This debate was an absolute mess. If King would have nixed the “This or That” questions, perhaps there would have been time for Gary Johnson.

Typical moment: “solve the immigration issue in under 30 seconds.”

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thingie. ‘Licans in Congress could spend every nickel of political capital they’ve got on the issue — and be branded unserious grundyites — and still not get it past three-fourths of the statehouses.

But hey, I say go for it if it matters that much to you. Anything that emphasizes ‘Licans’ concerns with retrograde legislation that delivers no value while disadvantaging another portion of the electorate are all right with me!

mediadoubt said:
Anything . . . are all right with me!

Or, more correctly, “is all right with me.”

turk281 said:
If King would have nixed the “This or That” questions, perhaps there would have been time for Gary Johnson.

At first, the utter stupidity of that segment was amusing. As with all things stupid, however, it just became irritating quickly.

mediadoubt said:
Good luck with that Constitutional amendment thingie. ‘Licans in Congress could spend every nickel of political capital they’ve got on the issue — and be branded unserious grundyites — and still not get it past three-fourths of the statehouses.

But hey, I say go for it if it matters that much to you. Anything that emphasizes ‘Licans’ concerns with retrograde legislation that delivers no value while disadvantaging another portion of the electorate are all right with me!

‘Licans. That’s a new one. Sounds like you’re a Trekkie. I’m a Klingons fan myself.

slickerwick said:
‘Licans. That’s a new one. Sounds like you’re a Trekkie. I’m a Klingons fan myself.

I feel like an early 19th Century Englishman must have felt about George Eliot and “Silas Marner.” Shamed to have lived at that time and in that place. For a mid 20th Century American and “Star Trek:. Shame.

Frances, good job covering the debate, and focusing on a few substantive issues. But economic issues are perhaps even more important than the social issues. So let’s also hear what Republicans have to say about them.

felixw said:
Frances, good job covering the debate, and focusing on a few substantive issues. But economic issues are perhaps even more important than the social issues. So let’s also hear what Republicans have to say about them.

Cut taxes. Less regulations. There. That’s it.

Publius219 said:
felixw said:
Frances, good job covering the debate, and focusing on a few substantive issues. But economic issues are perhaps even more important than the social issues. So let’s also hear what Republicans have to say about them.
Cut taxes. Less regulations. There. That’s it.

You gave a full, complete, accurate, succinct answer.

Bachmann did say what I thought she said, She wants to make a Constitutional amendment but she doesn’t think the states should have to recognize it if they don’t want to.

And I thought these cons were scared of the slippery slope…

The Loser in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate was CNN’s John King

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=41763

The Seven Dwarfs of the Republican Party at NH debate.

LOGICandREASON said:
The Loser in the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate was CNN’s John King

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=41763

you’re funny
hehe

felixw said:
Frances, good job covering the debate, and focusing on a few substantive issues. But economic issues are perhaps even more important than the social issues. So let’s also hear what Republicans have to say about them.

Publius219 said:
Cut taxes. Less regulations. There. That’s it.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
You gave a full, complete, accurate, succinct answer.

Thanks for proving my point.

As I’ve pointed out here before, liberals are desperately afraid of how the economy is threatening to derail Obama’s re-election. So much so, that they hate to even whisper passing comments about the economy. Believe it or not, they are hoping that if they don’t mention it, NO ONE WILL NOTICE unemployment, stagnant GDP, rising prices, out-of-control deficits, falling home prices, and the rest of the Obama mess.

Could they really be so foolish? Answer: Yes, very much so.

Of course, these comments are coming from the same fools who thought that next year’s election would be determined by the President producing his LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And they also thought they could hold on to the House of Representatives last year by focusing on WITCHCRAFT IN DELAWARE. So it is all too fitting when they dismiss economic issues in a sentence. That’s the level of seriousness (or rather lack thereof) with which they treat the decisive issue in American politics today.

Publius219 said:
Cut taxes. Less regulations. There. That’s it.

I like how the wingnuts thumbed you down when that’s basically their economic platform.

slickerwick said:
‘Licans. That’s a new one. Sounds like you’re a Trekkie. I’m a Klingons fan myself.

