12 Aug

Last Night’s GOP Debate

                                       

Couple good examples from the GOP debate last night. The resident nutcase, Ron Paul, makes a fool of himself once again:

YouTube Preview Image

Santorum did well in describing the threat of Iran, Ron Paul….just a nut. As I’ve written about in years past, I like his economic ideas but the man is just a loser when it comes to foreign policy. No air force? WTF! Neither did al-Qaeda.

No way I would ever support the man because of his foreign policy beliefs.

Here Pawlenty and Bachmann go at each other a bit. Michelle handled herself well:

She also got this curious question by Byron York:

The Bible tells wives to be submissive to their husbands. If she were president, would that apply to Michele Bachmann?

In Thursday’s Republican debate in Iowa, the Minnesota congresswoman was asked if she would be submissive to her husband.

Bachmann, the only woman in the Republican presidential field, says she interprets “submission” to mean “respect.”

She said she respects her husband, calling him a “wonderful, godly man and a great father.” And she says he respects and loves her, too.

The question by conservative columnist Byron York drew boos from the audience.

I’m not so sure it should of been booed. On its face it seems like a petty “gotcha” kind of question but the issue is out there and she got to answer it, and did very well I think.

Skye put up her grades for the candidates:

Romney: A – He is riding his Golden Child status, that will change with Perry in the race.
Pawlenty C
Bachmann: A+
Santorum: B
Gingrich: B
Cain: D
Huntsman: F
Paul: F

Can’t dispute her scores much. Bachmann started out with a campaign slogan but got better as the debate went on and most definitely schooled Pawlenty every time he went after her. Cain was pretty much ignored. Santorum did pretty well. Romney? Hate to say it but out of this bunch he seems to be the most capable and ready to take over the White House. We’ll see once Perry gets in.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Conservatism, Herman Cain, Media, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Politics, Ron Paul. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, August 12th, 2011 at 5:00 am
| 763 views

60 Responses to Last Night’s GOP Debate

  1. Wordsmith says: 51

    Aye #11 and Curt #12: Maybe Curtis perused the FA archives and clicked onto the Ron Paul category. ;)

    @Poppa_T #25:

    I would like to say something to Curt and to retire05 and hard right, when you refer to those of us who support Ron Paul as “Paulbots” or with other derogatory names you are doing the same thing Liberals and RINO’s do when they refer to members of the TEA party as “teabaggers”. Think about it.

    You think those commonly referred to as RINOs (like John McCain and Mitt Romney) accept that as a descriptive label for themselves? Or as a derogatory insult?

    I guess you weren’t around in ’08 when we had all sorts of colorful names for Paul Bearers:

    This post is for all the Rononymous commenters, Paulbots, Paul Pots, Paul Reverists, Ronulans, and even the reasonable Ron Paul supporters out there

    I’d say just shrug it off. No disrespect intended toward you or Bbartlog (who was around back then and challenged the barbs against Ron Paul, intelligently and calmly) personally. But if the man invites ridicule, he should be ridiculed. And where the man deserves some praise, he’s welcomed to receive it.

    Oh boy, did we have some fun times with drive-by Ron Paul blog commenters back in ’08…..inspired some pretty good anti-Paul posts, some substantive and others gratuitous.

    ReplyReply
  2. just me 95 says: 52

    I also like Ron Paul though I have concerns about his foreign policy. But should he be elected, long-shot, I know, I don’t doubt that he wouldn’t accept the advice of his Generals. The conflicts in the ME are worrisome and the extremists of the faux religion cannot be trusted. Does RP know that?

    As an aside, what of George Washington’s words in his farewell address? Was Washington misguided and short-sighted for expressing as he did?

    “In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

    33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

    Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government.

    The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. ”

    Perhaps if Ron Paul was as eloquent this wouldn’t even be an issue.

    ReplyReply
  3. Wordsmith says: 53

    @just me 95:

    I don’t doubt that he wouldn’t accept the advice of his Generals.

    Perhaps…

    President Obama has certainly earned the rancor of Medea Benjamin and the anti-war movement by not being the peace president they had hoped for.

    The conflicts in the ME are worrisome and the extremists of the faux religion cannot be trusted. Does RP know that?

    I don’t think ArPee blames religious extremism for the Middle East conflicts, but upon our presence and interference in the Middle East. On this “blame America” point, Michael Scheuer is his muse.

    In regards to Washington’s farewell address, I believe he wasn’t advocating for an isolationist/non-interventionist philosophy/policy, but was specifically addressing current affair issues of the times (Americans split over support for France or England being the context).

    ReplyReply
  4. Poppa_T says: 54

    @retire05: You are absolutely correct retire05, I was wrong concerning the DoM Act and I apologize. I shall definitely do more research prior to posting. That’s what comes from relying on memory instead of verifying the facts first.

    That being said….and after doing some much needed research. Let me run this past you, while the DoMA did not require one state to recognize homosexual marriages performed in another state it did define what type of marriage would be recognized on the Federal level, correct?

