Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 18, 2018, 10:44:35 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: New features added! Click here for more information. Click here to configure new features.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  Election Archive
| | |-+  All Archived Boards
| | | |-+  2012 Elections
| | | | |-+  The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: The Official CNN/Tea Party Express Debate Discussion Thread  (Read 20487 times)
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« on: September 12, 2011, 07:09:48 pm »

Romney got a big kiss from Bachmann.  It looked to me like she tried to slip him a little tongue.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2011, 07:13:09 pm »

Newt:   The spirit of nine-twelve.  
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2011, 07:14:48 pm »

Social Security up first!

Bachman:  "President Obama stole money..."

Ouc.  First blood is drawn.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2011, 07:22:55 pm »

No Apology:  All Apologies.

I like cultural allusions, don't you?
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2011, 07:24:29 pm »

9/12 Newt is on a tear.  

I think he avoided masturbating today.  Or took some B12 supplement.  
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2011, 07:25:23 pm »

Privatize it!

At least there's something we can all agree on.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2011, 07:28:03 pm »

Wow.  Newt used the word "august"  The adjective, not the month.

Reckon Perry has a pocket dictionary?
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2011, 07:33:17 pm »

Oh, good.  Commercial break.  I need to pee.  And refill my glass.

Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2011, 07:39:13 pm »

Wolfgang is actually giving the others a chance to speak.  We didn't get this in the previous debate, which Brian allowed to be a two-man show.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2011, 07:42:16 pm »

nine.
nine.
nine.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2011, 07:47:03 pm »

RON PAUL.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2011, 07:51:20 pm »

Wait for it...wait...yep. Paul finds a way to reference Iraq/wars/foreign policy in a jobs question.

lol.  Fair enough.  In four of the five times he got to speak, he mentioned the defense budget.

Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2011, 07:54:14 pm »

We don't get any mention of Reagan till 40 minutes in.  That's weak.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2011, 08:03:00 pm »

When are they starting to bash the gays ?


How about bashing the Federal Reserve Board instead?

Personally, I think it's refreshing to see a presidential debate, in any party, that avoids issues that don't affect my pocketbook.  

You guys love to make fun of the Tea Party, but at least their questions are relevant.  None of this gay marriage or abortion or school prayer BS.  

This debate actually has some substance.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2011, 08:13:27 pm »

Rick Santorum put some stank on it!  Wow.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2011, 08:15:19 pm »

nine.
nine.
nine.

Damn!  I shoulda made "nine" my drinking word for tonight instead of "ponzi"
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2011, 08:19:53 pm »

So far, it's pretty much a draw between the Big Two, with folks like Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman, Cain, Santorum, and Newt--who names her child after an amphibian?  That's weird--all those guys advancing at the expense of Perry and Romney.  We'll have to look at the prediction thread and see who predicted this.  
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2011, 08:27:17 pm »

RON PAUL IS 100% RIGHT!!! 

Yes, grasshopper.  I've been preaching that on this forum for nearly eight years. 

Join us.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2011, 08:31:37 pm »

OH, snap!  The honorable Rick Santorum, for the third time tonight, bitch-slapped the honorable Rick Perry.  He's on a roll.

Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2011, 08:39:17 pm »

Marcus Huey:  "What will you do to ensure that US energy independence will finally become a reality."

Herman Cain:  "I will create a commission made of people who have been abused by the commission"

And the audience goes wild.


?!

Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2011, 08:44:12 pm »

RON PAUL.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2011, 08:55:30 pm »

Quite impressed with Bachmann tonight.

I was too.  And with Santorum.   And with Paul.  

This debate has been the best one so far, imho.  The top two have been weakened, Romney by his nuance, and Perry by is bravado.  Not that I don't like them.  I'd vote for a Romney/Perry ticket, and possibly even for a Perry/Romney ticket.  But this debate seems to have strengthened the weaker nominees and taken the frontrunners down a notch.

And that's what the GOP needs.  We have a penchant for strong, decisive, and confident leaders.  Leaders who never question their pre-conceived notions.

(This sh**t they're doing now is silly and irrelevant, so I'll exploit the opportunity to say something intelligent.  It's a CNN thing, no matter the moderator, and no matter whether it's a general or primary election debate.  Let them do it.  We'll use the chance to talk.  Joan Rivers style.)

What they're doing tonight is confusing the GOP.  Each party has its weaknesses.  With the Republicans, that weakness is fat-headedness.  Once in a while we need a debate which forces us to rethink.  

None of these candidates looked "presidential" tonight, but many of them said some intelligent things and it helps frame the debate.  IMHO, that's a good thing.

Was there a winner?  Yes, the Republican party is a winner tonight, by virtue of its confusion.  Hopefully, one or more of these candidates will pull his (or her) head out of his (or her) ass and figure out how to execute the office of President.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2011, 09:03:41 pm »

David Gergen is on now talking about how Romney is the superego of the GOP and Perry represents the id.  Of course he isn't using those hackneyed Freudian terms, but that's the gist of his analysis.  That cowardly analysis confirms my impression:  neither of the two "frontrunners" advanced tonight while the others had some soundbite-worthy moments of attack.

And I still contend that this is a good thing, both for the party and for the nation's public policies.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2011, 09:59:05 pm »

JohnnyLongtorso,

Not to sound like a broken record, but WTF?  Nice graph, as has been pointed out, but the employment certainly fluctuates.  No new information there.

Not sure what "Good job Texas Presidents" is meant to say either.  The Republic of Texas only had a few presidents, and all of them died long before the 20th century began.  In the time period covered, only one US President was born in Texas, and poverty, according to the graph, fell from about 20 percent to about 12 percent during his tenure.

More broadly, what are we meant to take from this graph?  There doesn't seem to be any correlation to anything.  Even the purple "recession" periods don't show any monotonic increase or decrease.   In some case it's up, in some cases it's down, and in some cases it's just sort of flat.

And, when I try to look at periods wherein congress was controlled by Republicans, sometimes I see unemployment going up and sometimes it's going down.  Similarly, I see times when Democrats controlled congress and unemployment went up and sometimes it's down.

So, what's your point?
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,438
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2011, 10:27:01 pm »

Now, now, boys. 

The thing is, you can't say how any president's legislative agenda affected poverty based on this graph alone.  (Although, admittedly, the dramatic decrease in the poverty level during Johnson's administration is hard to ignore.)

You'd have to correlate those decreases or increases with actual policy proposals made by those presidents to the data.  And I'm far to lazy to try to do that for you. 

I think you're both a bit off your rockers.  According to economic theory, unemployment is a function of population, wages, technology, money supply, and inflation. 

But I'm going to bow out now and let you argue among yourselves. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines