September 7, 2011

Live-blogging the Republican Debate.

Come on! Hang out in the comments. We're doing this!

3:32 minutes into the show — Live-stream here... as Rick Perry gets the first question and a chance to tell us about the success in Texas. "I'm proud of what we done in the state of Texas." [Yes: what we done...]

5:13 — As Perry talks, Romney looks on. He's taller. He's got those graying temples and slight sideburns. He's wearing a blue suit... and maybe they all are. Romney gets the next question: "If I'd spent all my life in politics..." That's his angle: experience in the private sector. He's asked if life in government is a "disqualification," which he brushes off, even as he wants us to think it is. Romney looks calm and Perry a tad nervous. Romney is hot! And tan! Perry looks wrinkly and pasty. Romney stresses how hard it was to succeed in Massachusetts compared to Texas.

10:41 — Great interplay between Romney and Perry and Romney clearly won it. He needed to. Let's see if Perry comes back. Now, it's Santorum and then Cain. We're less interested in these characters. Sorry.

13:08 — Asked of Huntsman: "What does Romney not get about China?" "We are the most blue-sky, optimistic people on earth." And Utah beats Texas and Massachusetts.

14:37 — Michele Bachmann's hair is getting bigger and bigger. She says Obamacare is keeping businesses from creating jobs. It's killing jobs.

18:00 — Ron Paul is stressing out about regulations. We don't need the federal government to tell us if cars are safe. The consumer is smart enough to figure it out!

21:42 — On "Day 1," Romney will grant all the states a waiver from Obamacare.

23:05 — Perry is settling in, getting comfortable. Huntsman is coming alive too.

26:54 — Bachmann presents herself as the one who understands the legislative process: An executive order is not enough. And she's the one who will (somehow) be able to lead Congress to deliver up the anti-Obamacare legislation that is needed.

27:33 — Gingrich gets testy: "I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other." Everyone on the stage knows "Obamacare is a disaster... it can't be implemented, it's killing the economy... Every person up here agrees with that." Nicely slammed. The media is going to try to get Republicans fighting each other, and he's calling their bluff. The Republicans are united: "a team." Well done!

32:00 — Rick Santorum believes "in the dignity of every person"... and he's not talking about abortion. He's talking about getting people off welfare and into work.

32:43 — What will Rick Perry do about the fact that white people are so much richer than black people? "Create an environment" where people who risk their capital will get a return on their investment. (He shrugs off the prompt to talk about race. He's not interested in that!)

 35:23 — Green jobs?! Let's have real jobs, says Romney.

37:52 — Ron Paul: "Mandates! That's what the whole society is about!" It's not just Obamacare. It's also Medicare. "We don't need the government running our lives." He can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime! (Because a silver dime is worth $3.50... or something.)

40:28 — Hey, John Althouse Cohen is live-blogging. "Perry takes a gratuitous swipe at Ron Paul for quibbling with then-President Reagan. This is a transparent gambit on Perry's part to give more time to Paul and take time away from the stronger candidates."

47:21 — Nancy Reagan embracing Ronald Reagan's casket. Tears. It's the Reagan remembrance interlude. Ah! She's there. Hi, Nancy!

48:13 — "Karl Rove is over the top," says Rick Perry, referring to Rove's insinuation that Perry is too extreme in, for example, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." Perry says he's "not responsible" for Karl Rove. Everyone knows Social Security is "a lie." Does that mean if we vote for him, we're giving up our demand that government meet its promise to us, based on which it skimmed off our wages for our entire working lives? We shouldn't concede that.

51:03 — Romney is asked how we can have a "candid conversation" about Social Security without "scaring seniors." Scaring seniors! Why don't younger people have a basis for demanding that the money they paid in be paid out when they are old? The premise of the question outrages me. Romney says Social Security is "not working" but the GOP nominee must be someone who will save Social Security, not abolish it. "We gotta do that as a party."

53:51 — Ron Paul is invited to attack Rick Perry. Paul lights into Perry for an executive order — as governor — forcing HPV vaccines on 12-year-old girls.  Bachmann follows on. (She's not getting much of a chance to show her stuff tonight.)

57:14 — "I will always err on the side of saving lives," Perry says emphatically, referring specifically to his order to vaccinate young girls against HPV, a sexually transmitted virus. He concedes the executive order might have been a mistake, but he's also kind of not sorry.

58:44 — After Santorum attacks Perry, Romney takes a conciliatory tone. Perry's "heart is in the right place." Let's attack Obama! He "doesn't have a clue!"

1:23:54 — Romney, are you in the Tea Party? He believes in "a lot" of it.

1:26:25 — Huntsman wants to pledge: "no pledges."

1:27:30 — Huntsman would bring the troops home from Afghanistan (and do the "nation-building" at home).

1:28:53 — Romney says we need a President who "loves America" (unlike Obama). Then Perry decides to go out of his way to give Obama some credit: He killed bin Laden... "and he's proven once and for all that government spending will not create one job.... and he kept Gitmo open."

1:35:35 —  Are you Republicans a bunch of crazy cranks? Which of these people on the stage are crazy? That's the question! To Huntsman. This gets back to what riled up Gingrich, at 27:33: The moderators want to turn the Republicans on each other.

1:38:30 — Perry uses the word "monstrous" a lot!

My overall impression? The moderators tried to provoke a war amongst Republicans, and Gingrich was the hero of the evening by calling them out. I thought Huntsman did himself some good, and Bachmann for some reason didn't find a way to stand out. The main focus was on Perry and Romney — in part because the moderators made that happen. And I think Romney looked better than Perry. As they say, he seemed presidential. He had a lot of poise and he made plenty of sense. Perry seemed rough, but it was his first go round.

377 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 377 of 377
AJ Lynch said...

And your ideal plan is one most Americans would support.

I'd add one facet. Divert some portion of each one's payments to fund a common-good pool. That pool of money would be divvied up [at age 65 or so] into identical and equal shares no matter what one earned in their lifetime [call it a safety belt for the less fortunate and low income earners].

J said...

What happens when Texass lawmen execute the wrong man ?? Mr Perry

why, we'll send the boy's survivors a big, healthy check, and invite 'em out to the ranch tooo

bobby said...

Moderator: "Gov Perry, your state executes people at an incredible rate. How can you sleep at night?"

Who choose these idiots?

Rose said...

Sure is a lot better than any interview with Obozo - Good debate - all the candidates did well.

Wish the damn media would put that much pressure on Obama.

David said...

Did somebody change the fonts on Althouse blog?

AJ Lynch said...

What do they consider an "incredible rate" of execution? Within ten years of the crime?

wildswan said...

The seniors aren't scared by this talk about Social Security. We didn't panic at Obama's empty talk back in August. We know that we who are now getting SS will keep it till we die. It's the others - my young relatives - who need to get this straightened out. There's time to fix SS but there's no more time for empty talk.

David said...

I'm not gonna watch Obama so I'm not watching this. I'm trying to get Mac OS Lion to download, but it won't. Apple's tech prowess is overrated.

AJ Lynch said...

Noe also the question said the state executes "people". It avoided using the words criminals or murderers or rapists.

Francisco D said...