I thought he was anti-werewolf or something.

This one is actually pretty simple.

It’s all about states’ rights.

Unless those states are doing something we don’t like.

Then we gotta shut ‘em down.

felixw said:
Thanks for proving my point.

As I’ve pointed out here before, liberals are desperately afraid of how the economy is threatening to derail Obama’s re-election. So much so, that they hate to even whisper passing comments about the economy. Believe it or not, they are hoping that if they don’t mention it, NO ONE WILL NOTICE unemployment, stagnant GDP, rising prices, out-of-control deficits, falling home prices, and the rest of the Obama mess.

Could they really be so foolish? Answer: Yes, very much so.

Of course, these comments are coming from the same fools who thought that next year’s election would be determined by the President producing his LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And they also thought they could hold on to the House of Representatives last year by focusing on WITCHCRAFT IN DELAWARE. So it is all too fitting when they dismiss economic issues in a sentence. That’s the level of seriousness (or rather lack thereof) with which they treat the decisive issue in American politics today.

Yes, right before he took office the banks completely melting down unlike they have since the Great Depression and in the 2 plus years Obama has been office it went over 10% for a short bit, he clearly has been a failure on the economy. None of these candidates will have a convincing enough argument to take down Obama in 2012, it will be an easy reelection. Sorry. I’m more worried about the 2016 crowd for the Democrats and who takes over for Obama

turk281 said:
This debate was an absolute mess. If King would have nixed the “This or That” questions, perhaps there would have been time for Gary Johnson.

Typical moment: “solve the immigration issue in under 30 seconds.”

turk,
Gary Johnson was screwed over. I don’t agree with everything he supports but I would prefer him over most of this motley crew (with apologizes to Mötley Crüe). The way Johnson was treated pi##es me off. I wish we were a parliamentary republic in which third parties would actually have a say and voice in the government (Article V
could make it happen).

His candidacy, debate his self and run unopposed? For effect he could have Michelle stand in as a proxy GOP candidate and hammer her down and become the winner. Cool story.
http://skinnyfiberpills.org/

felixw said:
Thanks for proving my point.

As I’ve pointed out here before, liberals are desperately afraid of how the economy is threatening to derail Obama’s re-election. So much so, that they hate to even whisper passing comments about the economy. Believe it or not, they are hoping that if they don’t mention it, NO ONE WILL NOTICE unemployment, stagnant GDP, rising prices, out-of-control deficits, falling home prices, and the rest of the Obama mess.

Could they really be so foolish? Answer: Yes, very much so.

Of course, these comments are coming from the same fools who thought that next year’s election would be determined by the President producing his LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And they also thought they could hold on to the House of Representatives last year by focusing on WITCHCRAFT IN DELAWARE. So it is all too fitting when they dismiss economic issues in a sentence. That’s the level of seriousness (or rather lack thereof) with which they treat the decisive issue in American politics today.

Christine O Donnell (I presume you are talking about her) and Sharon Angle were weak candidates. A case can be made that the very fact they were the nominees in their respective states helped motivate conservatives to go to the pols in all 50 states. This does not take away the fact that both Sharon and Christie were fatally flawed candidates and have no chance in winning elections in statewide or national government.

No one has noticed my Marcelo Ebrard avatar.
Y’all disappoint me.

What’s in a name?

san-TOR-um: http://www.spreadingsantorum.com

thank u for sharing.

Fact: Weak moderator made for some weak answers. All of them beat Obama and his non leadership. The real conservatives did start to flow to the top but the moderator grunts and throat clears after 30 seconds on any question was annoying. Romney and Paul both showed me why I will not waste my time voting if they are the top at the end. All but Paul got a passing grade as far as marriage question was answered but all failed on NASA’s role in space. Look resources are not there for private industry. You have to manage space at a government to government level to control the type of junk it left up there. America’s future in space should not be in McDonalds or Cokes hands. I will need more time to get a clear stand on the candidates.

“government shouldn’t give us a license to get married at all,” gay or straight.”

