Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is sort of a "we own the world" mentality that bugs me. Such arrogance! "We can bomb who we want anytime we want. And overthrow governments" etc..."The world is our chess board and we rule all! And we always know best" etc...Ron Paul tried to point some of this out. (Good for him!) And Huntsman always came back to strengthening our own country first...We don't need to get involved in another war right now. And we don't really "own the world!"...All of this arrogance may not come across too well to people in other countries! A little more tact and diplomacy and modesty is needed!
I looked for questions to be answered, and I thought by far Newt did that the best, Huntsman was all over the place for me, he made the debate too much about strengthening the U.S and not about national security. I understand how important a strong U.S is, I think everybody does. I thought on foreign policy with questions about Pakistan and Syria, Newt killed them all with his knowledge. Didn't Huntsman get one of last questions and wasn't it on Egypt? His answer didn't even come close to answering the question. I'd put Bachman over Huntsman in that debate.
You're better off going to CNN.com and watching their videos of the top moments.
And then thank me for saving you from wasting 50 minutes of your time.
Good advice. "No Guts" Blitzer moderating a bunch of Heritage Foundation execs and cronies ask some talking point feeder questions, not much of a debate.
I think Cain got the least amount of time but he has the least grasp on the subject. If he'd had any MORE time it would have magnified his incompetence. The same thing goes for Perry to a degree.
Well I think Cain was breathing a sigh of relief everytime he didn't get a question.
Last edited by SoCalbound12; 11-23-2011 at 07:17 PM..
I looked for questions to be answered, and I thought by far Newt did that the best, Huntsman was all over the place for me, he made the debate too much about strengthening the U.S and not about national security. I understand how important a strong U.S is, I think everybody does. I thought on foreign policy with questions about Pakistan and Syria, Newt killed them all with his knowledge. Didn't Huntsman get one of last questions and wasn't it on Egypt? His answer didn't even come close to answering the question. I'd put Bachman over Huntsman in that debate.
You mean his "knowledge" that the 4th Amendment really isn't important and that we should expand the "Patriot" Act? Or his "knowledge" that we should "covertly" target civilian scientists in Iran so long as it's "deniable?" What about his "knowledge" that drives him to believe that the President can sign an executive order to assassinate US citizens, thus becoming prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner? I'm sure Freddie Mac found his "knowledge" as a "historian" invaluable, so invaluable they paid him 1.6 MILLION dollars. Also, the pharma lobby paid him handsomely as well. Gingrich also voted to create the Department of Education in 1978. He supported TARP. He referred to Paul Ryan's entitlement reform proposals as "right wing social engineering."
For a man with so much "knowledge" he's wrong so very often. Newt Gingrich is NOT a conservative, and he has no principles. He's thrice married, and cheated on both his previous wives. Over the course of his career in Congress he spoke a good game about shrinking government and reigning in federal control yet he so often voted to expand government power and increase spending. He's a chickenhawk statist.
I can't believe he's so egotistical as to actually run for President when he's such an unprincipled jerk and a loser. He can run around namedropping Pope PJII and making documentaries about him all he wants but he's nothing but an adulterer who claims the mantle of "pro-life" while advocating wars of aggression, assassination of US citizens, and the assassinations of civilians so long as it's "deniable."
I have this debate on DVR, is it worth watching or is it as stupid as the previous 10?
I'd say you'd be better off gazing at your cardboard cutout of Obama for an hour.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
huh?