Lovely Lyssa,

I am almost twice your age, so take this with a grain of salt (or tequila). I love you. Will you marry me?

OK. Enough verbal foreplay. Dearest Lyssa, my fellow babyboomers are going to screw your generation big time when it comes to SS and Medicare, and you won't even get a kiss out of it.

You deserve so much better.

John said...

Ann seemed to think it trivial or silly. I thought Paul's point about being able to buy gasoline for 10 cents a gallon was one of the best points anyone made all night.

I have not checked the price but I'll take Paul's word about a silver dime being worth $3.50.

If we adjust for inflation, $3.50/gal gas is not even an all time high price. It was more expensive in 1989.

Inflation is a killer tax that hurts us all.

Paul is the only one there, and one of very few in govt anywhere who favors sound money.

FWIW: I find it hard to see any evidence of impending inflation. If inflation was coming, we would not see 30 year mortgages at 4% fixed, or 10 year bonds at 1-2% and so on.

John Henry

AJ Lynch said...

William:
I think it is fair to say Perry took the soc sec bull by the horns tonight. It used to be called the third rail but he reached down and grabbed it and he didn't die.

jayniejaynie said...

Ha, bet Brian Williams did NOT expect that his description of capital punishment in Texas would draw applause!!!

deborah said...

"Big applause for executions."

That was depressing.

Joe said...

There is inflation in food and gas, but that's mostly due to the crappy energy policy of Obama than intrinsic inflation in the economy at large. Open up the Gulf, stop holding up permits in the arctic and put in the XL pipeline and prices will drop almost immediately due to the futures market. (Having a coherent policy in how to deal with Venezuela once Chavez hits the grave might also be a damn good idea.)

rcocean said...

Seniors - or anyone close to 60 - its time to panic. The Republicans are going to "Fix" Social Security just like they "fixed" GM.

Perry isn't going to raise payroll taxes, which means he'll cut SS benefits.

Oh well, as long as the rich don't get hurt its OK. I'd hate for Warren Buffet or Laga Gaga to pay more taxes.

deborah said...

Robert Cook, I'm guessing you're a disappointed Obama voter.

Paddy O said...

Well, Perry didn't stand out. But he didn't crash either.

I thought most everyone was okay tonight.

But I think Sarah Palin would have added a great voice to the mix.

There's space for her up there.

She could take Rick Santorum's spot. He was the most nonentity of the bunch.

sorepaw said...

Does that mean if we vote for him, we're giving up our demand that government meet its promise to us, based on which it skimmed off our wages for our entire working lives? We shouldn't concede that.

We really should concede it, if refusing to guarantees the perpetuation of Social Security.

Which it will.

J said...

Gentlemen, and Miss Bachmann, we have a question regarding membership or association in secret societies. First to you ,MR Paul. Is it true that you make secret hand signals at times, including one known as the the Head of Baphomet? 3 minutes, and a demonstration, please.

jayniejaynie said...

Yea, who picks these bozos. SO hard to believe that those bozos asking the questions are Obama devotees and probably despise all those on stage and are not into any of the incredible ideas voiced by the candidates.... any of which would be a quantum leap above what we currently have.

garage mahal said...

Rick Perry seemed the most at home talking about executing people.

F said...

Bachmann: "where we're at. . . ". I'd have a hard time voting for someone who talks like that.

edutcher said...

Social Security is broke NOW.

It can borrow, according to the trustees, for another 20 years, at which time, it won't meet its obligations.

And privatizing Social Security does not necessarily end it.

PS Cook mouths off about everybody in the game.

Might be interesting to hear how he would fix things.

sorepaw said...

Seniors - or anyone close to 60 - its time to panic. The Republicans are going to "Fix" Social Security just like they "fixed" GM.

Who the hell are "they"?

Most of the "fixing" was applied to General Motors under Barack Obama's direction.

sorepaw said...

PS Cook mouths off about everybody in the game.

Might be interesting to hear how he would fix things.


Do you really want to hear his fantasies about Vladimir Ilyich Obama?

Dustin said...

" Perry says government never created one job. 300,000 in his own state prove otherwise. Not including his own."

Wrong, Garage. Every single dollar for those jobs was created from taxing private success.

Every single dollar earned by those employees cost well over one dollar taken from employers who could hire a private worker.

In other words, every single government worker costs more than one private worker.

Government doesn't create jobs. That wealth taken for government jobs actually leads to fewer jobs. Some level of government action is needed to provide a decent society for success. You need some government. But it's a cost. You can't just create prosperity by fiat.

We have to find the least amount of wealth to take from the private sector, so that the least amount of wealth destruction occurs.

Those politicians who hire 5000 people are not really making society richer. That's what Perry meant.

Chase said...

Rick Perry seemed the most at home talking about executing people.

Damn straight.

How long before we can filter it down to idiot commenters?

Paddy O said...

I change that. Perry did stand out a little bit in daring to be bold on issues like social security and not back down when pushed against. That's a good trait, and he seems to act like he's aware of generations behind him as well as ahead of him. Those are traits I like about Palin too.

Bachman didn't really get much of a voice in this one. Romney was Romney. Santorum is done. Cain is pressing his business background, which helps him stand out just a little bit, and sounds good. Huntsman had good poise, but I kept thinking he reminded me of a muppet.

Chase said...

Dustin said:

Wrong, Garage. Every single dollar for those jobs was created from taxing private success.

Every single dollar earned by those employees cost well over one dollar taken from employers who could hire a private worker.

In other words, every single government worker costs more than one private worker.

Government doesn't create jobs.



Dustin, please. You're wasting your time. Some people can't be convinced beyond their stupidity.

rcocean said...

Watching this - in its entirety - just shows how smart Palin was to skip it.

Chase said...

"Big applause for executions."

That was depressing.



What? Not big enough for you Deborah?

Joe said...

Social Security isn't broke. According the the trustees, it can pay its bills for another 40 years. The CBO concurs. It does need some tweaking, but not much.

I'm almost 50. I would rather have had 7% of my income, and the matching contributions by my various employers (sometimes myself) put into a 401k, in addition to my contributions, but that's not what happened.

Even if we go down the path of Social Security Sucks, what are you going to do about it without destroying my lifetime of contributions? It's really easy for a twenty-something who has put in a few thousand to demand it be torn down and burned, but I've put in over ten times that.

Chase said...

Watching this - in its entirety - just shows how smart Palin was to skip it.

Because she would be completely finished as a candidate when the debate was over.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook, I'm guessing you're a disappointed Obama voter."

Sorry, you guessed wrong. I didn't vote for him the first time, and he still turned out to be far worse than I expected.

(I didn't vote for McCain either...but I did vote.)

garage mahal said...

Damn straight.

Perry said "the vast majority" of the people he executed were guilty. And he has never lost sleep at night over any of the executions.

To recap: He admitted some were surely were innocent, and he has never lost sleep over any of them.

J said...

Kirby Olson, ex-beatnik turned fundamentalist christian, clapping for Perry's high-five of the Texass Death Penalty along with the Alt-tard regs. Nothin' but Jeeebuss

AJ Lynch said...

Joe:

The only way it can be done right is for the govt to take out a bigass loan and pay it back over the next 75 years with the taxes of the younguns.