    DoMA Section 3. Definition of marriage
    In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

    Now every State has it’s own laws regarding marriage right? Some States recognize common law marriages…. some don’t, some recognize putative marriages… some don’t, some States allow cousins to legally marry… some don’t, some States require a blood test… some don’t, et cetera. But prior to the DoMA if a State recognized a marriage as legitimate then the Federal government did as well. A general rule of jurisprudence is that if a marriage is valid where it was performed then it is valid everywhere. Therefore with passage of the DoMA the Feds determined that one certain type of marriage that WAS recognized by the State as legitimate would not be recognized on the Federal level. Now I know that neither the Feds nor any State recognizes any plural marriage even though biblically plural marriages are recognized as legitimate.

    My point is this, if the people of a State decide that one form of marriage will be considered to be legitimate in that state then shouldn’t that marriage be recognized by the other States and the Feds as well? I’m not saying that a state should be required to allow similar marriages to occur only to recognize the legitimacy of those marriages that were legally conducted elsewhere. I see that you have assumed that I might regard marriage to merely be some simple contract or you may just be yanking my chain, I take my marriage vows quite seriously and I am also opposed to homosexual marriages, I will vote against them every chance I get and if Louisiana should ever legalize them I’ll be headed to some state that doesn’t but I will not attempt to impose my beliefs on another and if the people (not the courts) of California or Massachusetts should decide that they want to legalize homosexuals getting hitched then let the love fest begin, it’s no skin off my nose.

    I still say that the Feds have no business determining what is and what is not considered to be a legitimate marriage, it is not one of their delegated powers according to Art. 1 Sec. 8 and should be considered to be a States rights issue and in accordance with the 10th amendment it should be addressed at the State level.

    Sorry it took so long to respond but I have been tearing the trout up on the beaches this weekend and getting on the computer has not been a priority.

    ReplyReply
  5. Poppa-T,
    I see that you will have a super good dinner on your catch, all fresh food is better,
    and I agree with your belief also that the STATES should exercise their power on
    these matters, and what they decide should be implement by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A LAW, NOT FOUGHT BY THEM
    WHICH SINCE THE 2008 ELECTION have become the sole DICTATOR IMPOSING THEIR LIMITED SOCIALIST VIEWS ON THE STATES, AND EVEN FIGHTING THE STATES WHO DECIDE ON THEIR OWN,
    THAT IS UNACCEPTEBLE AND ANTI AMERICAN.
    BYE

    ReplyReply
  6. Poppa_T says: 56

    @Wordsmith: You know wordsmith you may be right, I always used to describe individuals such a Romney and McCain as “Rockefeller Republicans” I guess “moderate Republicans” would work as well… I assure you that I only used the term in a descriptive sense in order to differentiate between the conservative and moderate division within the Republican Party.

    My problem is that the Republican party justifies their unconstitutional positions and agendas by claiming the moral high ground just as the Democrats do with their unconstitutional positions. I am opposed to any legislation that is not Constitutionally justifiable, be it homosexual marriage, war on drugs, DoE, Welfare, Social Security, attacking Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc… whether or not I may personally approve or disapprove of it does not matter. The only way to recapture our sovereignty is to limit the government to its Constitutionally mandated powers.

    So if you want to Feds to make homosexual marriages illegal nation wide, show me the Constitutional justification for such a law. For me this applies to any federal act, clean air, child labor laws, drug war, war on terrorism…what ever. If it’s not in the Constitution then it is a matter for the People and for the States to decide. At least in my opinion.

    ReplyReply
  7. anticsrocks says: 57

    Speaking of Rockefeller or moderate Republicans –

    Since we are in St. Louis this week because I am having some cardiac tests in preparation to being placed on the UNOS list, we took the time to visit the Zoo because my daughter loves it so much. With all my trips back and forth she has begun to associate the Zoo with “Daddy seeing his doctors.” At 2 and 1/2 she already recognizes the Zoo when we are still several blocks away.

    Anyway I tell all this because we visited the Rhino exhibit and as we moved away toward the next one, I remarked to my wife, “Well, now you’ve seen John McCain.” It elicited the appropriate giggle from my wife, but evidently I said it louder than I realized because nearly everyone around us laughed.

    I said nothing when we visited the Weasel exhibit…
    .
    .

    ReplyReply
  8. anticsrocks , hi,
    how nice, she at 2 and 1/2, is some smart cookie, she also have her own blog,
    so it will be sooner for you to wait, that is good, and you’re wife must be positive about it too;
    you have a great SPIRIT POWER and we here at FA know it,
    you didn’t say what came to mind when you stop at the weasel, but we know that too.
    best to you and your loved one

    ReplyReply
  9. @anticsrocks: Wouldn’t it be so much easier if they kept the rhinos separate from the elephants in congress too? You know for the people who have difficulty in distinguishing the behaviors between the two species.

    ReplyReply
  10. anticsrocks says: 60

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Thanks Beezy!!

    @Gary G. Swenchonis: LOL, so right, you are so right!

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site