Agreed. They need to revise *marriage* and how it is handled. Govt. should be involved in overseeing a contractual union between two people, for legal purposes.

Churches should be involved in performing marital ceremonies, between couple and God. You can have traditional Catholic marriage, or liberal gay marriage with your liberal minister, or a non-denominational ceremony on a beach somewhere. But, all people, gay or straight, can have a contractual union with the state, for all benefits, and laws, etc.

Get government out of *marriage*.

sarainitaly said:
“government shouldn’t give us a license to get married at all,” gay or straight.” Agreed. They need to revise *marriage* and how it is handled. Govt. should be involved in overseeing a contractual union between two people, for legal purposes. Churches should be involved in performing marital ceremonies, between couple and God. You can have traditional Catholic marriage, or liberal gay marriage with your liberal minister, or a non-denominational ceremony on a beach somewhere. But, all people, gay or straight, can have a contractual union with the state, for all benefits, and laws, etc. Get government out of *marriage*.

Government should, however, educate, train and license child-bearers.

A child becomes an integral part – and responsibility – of the overall society they’re born into; therefore, societal licensing is not only justified, but beneficial to all parties.

slickerwick said:
‘Licans. That’s a new one. Sounds like you’re a Trekkie. I’m a Klingons fan myself.

“‘Licans: take a lickin’ and keep on lickin’.”

In a world where “The Democrat Party” is considered the height of political insult, “‘Licans” works for me.

Member of Congress said:
I thought he was anti-werewolf or something.

I’m not exactly *in favor* of werewolves, but that’s not what I meant.

sarainitaly said:
“government shouldn’t give us a license to get married at all,” gay or straight.”

Agreed. They need to revise *marriage* and how it is handled. Govt. should be involved in overseeing a contractual union between two people, for legal purposes.

Churches should be involved in performing marital ceremonies, between couple and God. You can have traditional Catholic marriage, or liberal gay marriage with your liberal minister, or a non-denominational ceremony on a beach somewhere. But, all people, gay or straight, can have a contractual union with the state, for all benefits, and laws, etc.

Get government out of *marriage*.

That’s one way to go, and if it were seriously on the table, I’d probably support it.

However, marriage as a sacrament (religious or otherwise) *and* a legal contract are deeply engrained in our culture and to me the much easier and more desirable path is to extend the institution to consenting adults, regardless of gender. Religious organizations that didn’t want to perform a particular wedding for whatever reasons wouldn’t be forced to, since there would be a sufficiency of religious organizations happy to do so.

NORBIT Jr. said:
Government should, however, educate, train and license child-bearers.

A child becomes an integral part – and responsibility – of the overall society they’re born into; therefore, societal licensing is not only justified, but beneficial to all parties.

Educate and train, yes. License, no. You’d be interfering with what is regarded as a natural right and the blowback’d knock you into the next county.

Bruins 5, Canucks 2.

What happened?

mediadoubt said:
“‘Licans: take a lickin’ and keep on lickin’.” In a world where “The Democrat Party” is considered the height of political insult, “‘Licans” works for me.

Fact: mediadobt used the word (work)? Hahahahahahahahaha…………. That’s funny……..

WHERE WERE THE FLAG PINS LAST NIGHT

UNAMERICAN!!!

NORBIT Jr. said:
Government should, however, educate, train and license child-bearers.

A child becomes an integral part – and responsibility – of the overall society they’re born into; therefore, societal licensing is not only justified, but beneficial to all parties.

you want the government to tell us how to raise our kids? LOL

Just4thefax said:
Fact: mediadobt used the word (work)? Hahahahahahahahaha…………. That’s funny……..

It’s one of many words I use frequently. You got a problem with that? Then: labor! toil!! effort!!! exertion!!!!

Ahem.

To the individual who said that government should separate the word marriage, here’s a simple answer from me:
“You don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry someone of the same gender.”

I don’t care what you guys think about gay marriage at all (it’s your choice), but what I do with myself and my future HUSBAND is none of your damn business. Unless I’m marrying you… to which most likely I will not.