There is no other solution but it must be a one-time fix and Americans should never allow it to happen again.

Joe said...

Incidentally, once fix for social security is to tighten up the disability portion of the benefits. There are also some double-dipping tricks some couples can use. There are also some weird provisions where a divorce spouse can get higher benefits even if they remarried and were married longer to their second spouse!

John said...

Ann asks:

"Why don't younger people have a basis for demanding that the money they paid in be paid out when they are old?"

In doing so she shows the ignorance of most people about what SS is. Most people includes politicians as well.

There is a sort of a pretence by SS that what you get out is related to what you pay in. There is no legal basis for that pretence. It is simply the way it is run at present.

They could pay out boodles of cash to people who have never paid in a dime.

They could also refuse to pay people who have paid hundreds of thousands into the program. Millions if you applied interest.

The tax in and the payments out are not connected in any way other than by custom and regulation.

It is why they make such a big deal about SS not being an "insurance" scheme.

Read the link I posted about why it was set up this way.

It is never going to be possible to fix it if people do not know what it is.

If even people like Ann, a very intelligent attorney and law professor with specialized knowledge of the Constitution is not aware of it, is it any surprise that very few others are either?

I do not mean this any any kind of negative aspersion on Ann.

John Henry

jr565 said...

Rcocean wrote:
The Rich are scared shitless that the SS Payroll wage cap will be raised from its current $100,000. Currently a millionaire pays the same SS Payroll tax as someone who makes $100,000. The millionaire pays $7,000 on $1 million of salary, while someone who makes $100,000 also pays $7,000.


when they raise the payroll tax on the rich will they receive additional benefits? Because if not, then you are being as much of an extremist in regards to social security, as those seeking to absolve it. Because social security was not envisioned as a welfare program.
The way social security is supposed to work, iced raised payroll taxes on rich peop,e we would also. Have to give them more benefits when they retired.
Why are you trying to destroy social security?

Joe said...

AJ, that simply isn't true. Social Security is NOT broke. I am not saying it's a great system and doesn't have flaws, but this notion that it has no money is utter nonsense.

One issue is that Social Security is being lumped in with Medicare and Medicaid which are monumental disasters.

garage mahal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

Government doesn't create jobs.

Rick Perry is a government job! I believe the only job he's ever had is a government job. Under his tenure 300,000 jobs were added in Texas. 47% of all government jobs since 2007 were added in Texas. You may not like it, but there it is.

itr said...

I see a few people here don't like Ron Paul. In all honestly he's the only one that really has a chance at beating President Obama in 2012.

Unless there's some sort of miracle every other candidate as the Republican pick will ensure Obama a second term.

Jonathan Silber said...

It'll be Romney/Huntsman in 2012—if the American people are ready to renounce their racism and vote a straight orange Mormon ticket.

Joe said...

Social Security is also being lumped in with Supplemental Security Income (disability), which is a fraudulent heavy program due to massive liberalization of rules in the past decades.

dreams said...

I think Perry won the debate because voters can tell that he has backbone and convictions much more so than Romney, though I thought Romney did well too.

Joe said...

Ron Paul couldn't beat a block of wood in a runoff.

And it pains me to agree with Garage. Government does create jobs; it may be an inefficient use of tax dollars and offer less benefit than the private sector, but it does create jobs. I just prefer it create less of them.

Trooper York said...

Maybe we can create more jobs for people to perform public executions.

We could bring back the firing squad. That ought to employ 10 or 12 people right there.

Trooper York said...

I think a better solution is too have our most heinous criminals marry Taylor Armstrong.

They will hang themselves within the week.

Chip S. said...

One thing's pretty clear from this thread--even very intelligent people understand Ponzi schemes much better than they understand Social Security.

It's true that the notion of "bankruptcy" is not quite applicable to SS, because taxes and payouts can always be adjusted, as they have been many times in the past.

But that doesn't mean that there's nothing wrong with SS. And what's wrong with it can't be fixed by adjusting taxes, payouts, retirement ages, or anything else. Because what's wrong with SS is that its rate of return is determined by demographics. And our long-term demographics make it clear that the rate of return to SS, already around zero for 30-year-olds, is going to keep falling for a few decades.

That makes this an excellent time to rework the whole thing. If we just bit the bullet on current obligations (say by converting the "trust fund" into marketable Treasurys and distributing them to people 50 and over with shares proportional to taxes already paid), then switched everyone into a private savings plan (like many countries have already done) we would increase real investment, thereby raising future productivity and wages.

edutcher said...

rcocean said...

Seniors - or anyone close to 60 - its time to panic. The Republicans are going to "Fix" Social Security just like they "fixed" GM.

Under which Bush did the Feds take over GM?

Joe said...

Social Security isn't broke. According the the trustees, it can pay its bills for another 40 years. The CBO concurs. It does need some tweaking, but not much.

Social Security runs a $134 million deficit every day. It borrows to make its payments.

That's what the trustees say.

I think America's Politico is off his meds again.

WV "thicr" How blood compares to water.

AJ Lynch said...

Trooper:
Good idea but how about adding a reality show to select the 12 firing squad people? think how many jobs that would create.

bagoh20 said...

J: " Who is your favorite leading Nazi officer?"

Colonel Klink - He was the Nazi Lightworker.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Am I crazy, or does Huntsman seem like (by far) the best qualified, most serious, accomplished and POTUS-prepaired candidate?

garage mahal said...

Joe is completely right on SS, noting the real prob is with Medicare. Not even liberals can explain as succinctly. Bravo, sir!

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Looks like it's a sweep in 2012: I, as one, will not have the same level of respect the Obama voters had in 2008 to the losers.

Barbarianism is me.

Escaping my soul, I assume, isn't productive.

AJ Lynch said...

Chip - that is a step in the right direction. Calculate the amt needed to pay for 30-40 years, borrow and pay it back over 80 years while transitioning younger folks to actuarially sound plans with separate accts.

In any event, the American workers are on the hook for the bogey for the next 80 years or so.

Quayle said...

LBJ wanted to feed poor kids in Texas.

So he decided that a dollar needed to go from Texas to Washington DC(which LBJ clearly wanted to do) then come back to the poor kid in the form of a 50 cent piece.

And that's how compassionate LBJ envisioned feeding a poor kid in Texas.

Whereas the poor kid in Texas could have been fed by a Texas dollar and had twice as much to eat.

Michael K said...

The Rich are scared shitless that the SS Payroll wage cap will be raised from its current $100,000. Currently a millionaire pays the same SS Payroll tax as someone who makes $100,000. The millionaire pays $7,000 on $1 million of salary, while someone who makes $100,000 also pays $7,000.

That's why Republicans are constantly attacking it.


Do you really not understand that benefits and taxes are both capped for those with an income over the limit ?

I thought Romney and Bachmann and Paul all looked pretty good although I only watched the last 40 minutes. Perry looked uncomfortable and his shirt collar looked odd. His answers were OK and I expect he will get used to the format.

Ron Paul sounds more reasonable this year. Maybe it's because the economy has tanked and some of his ideas are now getting to be mainstream.

I thought Bachmann did well and she gave a better answer than Perry to one question (wish I could remember which one).

