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.
Seriously? You want to compare serial cheaters? Gays that were forced out of the closet? Old men paying hush money to diddle little boys?
I note you call out only Democrats but pretend to be concerned about the 'morals on both sides of the aisle. Imagine if Michelle Obama had killed a man whilst in her teen-age years. Can you imagine?
The only people using the deaths in Sandy Hook are those complete RIGHT WING morons who to this day continue to believe it was all a hoax. And - troll some of the mothers of the dead online.
Sorry. You have no moral authority here.
I listed Democrats in response to a poster claiming the moral high ground over republicans. The fact that you cannot handle that does not diminish the fact that I clearly stated that both sides of the aisle have degenerates and morally bankrupt elected officials. Too bad you can't get out of your own way to see that.
The fact that you deny the truth that the left uses Sandy Hook to push their anti-gun agenda by focusing on a fringe element that think it was a hoax, shows how desperate you are to ignore the facts that are right in front of you.
Laura Bush is not an elected official, and had Michelle Obama experienced a similar tragedy in her teen years, I would hold the same compassion for her as I do for Mrs. Bush and the family of the young man that was struck and killed. The family, you should know, who NEVER blamed Mrs. Bush for the tragedy and told her that her apology to the family was not necessary as the tragedy was the result of an accident and was nothing she could have changed.
How sad that you have to bring up a death of a young man to make your point. Hmmm, I smell irony.
60 people in embassies died under Bush's watch
200 people were killed in the 1998 United States embassy bombings under Bill Clinton's watch.
63 people in US embassy in Beirut and another 299 American and French servicemen died 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, under Reagan's watch.
So, in your mind, this makes what happened in Benghazi alright?
I listed Democrats in response to a poster claiming the moral high ground over republicans. The fact that you cannot handle that does not diminish the fact that I clearly stated that both sides of the aisle have degenerates and morally bankrupt elected officials. Too bad you can't get out of your own way to see that.
The fact that you deny the truth that the left uses Sandy Hook to push their anti-gun agenda by focusing on a fringe element that think it was a hoax, shows how desperate you are to ignore the facts that are right in front of you.
Laura Bush is not an elected official, and had Michelle Obama experienced a similar tragedy in her teen years, I would hold the same compassion for her as I do for Mrs. Bush and the family of the young man that was struck and killed. The family, you should know, who NEVER blamed Mrs. Bush for the tragedy and told her that her apology to the family was not necessary as the tragedy was the result of an accident and was nothing she could have changed.
How sad that you have to bring up a death of a young man to make your point. Hmmm, I smell irony.
Awww. You brought up several dead children to make YOUR point so tell me - what does irony smell like?''
The "left' uses every senseless mass shooting to talk about what they see as the root cause.
So far - the ONLY thing we agree with is that both sides have corrupt officials. I see you still decline to name any on the Republican side.
Yeah, it was really out of line for the moderators to ask Ted Cruz if he was planning to shut down the government and lower the US' credit rating again.
It was really out of line to ask Trump and Carson how they planned to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
Those questions have absolutely nothing to do with the economy.
I guess that perception is everything or, in your case, misperception. You had your mind made up weeks before the "debate" without regard of answers given, just lie the so called moderators.
Misperception? Carson, Cruz and Rubio all sidestepped the very appropriate and legitimate questions. It is a matter of record that Carson was a spokesperson for company that claimed it could cure autism and cancer. Did he believe these claims to be true (which would make him a fool)? Or did he know they were false but decided to participate anyways (which would make him so greedy that he's not above preying on desperate people)? Or there some other angle I'm missing? I think it's reasonable to ask him to explain himself.
And then there's Cruz. Cruz isn't shy about the fact that he wants to cap the debt ceiling, which he knows would cause the US to default on its financial obligations. This would not only have disastrous results for our economy -- it would be terrible for the world (though I'm sure our Russian and Chinese "friends" would find a way to play it to their advantage and our detriment in the long run). I can see why a financial journalist would have some questions about that. Can't you?
I'm not sure about Rubio's past financial dealings. I don't know enough about it either way, but there is enough smoke there to investigate. Rubio should expect to have to explain himself. This is part of the vetting process all presidential hopefuls go through. What makes Rubio think he's exempt?
"The big bad world is out to get me" may play in Far Right Land, but in the real, adult world, that doesn't fly. These are reasonable questions the candidates should have expected to have to answer.
All's I know is that if you exploit the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi for a political gain, you do not deserve to be President. Or members of the House of Representatives. But that's just me, call me nuts.
