Security and immigration GOP debate

Security and immigration GOP debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 8:40:21 PM)
Winners/Losers: Everyone presented a clear, well thought out position on security and immigration. They were all on similar pages except Ron Paul, who was the only signficant loser. He was destroyed by Gingrich with the McVeigh succeeded response and Paul looked like he was going to cry, he looked disoriented most of the night, and his message could only appeal to the smallest fringe of libertarians. The Paulie's will continue to fund his futile effort but his chances turned from slim to none. The GOP approach against Obama was also laid out very clearly, and anyone will be able to implement it because he has been such a poor representative of the US. His only successes, killing bin Laden and a couple of other radical Muslim leaders, will be easily blunted because they were accomplished using policies that he campaigned against, and the "bravery" of his decisions is an asinine argument. The potential downside for passing on bin Laden was being laughed out of office, instead of what will be a tight popular vote (but not that tight electoral vote). Romney and Gingrich should have started to distance themselves, just by virtue of the fact that they made no mistakes and supporters of the rest of the field should be recognizing that their candidate has little chance. Huntsman should get a small bump because the depth of his foreign policy experience came through, but he's just too far behind and lacks credibility on other issues to make a big move.

Owner59 -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:18:22 PM)
How about we out-law veiled terroristic threats here in America that inspire cons/nuts to shoot at the White House and congress-people?

TheHeretic -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Huntsman should get a small bump because the depth of his foreign policy experience came through, but he's just too far behind and lacks credibility on other issues to make a big move. I'm not so sure, Wilbur. This has been a "doorknob" primary campaign so far. Everybody gets a turn.

tazzygirl -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:34:28 PM)
I adored Chris Matthews reaction to Colbert when he asked if Gingrich will become President... "HA!" Priceless!!

Hillwilliam -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:37:09 PM)
So, wilbur, Huntsman for Veep or do you still like Rubio?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:37:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Huntsman should get a small bump because the depth of his foreign policy experience came through, but he's just too far behind and lacks credibility on other issues to make a big move. I'm not so sure, Wilbur. This has been a "doorknob" primary campaign so far. Everybody gets a turn. Its getting too close to Iowa for much of a move, I think. A breakthrough in Iowa would be needed and its unlikely with Cain and Paul both running strongly, and Romney/Newt sitting pretty well too. He has no shot of doing anything in New Hampshire and if he isnt top 3 in either he's toast.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:43:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam So, wilbur, Huntsman for Veep or do you still like Rubio? If its Romney on top its Rubio. The fit is just too good. If it's Newt on top I think Rubio is still the favorite but not a lock, mainly because if he has a strong preference for someone else he'll tell the party to fuck off. I dont see Huntsman having any strategic advantage for Newt either. He has plenty of foreign policy credibility of his own and don't see where Huntsman would deliver any particular segment that Newt would miss, unless its the religious right...don't know enough about Huntsman from that angle.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:46:07 PM)
You realize of course they'll end up finding someone that neither of us have heard of.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 9:48:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam You realize of course they'll end up finding someone that neither of us have heard of. I doubt it. McCain had to pull a rabbit out of his hat because the GOP was so far behind and the trick almost worked. Push off the housing collapse 3 months and the whole scenario is different.

SternSkipper -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 11:01:26 PM)
quote: doubt it. McCain had to pull a rabbit out of his hat because the GOP was so far behind and the trick almost worked. Thus proving my theory about the relationship between the republican intellect and your garden variety fence post. Here's what happened at the debate... they all agree we need a new fence. One wants to get everybody high but is too big a pussy to say legalization, and they made goddamned sure they called each of the president's successes failures, and their WHOLE STORY was drown out by a president saying "no, no, no, It's okay "to a very small group of protesters ... My Friend and Colleague Aloak used to have a band called the Tragically Hip... Tonight's non-event was the debut of the Tragically Unhip. And you'd barely know there was an audience present.