The climate issue is being pushed by the lefties. I watched a bit of MSNBC's post debate coverage until I had to leave or vomit. I don't think that is a wise plan. Many people are skeptical of the claims and the evidence is piling up that there is something wrong with the models.

Of course they can't talk about the economy.

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Crack Emcee said...

My overall impression?

You voted for Obama - why don't I trust your impression?

The moderators tried to provoke a war amongst Republicans, and Gingrich was the hero of the evening by calling them out.

Oldest trick in the book: they're running against each other - not for the party - let 'em fight.

I thought Huntsman did himself some good,...

Not a single applause line all night.

...and Bachmann for some reason didn't find a way to stand out.

She's outclassed now.

The main focus was on Perry and Romney — in part because the moderators made that happen.

No argument there.

And I think Romney looked better than Perry.

Thank goodness, except for Obama voters, we don't judge on looks.

As they say, he seemed presidential.

As they say, he has a long record of saying anything and meaning none of it. See hoe easily you can be swayed by imagery?



He had a lot of poise and he made plenty of sense.

I look for poise at the ballet.

Perry seemed rough, but it was his first go round.

He got applause for the death penalty before even saying a word - and then got it, again, afterwards.

He's the conservative.

Bender said...

I think Romney looked better than Perry. As they say, he seemed presidential

Please, Romney looked like a slick, oily, weasal of a politician. If he looked presidential, that is only because you are comparing him to Clinton and Obama.

He can't even fire up his own camp. All they can do is to side-up with the Dems by underhanded attacks on other more authentic Republicans, e.g. Perry (and Palin if she were declared).

But the Romney camp should know this -- LARGE portions of the conservative base will NEVER vote for Romney. They already did their duty by being forced to have McCain tag along when they voted for Palin for VP.

They will not do it again. Principle and conscience sometimes must prevail over expediency.

AJ Lynch said...

Lefties are in shock that Prez Obama is such an abysmal failure and the librul media is going deeper into its death throes.

Defenseman Emeritus said...

47% of all government jobs since 2007 were added in Texas.

Texas had the fastest-growing population in the country over the last decade, according to the 2010 census. So obviously they'd have to hire more government workers just to keep the level of services from dropping off. Did you think you'd scored some political point with that little factoid?

You may not like it, but there it

Snark grade: F

America's Politico said...

Watch the debate with about a dozen K-street super consultants, including a few WH operatives and a media reporter.

They had a bet. If the GOP blows, drink up. Everyone of them got drunk. Actually some super consultants predicted that debate would get one GOP against another. (How did they know?) They were betting that no GOP will even win his (or her) state. This is as Obama has already won the election.

Tomorrow's speech will be an earthquake (for GOP). I saw parts of it as there was an operative. GOP is just finished. I would hate to be in their shoes. Man, are they finished.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

"See hoe easily you can be swayed by imagery?"

Crack,

Don't you understand. Althouse voted against McCain because he wasn't a satisfactory conservative. So, obviously, she would support Romney. He's a conservative through and through.

Ha.

Hank said...

@AJ,

It depends on your definition of broke. At the moment SS is just barely taking in enough to cover benefits. For months when there is a shortfall, money will need to come from the general fund by selling those special IOUs the Treasury issued. As the amount of benefits increases (in the next couple years), the impact is going to be more significant and the deficit (i.e. money borrowed) will increase because of SS. Sooner or later, taxes on everyone will need to be increased to make up for the shortfall. And this is going to happen a lot sooner than 40 years from now.

AJ Lynch said...

Crack lampooned Althouse who said "And I think Romney looked better than Perry."

Crack replied: "Thank goodness, except for Obama voters, we don't judge on looks."

Good one Crack!

Chip S. said...

I am not saying it's a great system and doesn't have flaws, but this notion that it [Social Security] has no money is utter nonsense.

It has no money.

The US Treasury collects taxes on its behalf, and creates "assets" that no other entity in the world owns. Those "assets" are nonmarketable Treasury debt instruments. They can only be redeemed by "selling" them back to the Treasury, at which time the Treasury has to sell more of its marketable debt to transfer funds to the SS account.

When SS runs a "surplus," that simply means that payroll taxes are being used to reduce the federal deficit. When SS runs a "deficit," that means that the deficit is increasing partly to fund SS benefits.

Michael K said...

Tomorrow's speech will be an earthquake (for GOP). I saw parts of it as there was an operative. GOP is just finished. I would hate to be in their shoes. Man, are they finished.

I appreciate the amusement value of your comments. They made a movie about that. "Clueless" I think it was called.

garage mahal said...

Did you think you'd scored some political point with that little factoid?

Not at all. I'm sure there was good reason to hire those workers. I'm all for government workers. But Perry says government has never created one job. What do you call those 300,000 things then?

Hank said...

Sorry that was not @AJ, should be @Joe

sorepaw said...

I'm all for government workers.

The only kind that the unit known as Garage is for.

AJ Lynch said...

Hank- those IOU's are just paper. It's like paying off your credit card with another credit card. I agree with you that it will get worse.

Look - my main point is if the govt can't give you a good, honest and fair return on the 12% that was paid to them over your working life, then the govt can't be trusted and it should not be in the retirement savings business.

Treat the govt like you would an incompetent or dishonest investment adviser.

deborah said...

You're hardcore, Robert Cook :)

sorepaw said...

When SS runs a "surplus," that simply means that payroll taxes are being used to reduce the federal deficit. When SS runs a "deficit," that means that the deficit is increasing partly to fund SS benefits.

Bingo!

David said...

"Perry seemed rough, but it was his first go round."

First go round at this, perhaps, but he's a seasoned politician with lots of campaign experience. Is Perry going to be able to hold up? Is Karl Rove right? Rove is no dummy and knows a lot about politics and Perry.

bagoh20 said...

"I'm all for government workers. But Perry says government has never created one job. What do you call those 300,000 things then?"

I'd call them a good reason for a leftie like you to vote for Perry. He's better at what you want too. How frickin amazing is that! Don't listen to your friends in the swamp cutting him down. You got the numbers, and you know who's on your side. Perry/Ryan is your ticket.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"Actually walk out from behind the telepromtor - get outta the way - and speak from your heart and soul"

was one applause line from Huntsman. It was followed by another.

Both "lines" as it were got applause.

And that's the way it is.

jbubba said...

garage mahal said...
Damn straight.

Perry said "the vast majority" of the people he executed were guilty. And he has never lost sleep at night over any of the executions.


I am pretty sure he said the vast majority of people agree with the death penalty. But I have a $100 bill with your name on it if you can link to the transcript where he said that.

Like most of your cr*p I suspect you pulled it out of your *ss.

sorepaw said...

And I think Romney looked better than Perry. As they say, he seemed presidential.

Couldn't the same have been said of Barack Obama in 2008, as opposed to John McCain?

Something else that's been said about both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama: they've both been referred to as "empty suits."

J said...

Keep inventing names, Bubba

even Eric Schmidt's on to you, Romneyite freak .

---
Newt's the real conservative. Not that he's a good choice, or has much of a chance --but the authentic GOP voice.

The rest are ....glib hustlers and salesmen, Tex "BushCo" Perry included. And Paul's a whackcase

Seven Machos said...

