for any of the commentary after the debate but I was told that Reverend Al was on the panel for MSNBC. That is hilarious.
• stlouiedipalma

  QuakerOats;887660 wrote:Why republicans continue to agree have the enemy asking the questions is curious. As a group, it is about time they tell the leftstream media to forget it.
  
  And, as an aside, I like the idea for tonight of not even responding to another obama redistribution speech -- that is a good move. Let the guy sink all the way on his own without pounding it in.

  bigdaddy2003;889433 wrote:I didn't tune in for any of the commentary after the debate but I was told that Reverend Al was on the panel for MSNBC. That is hilarious.

  
  "I was told"...what a laugher. Why don't you just admit you watched him?
• bigdaddy2003

  

  stlouiedipalma;889435 wrote:"I was told"...what a laugher. Why don't you just admit you watched him?

  I didn't watch it trust me. I knew it would just be people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz sitting around a table talking about how racist and stupid the candidates were.
• stlouiedipalma

  bigdaddy2003;889439 wrote:I didn't watch it trust me. I knew it would just be people like Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz sitting around a table talking about how racist and stupid the candidates were.

  
  Of course you didn't (wink, wink). And I never listen to Rush or watch Bill and Sean either (wink, wink).
• bigdaddy2003

  

  stlouiedipalma;889442 wrote:Of course you didn't (wink, wink). And I never listen to Rush or watch Bill and Sean either (wink, wink).

  Well I seriously didn't watch it but no reason to argue about it. Having Sharpton on a panel is laughable though.
• stlouiedipalma

  bigdaddy2003;889445 wrote:Well I seriously didn't watch it but no reason to argue about it. Having Sharpton on a panel is laughable though.

  
  Nah, just trying to get some shit started. Actually I do listen to Rush a few minutes each day on the 50,000 watt blowtorch KMOX.
  
  I seriously wonder what the hell the execs at MSNBC were thinking when they gave Sharpton his own show. I can't take his delivery.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  stlouiedipalma;889447 wrote:Nah, just trying to get some shit started. Actually I do listen to Rush a few minutes each day on the 50,000 watt blowtorch KMOX.
  
  I seriously wonder what the hell the execs at MSNBC were thinking when they gave Sharpton his own show. I can't take his delivery.

  Wow didn't know he had his own show. That is crazy.
• Skyhook79

  

  stlouiedipalma;889432 wrote:Hey, guys, that sounds like a novel idea! The Republicans will only talk to "news organizations" friendly to them and their "cause". I think Sharron Angle beat you to this last fall when she ignored all but Fox and the Christian Science Monitor. It worked so well for her that....OMG, she LOST???
  
  I guess the only thing left is to refuse to participate in any debates. That would be in keeping with the great Republican strategy of allowing the economy to tank until the next Republican wins the Presidency. Good luck with that.

  Yeah it couldn't have been Sharron Angle lost because Harry Reid received 90%+ of the latino vote in Nevada, which makes up 12% of the Electorate.
• Ty Webb

  

  I'm watching the Republican Debate....Romney just gave Bachman a fucking death stare thinking something like "Dont fuck with me bitch"
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Romney is a white Obama. Both parties are the same. They all make sick except Paul, although I do like this Cain guy. I don't think I would vote for him for president, but I like some of his ideas and how he presents them.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I'd definitely vote for Cain.
• I Wear Pants

  [video=youtubefBKKh0C2eo][/video]
  
  Santorum is a fucking douche.
• pmoney25

  

  Ron paul is too smart for the general public, thats why he won't win. We vote for charisma instead of character. its interesting to read the comments on the youtube videos. People from all parts of the world want him to win and wish he was running in their country.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Paul is done. He might make a good economic counsel, but there is nothing in him that even begins to reek leadership. The GOP debates have been little more than a debacle. If the current administration wasn't so incompetent it would be a complete farce.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I like what Santorum said.
• Skyhook79

  

  pmoney25;894089 wrote:Ron paul is too smart for the general public, thats why he won't win. We vote for charisma instead of character. its interesting to read the comments on the youtube videos. People from all parts of the world want him to win and wish he was running in their country.