Misperception? Carson, Cruz and Rubio all sidestepped the very appropriate and legitimate questions. It is a matter of record that Carson was a spokesperson for company that claimed it could cure autism and cancer. Did he believe these claims to be true (which would make him a fool)? Or did he know they were false but decided to participate anyways (which would make him so greedy that he's not above preying on desperate people)? Or there some other angle I'm missing? I think it's reasonable to ask him to explain himself.
And then there's Cruz. Cruz isn't shy about the fact that he wants to cap the debt ceiling, which he knows would cause the US to default on its financial obligations. This would not only have disastrous results for our economy -- it would be terrible for the world (though I'm sure our Russian and Chinese "friends" would find a way to play it to their advantage and our detriment in the long run). I can see why a financial journalist would have some questions about that. Can't you?
I'm not sure about Rubio's past financial dealings. I don't know enough about it either way, but there is enough smoke there to investigate. Rubio should expect to have to explain himself. This is part of the vetting process all presidential hopefuls go through. What makes Rubio think he's exempt?
"The big bad world is out to get me" may play in Far Right Land, but in the real, adult world, that doesn't fly. These are reasonable questions the candidates should have expected to have to answer.
Posited that what you claim has a grain of truth, how come the democratic candidates never got a tough question? Democratic moderators? They were never challenged on their positions (which seem to change with every poll) or lay out specific policies.
BTW, since you support investigating when there is "smoke" it leads one to believe that you had no problem with the Hillary testimony and lies on Benghazi, correct?
And how often has Hillary claimed the vast right wing conspiracy is out to get her? Is this the real reason she avoids actual, unscripted questions when ever she can?
Perhaps you should remember to spread your critique to your own party too.
Yeah, it was really out of line for the moderators to ask Ted Cruz if he was planning to shut down the government and lower the US' credit rating again.
It was really out of line to ask Trump and Carson how they planned to pay for their proposed tax cuts.
Those questions have absolutely nothing to do with the economy.
Similar to how no one has asked how Bernie and Hillary are planning to pay for their give-a-way programs, never asked. But then the democrats would never allow a debate, as few of them as there are for democrats, to be about economics.
Posited that what you claim has a grain of truth, how come the democratic candidates never got a tough question? Democratic moderators? They were never challenged on their positions (which seem to change with every poll) or lay out specific policies.
They didn't? What do you call this?
To Secretary Clinton: "You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
"Will you say anything to get elected?"
To Senator Sanders: "A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?"
To Gov. Chafee: "When you were senator from Rhode Island, you were a Republican. When you were elected governor, you were an independent. You've only been a Democrat for little more than two years. Why should Democratic voters trust you won't change again?"
To Gov. O'Malley: "The current top prosecutor in Baltimore, also a Democrat, blames your zero tolerance policies for sowing the seeds of unrest. Why should Americans trust you with the country when they see what's going on in the city that you ran for more than seven years?"
To Senator Webb: "in 2006, you called affirmative action "state-sponsored racism." In 2010, you wrote an op/ed saying it discriminates against whites. Given that nearly half the Democratic Party is non-white, aren't you out of step with where the Democratic Party is now?"
The GOP candidates would break down and cry if they got asked questions this tough.
To Secretary Clinton: "You were against same-sex marriage. Now you're for it. You defended President Obama's immigration policies. Now you say they're too harsh. You supported his trade deal dozen of times. You even called it the "gold standard". Now, suddenly, last week, you're against it.
"Will you say anything to get elected?"
To Senator Sanders: "A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?"
To Gov. Chafee: "When you were senator from Rhode Island, you were a Republican. When you were elected governor, you were an independent. You've only been a Democrat for little more than two years. Why should Democratic voters trust you won't change again?"
To Gov. O'Malley: "The current top prosecutor in Baltimore, also a Democrat, blames your zero tolerance policies for sowing the seeds of unrest. Why should Americans trust you with the country when they see what's going on in the city that you ran for more than seven years?"
To Senator Webb: "in 2006, you called affirmative action "state-sponsored racism." In 2010, you wrote an op/ed saying it discriminates against whites. Given that nearly half the Democratic Party is non-white, aren't you out of step with where the Democratic Party is now?"
The GOP candidates would break down and cry if they got asked questions this tough.
Why didn't they ask Sanders if Clinton has the moral authority to bring the country together or ask Hillary if she thinks her lies and cover ups going back to white water should not disqualify her to be president of the US?
Why didn't they ask Hillary why she supports anti-bullying campaigns and yet she demeaned and dismissed Juanita Broderick, and even called Paula Jones "Trailer trash," etc.
Why not ask Sander if he believes that the US needs to run more like Europe or more like Cuba?
Why not ask both candidates to explain why the other candidate should not be president or have Bernie defend a claim he made against Hillary during a campaign stop and vice-versa.
The GOP candidates did respond and answer questions that were on topic and not gotcha questions.
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.