Althouse voted against McCain because he wasn't a satisfactory conservative.

This isn't true. Althouse voted against McCain because she thought he would be a crappy president. And, he would have been. Though I do grant that it's hard to imagine a worse president than Obama right now.

You gotta up your game, PBJ. You say some insightful stuff. But you also say some stuff that is just dumb.

deborah said...

"Rove is no dummy and knows a lot about politics and Perry."

Yes, but what is in it for Rove to bash Perry and Barbara Bush to bash Palin? What're their angles?

purplepenquin said...

If they pay more in taxes, can they get more payout too?

Not just more payout. People who pay more taxes should also get their own private lane on the highway. No wait, their own highway! Their very own private roads...built on thick columns right above the existing ones! Yeah, that's the ticket.

Also, if a natural disaster hits an area the folks who pay more taxes should also get flavored water handed out to 'em rather than the regular stuff others are given. After all, they are paying more in taxes so they should naturally get more from any/all gov't programs. Like a guy once said to his brother..."That's Logic!"

themightypuck said...

If you take what I have paid in since 1965, grow it at 5% compound interest as if it were in a bank account, it would pay for 20-25 years of benefits at the current levels.

As much of a blowhard Nassim Taleb is, this is his wheelhouse. Learn about power laws. Banks do not live in a Gaussian world.

themightypuck said...

Also, vis economic policy, the only (not really) viable candidate who would be different than Obama is Ron Paul. All the rest would have played the same game as Obama minus healthcare. As for viable candidates if you don't care about abortion and the like, they are all pretty much the same. Unless you specifically have something to gain. If you live in Texas vote for Perry since Paul won't hook you up.

PatCA said...

The Republican Party was the clear winner here; the serious candidates did not lash out too badly against each other and even Dr. Paul voiced a few truisms.

The individual winner was Newt, for most original and effective taunt -- turning his wrath on the moderators! Finally!

Well done. He's playing his own game.

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven Machos,

This isn't true. Althouse voted against McCain because she thought he would be a crappy president. And, he would have been. Though I do grant that it's hard to imagine a worse president than Obama right now.

That's an ass-backwards statement - McCain would've been bad but it's hard to imagine worse than who Ann picked.

Some of you have a really hard time criticizing her choice, and the results she's brought to us, don't you? Listen:

In 2008 there were several credible options for an intelligent person on how to handle the election, but Vote For Obama wasn't on the list.

"hard to imagine worse "

There was no "worse."

Seven Machos said...

Crack -- I said in 2008 that it pained me to say it but that Hillary Clinton was clearly the best candidate on offer. Events since then have only made that conviction stronger.

I can certainly understand why someone would vote for Obama over McCain, though I did not.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Seven,

"McCain offered no defense of his party, only assertions that he had tried to get regulations passed. So, there he was, embedded in failure. He didn't stand by the principles of conservatism...

Look at how McCain failed to promote conservatism. McCain brought up Ronald Reagan 3 times: once to say he opposed him about sending troops to Lebanon and the other 2 times to say it was wonderful the way he worked with the liberal Tip O'Neill.

McCain never presented the conservative alternative to Obama. He never even called himself a conservative last night. He was wandering all over that red carpet, microphone in hand, and I have the feeling, in retrospect, that he was truly bewildered, mouthing old phrases, trying to slip by. But one old phrase that was missing was "I'm a proud conservative." Remember when he used to say that?...

McCain has lost definition. He's stumbling along to the finish line, hoping to achieve his lifelong ambition, to seize the crown at last. But why? To show he can get along with Democrats? I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama.

This is not a commitment to vote for Obama, and I'm still going to provide the service of observing events from my slouchily neutral posture, to which no vow currently binds me. But you see the trend, and the destination is almost inevitable."


This is what I was referencing. I surely did truncate it. But, this is what I was thinking of.

The Crack Emcee said...

Actually that should've been "In 2008 there were several intelligent options for a credible person on how to handle the election,..."

And yes, I'm saying Ann would do better to sit this one out, as far as her "impressions," because she lacks credibility.

No one who fell for the Oprah Show has any credibility in politics what-so-ever. It's a badge of shame meaning "sucker."

caseym54 said...

Newt is playing to be last man standing. He's been effective in every debate, running the table at times, and speaks for party unity. Everyone dismisses him, but I wonder; the party could turn to him in a way that they'd never turn to Paul.

Every time I see Newt do his thing I am reminded of President Bartlett. Not sure why. He has the competence, experience and leadership ability to do the job, and no one doubts his willingness to think outside the box.

Imagine Newt with 60% in both houses; he'd never squander it like Obama did. Repealing Obamacare would take less than a week.

LilyBart said...

Perry says government never created one job. 300,000 in his own state prove otherwise. Not including his own

Government doesn't create private sector jobs. Sure, it can waive its wand and produce lots of public sector jobs. But public jobs are paid for by private sector jobs. Can't pay for government workers without a strong and productive private sector.

caseym54 said...

The real question out to be: What is Santorum doing on that stage?

Mike said...

Made a mistake and only caught the last hour or so of the debate. Perry looked okay for his first dip into this Presidential Debate stuff. Brian Williams and the wowser from Politico weren't much help--they provided some comic relief by means of their questions.

Agree Perry looked rough; this was probably his "B" game. But his success in Texas elections would seem to say that he also has an "A" game that he can bring out.

Ron Paul is the crazy uncle that respectable families keep locked up in the attic.

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven Machos,

Crack -- I said in 2008 that it pained me to say it but that Hillary Clinton was clearly the best candidate on offer.

She talks to fucking psychics and brought us the first healthcare debacle. What planet are you on?

I swear, you can be amazing sometimes,...

And, before you answer, defend the psychic bit first. This I gotta hear,...

Carol_Herman said...

Did people walk away picking a new favorite? I don't think so.

Do the democraps have to adjust their game plan? No. I don't think so.

What's Newt doing there? (Is this the reason Monica Lewinsky got to be a topic, today?)

You don't have to sway the right to win the election.

The voters are in the middle. Where they've always been. The Independents ain't here.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

" defend the psychic bit first."


I'll take a shot:

It was Nancy's psychic.

Seven Machos said...

PBJ -- Reading that same thing, I get no theme about conservatism. What I get is: McCain is a sucky president with no platform and he is likely to make a sucky president.

There's nothing really there about conservatism, other than the obvious point that McCain even did a crappy job at appealing to the base of his party. You don't need to be conservative to make that point. Just sentient.

Seven Machos said...

I am not interested in defending Hillary Clinton about psychics or anything else. My statement that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate in 2008 is a testament to the awfulness of the candidates, not a testament to the greatness of Hillary Clinton.

The Crack Emcee said...

caseym54,

Every time I see Newt do his thing I am reminded of President Bartlett. Not sure why.

It's either because President Bartlett was irresponsible (and irrational) enough to be "married" three times or because Newt is a fictional character.

I'll let you sort out which,...

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, yeah. Newt and his laminated "contract with America."

And, his going after Monica Lewinsky!

He's poison. And, now he's Catholic.

Sure. You could do worse. Ron Paul can run as an independent.

I do think that's Obama's worst worry. Where the republicans (like Taft did), come in 3rd.