  Of course they do because they know it would be anything goes in the World because Ron Paul isn't sending troops anywhere and they could smoke dope and do heroin without consequence.
• I Wear Pants

  Skyhook79;894304 wrote:Of course they do because they know it would be anything goes in the World because Ron Paul isn't sending troops anywhere and they could smoke dope and do heroin without consequence.

  Oh no! People are going to do drugs, better get our military ready to stop them!
  
  I really hope you were trolling there.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;894098 wrote:Paul is done. He might make a good economic counsel, but there is nothing in him that even begins to reek leadership. The GOP debates have been little more than a debacle. If the current administration wasn't so incompetent it would be a complete farce.

  Did I hear Ron Paul claim that the United States caused 9-11 last night? If he believes this, then he agrees with Bin Laden's reason for murdering Americans.
  
  This is why he'll never get my vote, as much as I agree with him economically.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BGFalcons82;894383 wrote:Did I hear Ron Paul claim that the United States caused 9-11 last night? If he believes this, then he agrees with Bin Laden's reason for murdering Americans.
  
  This is why he'll never get my vote, as much as I agree with him economically.

  I heard him explain why Bin Laden and the Muslims hate us. If you heard him blame 9/11 on America then you heard what you wanted to.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Cleveland Buck;894409 wrote:I heard him explain why Bin Laden and the Muslims hate us. If you heard him blame 9/11 on America then you heard what you wanted to.

  Nope, I don't think he's blaming America first, but there was a hint of it last night and on his website that Santorum referenced.
  
  We don't need another damn apologist as President. We don't need our leader blaming the USA for the world's ills. We don't need another President downgrading American Exceptionalism. We've got that now and we don't need Obama Lite.
  
  I agree we need to close some bases, GTFO of Afghanistan, and trim military spending on wars we've been fighting and the new one in Libya. Having written that, we don't need to shut down our operations around the globe, tell Israel to F-off, wish Kim Jong Il the best of luck, let Achmedinejad do whatever he pleases since he's not directly threatening us, and forget about our place in the world as Reagan's shining city on the hill. Mr. Paul would bring a brand new style of danger to America's foreign policy and for that reason alone, he can't be elected to be leader of the free world. I know you and others like him, but his is not the way to a safer planet.
• bigdaddy2003

  

  I really dig Ron Paul's economic ideas but he will never get the nod and he did kind of blame America. He doesn't believe in meddling in overseas affairs. He didn't come right out and say it but you can tell he does kind of believe it to be true.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;894467 wrote:Nope, I don't think he's blaming America first, but there was a hint of it last night and on his website that Santorum referenced.
  
  We don't need another damn apologist as President. We don't need our leader blaming the USA for the world's ills. We don't need another President downgrading American Exceptionalism. We've got that now and we don't need Obama Lite.
  
  I agree we need to close some bases, GTFO of Afghanistan, and trim military spending on wars we've been fighting and the new one in Libya. Having written that, we don't need to shut down our operations around the globe, tell Israel to F-off, wish Kim Jong Il the best of luck, let Achmedinejad do whatever he pleases since he's not directly threatening us, and forget about our place in the world as Reagan's shining city on the hill. Mr. Paul would bring a brand new style of danger to America's foreign policy and for that reason alone, he can't be elected to be leader of the free world. I know you and others like him, but his is not the way to a safer planet.

  
  +1000000
• Skyhook79

  

  I Wear Pants;894352 wrote:Oh no! People are going to do drugs, better get our military ready to stop them!
  
  I really hope you were trolling there.

  
  Who said anything about sending the military to stop people from doing drugs?
• Ty Webb

  

  Only two I would ever vote for are Hermain Cain and Jon Huntsman