SternSkipper -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/22/2011 11:05:06 PM)
quote: don't know enough about Huntsman from that angle. If it's Huntsman it'll be Sinatra in his performance in The Manchurian Candidate... And everybody will be so astonished that they won't even notice Fran is DEAD. They'll be too busy wondering how the guy got all three of his daughters to do up skirt shots simultaneously, securing the nomination.

slvemike4u -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 5:00:24 AM)
Gingrich helped himself last night,Paul committed political suicide in front of the nation( well at least those portions interested enough to see who gets voted off the island...lol). Bachmann continued her slide to complete irrelevance by repeating her claim of outsourcing CIA interrogations to the ACLU....and than bitching about the underwear bomber being Mirandized....she made some comment about the incredulity of him receiving his warning within 45 minutes of being thwarted/ arrested...and I wanted to reach thru the flat panel and smack her in the face. She was upset about it being done,while I was willing to concede that the 45 minute lag time was due to a delay in "proper" law enforcement personal taking him into custody.She bitched that terrorists have no rights...which may make a nice sound bite, for the bloodthirsty amongst us, but otherwise scares the shit out of actual thinking Americans. So to recap,Bachmann is of the opinion that a suspect taken into custody by law enforcement can somehow "lose" his rights based on the type of crime he just might be guilty of. Now this would of course tie our criminal justice system into knots as those sworn to uphold it are faced with the legal obligation of letting potential mass murderers walk out of their courtrooms or violate every oath they ever took and every legal principal they ever held dear. So we had two,no let's make it three( Santorum is so dead they are awaiting a medical professional to pronounce it ) clear losers....with Huntsman and Cain( no foreign policy gravitas at all...his answer to everything is that we should gather all the information....and than make the decision....very deep thinking Herman) circling the drain.....round and round they go,waiting to be sucked down.Perry is a non factor and has been since he failed to remember those three departments.

tazzygirl -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 5:05:16 AM)
On security, sure Gingrich probably did help himself... on immigration.. not so much. his plan brought out cries of amnesty from others... not that I agree with the others.

slvemike4u -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 5:09:36 AM)
See,isn't that called perspective[:)] You are of course right Tazzy,here I sit...a thinking,compassionate man and I found what he had to say concerning immigration to be reasoned,nuanced and intelligent.....completely forgetting that what he is competing for is the REPUBLICAN nomination...and they are not looking for any of those things...especially not in the area of immigration .

tazzygirl -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 5:11:05 AM)
.

slvemike4u -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 5:13:30 AM)
Please see my previous post.....lol

mnottertail -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 6:47:01 AM)
Well Gingrich with his path to legality for classes of undocumented workers cooked his shit with the party faithful, so he's gonna auger in now....

hot4bondage -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 7:49:33 AM)
Ron Paul likes to mention McVeigh to reinforce his argument against profiling. Taking that reference out of context, Gingrich succeeded at getting applause but inadvertently helped make Ron Paul's point. McVeigh doesn't fit the stereotype, so profiling is not only unconstitutional and racist, it is bad policy. "We can have security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights."

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 7:58:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hot4bondage Ron Paul likes to mention McVeigh to reinforce his argument against profiling. Taking that reference out of context, Gingrich succeeded at getting applause but inadvertently helped make Ron Paul's point. McVeigh doesn't fit the stereotype, so profiling is not only unconstitutional and racist, it is bad policy. "We can have security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights." The specific topic at the time was the Patriot Act, though, not profiling. The Patriot Act didn't exist at the time and it was inserted by RP at the wrong time. Would McVeigh have been stopped under the PA? Unlikely. As far as NG's immigration stance goes, I wish liberals would stop pretending that they know how conservatives think and what they will or wont like. It is an absolute fact that no one is ever going to agree to deport someone who was brought here as a child or came 25 years ago, has ties to the community and no criminal record. EVERY CONSERVATIVE knows that and accepts that. Laying that and the policies that will address those who are practically deportable and those who arent HELPED him with conservatives it didnt hurt him.

mnottertail -> RE: Security and immigration GOP debate (11/23/2011 8:02:53 AM)
Liberals as well as real and reasoned conservatives know that in todays lot of 'conservative' mummerists, comprising some 98%+ of the party, they don't think whatsoever.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125