Does Ron Paul tear off as much as Ross Perot did? Or will he be vying with Ralph Nader for 3%?

Carol_Herman said...

I don't remember Hillary and the psychic. I thought she said she talked to Eleanor Roosevelt?

Did she sit in a chair?

Did she open a closet door?

I think the first thing the Clinton's did when they reached the White House was ask "who really killed Kennedy?"

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven Machos,

I am not interested in defending Hillary Clinton about psychics or anything else. My statement that Hillary Clinton was the best candidate in 2008 is a testament to the awfulness of the candidates, not a testament to the greatness of Hillary Clinton.

I've always liked the name "Seven Machos," for obvious reasons, but I now think it's time to change it to "The Artful Dodger." C'mon, Seven, that's weak. What's next:

You want to see if Deepak Chopra has some good ideas?

You get the government you deserve,...and Ann certainly did.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Seven,

I read it differently.

And I think that Althouse would also read it w/ more emphasis on McCain's piss poor showing as a con, than you would. She's mentioned this con aspect in other posts since the one I quoted. I can't find those other posts w/o a bit of effort, and I'm too lazy for that.

Maybe Meadehouse will chime in w/ a clarification.

The Crack Emcee said...

pbAndjFellowRepublican,

It was Nancy's psychic.

Anybody trying to elect Nancy to anything? Plus, when found out, it was a major scandal. But these fools actually want to put such a fruit in charge.

Simply incredible.

And we wonder why we're so fucked? This is what passes for serious political thinking today?

We are so screwed,...

Seven Machos said...

Crack -- All the candidates sucked. I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling a truth.

Incidentally, I should add that I supported Romney and Thompson in 2008. But I certainly wasn't crazy about them. That's not my style, though. I don't go in for cult of personality.

Further, the fact is that it's quite possible that no president could have done anything in the face of the economic meltdown. That said, Obama did everything wrong. Everything.

The Crack Emcee said...

Carol_Herman,

I don't remember Hillary and the psychic. I thought she said she talked to Eleanor Roosevelt?

The psychic was Jean Houston, who did the introductions,...

garage mahal said...

Government doesn't create private sector jobs

Sure it does. Much of the private sector relies on the government for their business.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I only got to see Perry answer the question on uninsured in Texas but it was a great answer. Being able to have different policies, some copays. Every doc who treats Medicaid is forced to play chicken with a car that can't lose. They schedule; they come, you see them, don't and nobody pays you, nor can they be charged for any service. 'Priceless' get real old. It encourages entitlement and dependency, is infantilizing.

Perry 'looked rough.' Heh, the gay Christian who is at best for the Inquisition and at worst well, even we don't believe that, must have gotten the Brylcreem out. Maybe his advance man Kinky has smoothed things out. Somehow a conservative politician who could make nice to Hillary and learned how to make money from LBJ's party can't be that inflexible or incapable of empathy.

Seven Machos said...

Much of the private sector relies on the government for their business.

Wherein Garage states the nature of the problem but fails in every way to see any of its implications.

Say, Garage, that supply and demand shit about wages still got you stumped?

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven Machos,

Crack -- All the candidates sucked. I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling a truth.

No, there is such a thing as the voters - that would be you and Ann - being wrong, y'know? Buying into media hype?

How can you have a known quantity like John McCain (military service plus 30 years in politics) vs. a nobody surrounded by terrorists and racists and a lady who talks to psychics, and tell me - by rejecting McCain - you're credible political watchers? It's impossible.

That you both suffer from madness and can't/won't admit it is "a truth" as well. This country suffers from regular bouts of mass delusion - that's a fact - to deny you've been swept away from your rational faculties is a symptom. I see it all the time - and not just in NewAge. There's so many lies about Bush, alone, it's easy to spot those who, for all intents and purposes, are untethered from reality.

You, too, drank the Kool-Aid, Seven.

Seven Machos said...

I voted for McCain and encouraged others to do so, here and elsewhere, ad nauseum.

Get over yourself.

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven Machos,

I voted for McCain and encouraged others to do so, here and elsewhere, ad nauseum.

Get over yourself.


In your dreams,...

Seven Machos said...

Are you suggesting that I did not vote for McCain? That I did not encourage others to do so? Or that you need not get over yourself?

sane_voter said...

That MSNBC post-debate coverage was an epic liberal circle jerk, with Chris Tingles Matthews spitting and slobbering about the anti-science GOP, Rachel Maddow grinning and gesticulating while saying nothing of substance, and Sharpton, O'Donnell, Robinson, Schultz . . . [shudder]

Bender said...

Sure McCain would have been better, he would have been only half as bad as Obama, he would have been only half a disaster, rather than a complete disaster. Meanwhile, conservatives would daily be put upon to defend him while being blamed for the nation crashing and burning.

Better that we got the real deal. Better that we experience the full truth of leftism. For too long the country has played the enabler by electing these Dems. It is time that we learn that those elections have consequences. Perry is right -- one good thing that Obama has done is "proven once and for all that government spending will not create one job" and shown how catastrophically disasterous Democrat governance is.

I know it is extremely hard, but before we can really improve, it was necessary that we hit bottom, and hit it hard.

Sad thing is, some people still have not learned.

Seven Machos said...

Bender makes an utterly fabulous point. The Republicans in 2008 were sort of rotting. There was inertia. It was time for a wake-up call.

Making people see that leftist policies fail was a benefit of all this.

AJ Lynch said...

Sane Voter:

Did they let Sharpton say much much?

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

I, like Althouse, blame the librul media for instigating the Macho v Macho rumble.

Everybody needs to make nice and vote for the Rominator Version20.11. Resistance is futile.

Cedarford said...

Dustin - "Government doesn't create jobs. That wealth taken for government jobs actually leads to fewer jobs."

Garbage. It is one of those brainless slogans repeated as if it was the truth and unchallengable. Like on the Left "Everyone knows it is better that 100 serial killers walk than a single person be wrongfully convicted".

Government has created jobs from the earliest times of our country.

Spending on security (military) allowed us to become full participants in international trade and made investment in America deemed "safe" since the early 1800s.

From the beginning, intelligent government investment in infrastructure, replacing "private toll roads, portages, bridges, and private harbors & docks " created jobs and prosperity. Taxes government "stole" created much of the rail system, all of the interstate highway system, and most of the hydro power dams.

Intelligent government investment created at one time the best school and public university system in the world creating huge numbers of semi-skilled and skilled job opportunities and enhanced our ability to produce and compete. Same with government long-term investment in technology and basic research the "genius of the market" would have no motive to fund.

Smart government investment creates jobs. And there are areas all but the most deranged libertarian would agree the government, and only the government, can do.

sane_voter said...

AJ,

Not really. I thought he just seemed to parrot the other panelists when he did get a word in edgewise. But I finally had to turn it off for my sanity. Too bad Fox didnt do an immediate post-debate analysis.

sane_voter said...

And Ed Schultz was the most fair when discussing the debate, although he obviously is still a Dem booster.

Matthews was pounding the "ponzi scheme" soundbite by Perry as the big faux paus of the evening.

yashu said...

