US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-29-2007, 08:16 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Huck will be the nominee I think.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-29-2007, 08:22 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:33 AM
I still think Giuliani has the best shot with the early primaries on Feb 5.

I think Huckabee will do better than Thompson. and Romney will make some decent showings in some primaries, but will not be able to capture the nomination

it is possible we could go in to the GOP convention with no candidate having the delegates to cinch the nomination






_______________________________
if I had a sig - this might be it


__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-29-2007, 08:25 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Giuliani and Huckabee are the frontrunners now, with Romney and Paul a good distance back, and the other guys with no chance.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-30-2007, 03:24 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michelle Malkin
Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers ....
Jay Tea was one of several to complain, writing at the blog Wizbang: "Those were good, solid questions. But CNN, by playing by completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm and evade, or give concrete answers that won't make some people very happy."

Quote:
CNN's Feist said, conservative commentators did not complain when questioners who shared their political ideology had videos aired during the Democratic forum in July.

During that session, one video questioner asked the candidates to choose between raising taxes or cutting benefits in order to save Social Security. Another demanded to know whether taxes would rise "like usually they do when a Democrat comes in office." A third featured a gun-toting Michigan man, who in an interview Thursday said he had voted twice for President Bush, who wanted to know if the Democrats would protect his "baby" -- an assault rifle he cradled in his arms.

Another questioner from that forum who seemed to have clear conservative credentials was John McAlpin, a sailor who asked Clinton: "How do you think you would be taken seriously" by Arab and Muslim nations that treat women as "second-class citizens"?

McAlpin's MySpace page features pictures of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate.

It depicts Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly as a friend, while offering a caricature of a bearded, turban-wearing "Borat Hussein Obama" -- a derogatory reference to Obama, the Democratic candidate who as a youth attended a Muslim school.
So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:02 PM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
So are Conservatives just a bunch of whining little babies?
Bingo.

And that women Malkin (sp?) misses the point. A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-30-2007, 04:08 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:33 AM
It was rigged, it was rigged






Conservatives = :crybaby: with this one.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:06 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,252
Local Time: 12:33 PM
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:20 AM   #38
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
Because he's no longer president?

I thought it was bullshit then, and I think it's bullshit now.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:28 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 11:33 AM
I wasn't as into politics then (or I was a bit young to really pay attention, depending on when it was), but I don't agree with that, either. My guess is Clinton was trying to cater to the Republicans with that, to help placate them so they wouldn't get as upset whenever he did something that would cater to the Democrats. I personally would've just said, "Screw it, I'm not getting involved in this", but I'm not president, so...*Shrugs*.

But yeah, if you do anything that shows discrimination towards gays, I think it's stupid no matter who you are.

Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26
A Republican president still has to rule a nation divided along political lines. "Leaving them to squirm and evade" isn't the fault of the questioner. If the candidate cannot give a good answer to an important issue, that's the problem of the candidate.
Exactly. I don't care what party you belong to, if you can't give a good response to a question, then that's your issue to deal with, and it makes me wonder why you're even in politics in the first place. I've had to listen to people complain for years that the media isn't getting tough on the candidates, that they're not asking the important questions, and yet when they finally do get tough, people complain about that. Same thing is happening with the Democrats. If they back down from a debate, they're called spineless, if they fight back, people complain that they're being bullies. What do you want, people?

Quote:
the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good;
Psst...Michelle Malkin...the Republicans have done that, too. Both sides are guilty of this. And I think it's wrong either way, but politics is dirty and that sort of thing is going to happen.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 12-01-2007, 01:48 AM   #40
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 09:33 AM
As far as I remember, the Don't Ask thing was a modernization of the policy of actively looking for and routing gays out of the service. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

It was nearly a decade ago. We were all younger then. : old:
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:17 AM   #41
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
It was babysteps, and it's bullshit that no one has done anything since...

But like always, you are missing context.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:40 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 11:33 AM
BVS is right. DADT was trying to take a step in the right direction, as opposed to doing nothing. That's the thing, if the Clinton admin takes a "must allow gays, period" to the military, they scoff. He can't get it passed through congress, he was in a world of hurt at the time. 1994 was when the Reps took congress and held until last year. I don't believe he had the authority to change it on his own and if he did, the political fallout from forcing the military's hand would have been even worse for him, at the time a pretty weak President.

I think Clinton should be applauded for trying to get something done. He said, "look, if this person isn't trying to cause trouble, leave them alone, let them serve" not perfect but it was better than the altervative, status quo.

As Martha said, the status quo, as far as I understand was to actively root out gays. What that entailed, not exactly sure. My guess is if solider X thinks Joe over in the next bunk is gay, he might be able to 'report' him in some manner without much warrant, whereas, it seems to me that the policy now is anything short of Joe coming out and proclaiming how fabulous Judy Garland is ( :; flaunting) that he should be left alone to serve, even if they have suspicions or outright knowledge. I don't know for sure though.


It's exactly the kind of compromise we need now. Leaves people unhappy, yes, but gets some shit done until the next step can be taken. We can't get a decent immigration policy for this very reason, nobody is willing to take the hit to compromise. One side wants a basic amnesty, another wants something just short of rounding them up and building a wall, and we all now the policy will be somewhere in the middle. I'll applaud whoever gets that done as well, even Georgey Chimpnuts Bush.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 02:49 AM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 11:33 AM
Compromise isn't a dirty word...

Unfortunately that's the way it works...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-01-2007, 05:55 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 01:33 PM
Actually Don't Ask Don't Tell was passed in 1993, a good year before the Republicans took over the House. So much as I like to point out the failings of the Republicans, this was a policy adopted by a Democratic President with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. Clinton came in promising to lift the ban, Congress and the Military blew a gasket and Clinton caved with the compromise. This policy belongs to the Democrats.

In somewhat of a defense for Clinton, decisions like this had in the past been made by Executive Order and he undestandingly expected he could change policy with the sweep of a pen, but Congress stepped in. Clinton caved either because he thought this was the best he could get or he wasn't about to make this THE fight of his Presidency.

Better than outright ban, yeah. But ultimately a joke.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-01-2007, 10:43 AM   #45
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Why is it that when the topic of gays in the military comes up, I never hear any of you attack Bill Clinton for signing DADT, only the "bigoted, heartless Republicans?"
Great point, really. Will they call Bill the 'first gentleman'?

Yet another reason to support Dennis Kucinich.
__________________

__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com