My reading of Althouse's criticism of McCain (& reason to vote against him) jibes more with pb&j's interpretation than with Seven's. My impression is that Althouse saw McCain as deficient, unfocused, disoriented, confused, blurry-- I want to use the French word mou-- qua conservative. She was looking for a strong conservative candidate to make a strong conservative case.

In that respect, at least, one can see a valid rationale to her vote-- even now. Certainly, after what we've experienced under Obama's presidency & the effects of his (& his Congress's) policies, the political-ideological lines & arguments are now much more clearly drawn & sharply articulated in this country. A good thing, I think. The silver lining to this dark cloud [racist!].

My quibble isn't what she saw in McCain, but what she failed to see in Obama. Why was O's opaque, dissimulated "pragmatist" pose/ mask so much less worrisome than McCain's ideological blurriness? Did she see Obama as a strong, clear left-wing progressive (just as McCain was a weak conservative), or did she see him as a strong, clear... pragmatist-centrist?

I think the latter. Ulimately she put her faith in-- or bet on-- her sense of Obama's intelligence, prudence, temperament, and good sense (along with his "normality"! wow) to navigate the ship of state with wisdom, guided by that MSM-vaunted "pragmatism."

yashu said...

Yep, what Bender said.

sane_voter said...

oops, is it a faux pas to misspell faux pas

murgatroyd666 said...

1:35:35 — Are you Republicans a bunch of crazy cranks? Which of these people on the stage are crazy? That's the question! [...] The moderators want to turn the Republicans on each other.

Why are the moderators for both parties' debates always Democrat-fellating shills? So far we haven't had anything quite as bad as neutral, impartial" Gwen Ifill, who "didn't bother to mention that she was writing a hagiography of Barack the Magnificent ... but then again, there's more than a year to go.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

McCain made Palin, and that ain't nothing.

For all his faults.

Now, what's important, is Palin endorsing Perry, campagning, and not being VP.

What I find interesting, is Palin said recently she has to make a decision within a month or so, and then, whoop whoop whoop many loud voices are saying she is a tease and whatnot for not declaring yet.

Sarah's forest view is not showing signs of fall yet.

wv: tryfxh

MadisonMan said...

Bender's point is what althouse wrote about...that an Obama presidency would crystallize the differences between the parties.

Titus said...

It's always all about Mass. and Texas.

tits.

Kirk Parker said...

J: " Who is your favorite leading Nazi officer?"

Rommel. Richard Brautigan named one of his books after Rommel, so that makes it ok to like him, right?

Kirk Parker said...

ALJ,

Sorry--I'm not at all sure, in your scenario, which ones are the groupies and which ones are the stars. (And then Francisco D comes along and proves my point.)

Kirk Parker said...

You know, normally J's contributions are a total waste of electrons and brain cells. But tonight, he's actually got some amusing questions!
What's going on ...?

SamW said...

Romney as Pres; Johnson VP - and Ron Paul Sec Treas!!!
Johnson could pull in the independents and Libertarians. Perry as Sec State!

Titus said...

Which candidate made Nancy wet?

I am guessing Perry.

I jerked off for the first time today in a very long time and I didn't get all the cum off my hands and the rare clumber licked it clean.

Good night.

Chris Althouse Cohen said...

I really think Huntsman came across the best and seemed to be actually the best-qualified candidate. I obviously don't like the idea that believing in evolution makes you too liberal to be the Republican nominee. Makes me not wanna vote Republican. But I think I'd pick him out of all the candidates, and Romney out of the major candidates. But maybe Huntsman will get some more support...maybe. Probably not, though.

Bender said...

I obviously don't like the idea that believing in evolution makes you too liberal to be the Republican nominee. Makes me not wanna vote Republican.

Well, actually nobody likes that idea.

But instead of that making you not wanna vote Republican, it would be better if it would make you not want to be so totally ignorant about what Republicans and conservatives actually believe. Maybe then you wouldn't have as many problems.

Seven Machos said...

I obviously don't like the idea that believing in evolution makes you too liberal to be the Republican nominee. Makes me not wanna vote Republican.

Oh Jesus. This is hilarious irony. Because evolution is the smart thing, right? You're smart. That's the explanation for your "clever" dichotomy about evolution. Right?

But tell us: what does evolution have to do with suffocating debt and perpetual economic catastrophe? Indeed, what would Darwin tell us about these scourges?

Sean Hayes said...

Many good punch lines. I will list within the next few hours the best ones on: www.thekoreanlawblog.com

Mick said...

They are all committing Treason, protecting Obama, whom they KNOW is not a natural born Citizen, since he was born British, of a British subject father.

Freder Frederson said...

But tell us: what does evolution have to do with suffocating debt and perpetual economic catastrophe?

Believing that evolution is "just a theory" that should be taught alongside the creation myth of whatever religion you choose (and to imply that creation myths are equally scientifically valid) belies an inability to think rationally and critically.

To have such a person deciding economic policy is just plain scary.

Freder Frederson said...

Smart government investment creates jobs. And there are areas all but the most deranged libertarian would agree the government, and only the government, can do.

God, I hate it when Cedarford says something I agree with.

But then of course, he didn't mention Jews or welfare queens once.

hoyden said...

"Intelligent government investment"

"Smart government investment..."

Therein lies the problem. Government investment that creates debt needs to result in an ROI that pays back the debt promptly.

Government "investment" that creates structural debt destroys our wealth.

Robert Cook said...

Mick Jagger said:

"They are all committing Treason, protecting Obama, whom they KNOW is not a natural born Citizen, since he was born British, of a British subject father."

You know, Mick Jagger, that was an okay song when it was new...not great, never to be taken as anything more than pop fluff, of course, but briefly diverting...but you've been singing it for so long it's now just tired and lame. I think it's time to retire it from your repertoire and bring in some fresh material to entertain us. Or, given that you haven't given us any worthwhile new songs in years, maybe it's really just time for you and Keef and Charlie to call it a day.

Robert Cook said...

"Making people see that leftist policies fail was a benefit of all this."

When is that going to happen? We need someone to implement some leftist policies first.
Only then can we see how well or badly they work.

Michael said...

Robert Cook. For leftist policies you might investigate the success or failure of Mao, Stalin,Castro,or Tito. After that i will provide a few more names, but for now that should do

Sue D'Nhym said...

Does that mean if we vote for him, we're giving up our demand that government meet its promise to us, based on which it skimmed off our wages for our entire working lives? We shouldn't concede that.


In other words, because you were promised what could never be delivered, you want to continue to be lied to despite the fact that it can never be delivered. Brilliant.

Brennan said...

Anyone think Huntsman's line about speaking to the Chinese in Chinese went well?

Mick said...

"You know, Mick Jagger, that was an okay song when it was new...not great, never to be taken as anything more than pop fluff, of course, but briefly diverting...but you've been singing it for so long it's now just tired and lame. I think it's time to retire it from your repertoire and bring in some fresh material to entertain us. Or, given that you haven't given us any worthwhile new songs in years, maybe it's really just time for you and Keef and Charlie to call it a day."


No one here, not even one of the esteemed "lawyers" or "law profs" have proven me wrong. They (you?) should all be embarrassed at their support of treason (but then it's hard to "embarrass" a lawyer). Maybe you can answer the question that no one here can answer, not even the "law prof":

If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence (FACT), then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen?

Freder Frederson said...

If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence (FACT), then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen?

Because you can be a natural born citizen of more than one country. It really is that simple.

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't care if the next president believes that the first humans hatched from the backs of turtles as long as he or she doesn't keep destroying the economy.

Freeman Hunt said...

The economy is bad enough that it really is all about the economy now.

MeeshalNoress said...

Last thing we need in the GOP primary is another grammatically challenged Texan ..

Robert Cook said...

"I don't care if the next president believes that the first humans hatched from the backs of turtles as long as he or she doesn't keep destroying the economy."

A president who believed humans hatched from the back of turtles cannot be trusted with the economy, or with anything else, as such a superstitious ignoramus might very well believe that the way to make the economy healthy again is to sacrifice a goat on the White House lawn and bury its innards in the Rose Garden, while chanting the lyrics of "Disco Duck" over a bongo drum backing. In the nude.

Or, you know, maybe to have a giant prayer gathering to pray for the economy to improve.

Robert Cook said...

"For leftist policies you might investigate the success or failure of Mao, Stalin,Castro,or Tito."

You've been duped, sir. After the success of Jonah Goldberg's scorching expose of "Liberal Fascism" in his book of the same name, in which he reveals the shocking truth that the Nazis and Mussolini's Italian fascists were, (gasp!), leftists, Goldberg is preparing to publish his next stunning expose: "Conservative Communism," in which he reveals that Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Tito were all actually, (gasp!), right-wingers!

Jeebus! What can one do?! How can one know which form of tyranny to support if we can't know which distorted extreme of political ideology they actually represent?

Michael said...

Robert Cook. But we have a political class that believes the climate can be changed by using energy sources that no one wants and which are inadequate. Believers in this fairy tail have proven they cannot devise a way out of the economic mess we are in. But tonight we will hear more of the same. Look for the words they will be right there in front of your nose. But i wont be listening or watching since you have schooled me on Obama's criminality.

Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...
"For leftist policies you might investigate the success or failure of Mao, Stalin,Castro,or Tito."

You've been duped, sir. After the success of Jonah Goldberg's scorching expose of "Liberal Fascism" in his book of the same name, in which he reveals the shocking truth that the Nazis and Mussolini's Italian fascists were, (gasp!), leftists, Goldberg is preparing to publish his next stunning expose: "Conservative Communism," in which he reveals that Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Tito were all actually, (gasp!), right-wingers!"

You clearly did not read Goldberg's book.

Fred4Pres said...

Did you have a Fat Squirrel to wind down after this event? I know I would have needed it. I did not watch it. I reread Ringworld and fell asleep. No Fat Squirrels for me.

MeeshalNoress said...

Perry's ape-like demeanor actually lends some credence to the evolutionists ..

Mick said...

Freder Frederson said...
"If the purpose of the natural born Citizen requirement was to prevent foreign influence (FACT), then how is it possible that Obama, admittedly born BRITISH, is a natural born Citizen?

Because you can be a natural born citizen of more than one country. It really is that simple."




HAHAHAHA. That's funny (and desperate). The purpose is to prevent foreign influence, so it allows multiple citizenships? Obama was born a natural born Subject of Britain, since he was born to a British subject father, thus he cannot logically be a natural born CITIZEN of the US. Depending on his use of British passports, he may be a British subject or to this day, but we are not allowed to know that.

Paddy O said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"You clearly did not read Goldberg's book."

You are correct, sir. Just as I would not bother to read a book purporting to prove the United States government blew up the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon on 9/11, or that we faked the moon landings. Such imaginings have been debunked by others more industrious than I.

J said...

Mittens did outposition Tex Perry on social security-- .The ponzi scheme hype might fly in Dallas. Not in CA or NY--even among GOP (and MR is playing to many swing voters).

Joe Schmoe said...

i'm already getting intensity burnout from pre-election events and hype. if every election and subsequent policy decision is the most important one ever, why do we keep fucking them up?

the moral of the story is that there is a lot more leeway in the world than we're led to believe. we'll even survive obama, i think.

could a republican win the WH on a platform of reviewing and repealing existing legislation only? not passing new legislation? probably not, but could they make that a priority over new legislation and still win?

Curious George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...
"You clearly did not read Goldberg's book."

You are correct, sir. blah blah blah"

You are an idiot, sir. Which is why I don't bother with you. You really shouldn't cite books that you haven't read, and can't even explain the premise off.

Chip S. said...

Shorter Robert Cook: The social science is settled!

bobby said...

"I obviously don't like the idea that believing in evolution makes you too liberal to be the Republican nominee. Makes me not wanna vote Republican."

If you believe that skepticism of evolution is a requirement for being a Republican, then we Republicans would rather not have you, either. You might be good for one vote added into our total, but your lack of critical thinking and investigative skills make you into someone I would be very nervous about having on my side. To parrot such an absurdity tells the world that you've mastered speaking without thinking.

Let me guess: 98% of all real scientists believe in AGW, right?

Republicans hate poor people, right?

Republicans hate non-white people, right?

A dollar not taken by taxation has been stolen from the people, right?

Go be a Democrat. You'll be happier. It's easier to memorize slogans than it is to analyze and reason.

J said...

Crack doin' his part for the klan...
as usual

Robert Cook said...

"You really shouldn't cite books that you haven't read, and can't even explain the premise off."

JG's "premise,"--or rather, his purpose--is to purport that all modern tyrannies, whether fascist or communist, are leftist in nature, thus to condemn all liberal/leftist/progressive politics--being overtly or nascently tyrannical in nature and result--as innately invalid.

His ancillary purpose (or perhaps it is is covert primary purpose) is to define out of existence the idea that radical right wing politics has resulted in, or even can lead to tyrannies that have employed mass murder and terror in furtherance of their aims.

Pastafarian said...

"Meeshal Norris", if you're going to be a decent, convincing concern-troll, you're going to have to create your identity at least a few days before you start commenting.

I bet you're a life-long Republican, huh?

Curious George said...

"Robert Cook said...


JG's "premise,"--or rather, his purpose--is to purport that all modern tyrannies, whether fascist or communist, are leftist in nature, thus to condemn all liberal/leftist/progressive politics--being overtly or nascently tyrannical in nature and result--as innately invalid.

His ancillary purpose (or perhaps it is is covert primary purpose) is to define out of existence the idea that radical right wing politics has resulted in, or even can lead to tyrannies that have employed mass murder and terror in furtherance of their aims."

Strike 2. But you are getting closer.

Freeman Hunt said...

such a superstitious ignoramus might very well believe that the way to make the economy healthy again is to sacrifice a goat on the White House lawn and bury its innards in the Rose Garden, while chanting the lyrics of "Disco Duck" over a bongo drum backing. In the nude.

Or, you know, maybe to have a giant prayer gathering to pray for the economy to improve.


If only that is what Obama and the Democratic Congress had believed and had done instead of what they did--we'd be so much better off!

The Crack Emcee said...

Seven,

I will not be getting over myself:

I'm fabulous!

Oh, and I left out the role Hillary played in the destruction of Monica.

Presidential material? I think not,...

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 377 of 377   Newer› Newest»