Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Primary 2012: Romney Wins Debate By Saying Nothing, Having Nice Hair

1515254565759

Posts

  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Seriously, I didn't expect Gingrich to be the one to out-crazy Cain, Paul, Santorum and Bachmann, but I'll be damned if his one-two punch of "If we'd privatized NASA in the '60s we'd have a moon base and multiple space stations by now" and "We must purge the Imperium of the heretic Muslimocommunazis since their loyalty oaths are nothing but lies" didn't do just that.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Since I refuse to watch these things on the grounds that they are simultaneously boring and homicidal rage inducing, I watch them through your people's posts here.

    And let me tell you, this debate sounded like cthulu-esque madness. If I didn't already know it was a debate, I wouldn't know wtf was going on.

  • BullioBullio Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Since I refuse to watch these things on the grounds that they are simultaneously boring and homicidal rage inducing, I watch them through your people's posts here.

    And let me tell you, this debate sounded like cthulu-esque madness. If I didn't already know it was a debate, I wouldn't know wtf was going on.

    I don't watch them either, but that lineup on that network was guaranteed to deliver at least comedy silver. I watched for the laughs, because it's impossible to take any of them seriously, and I wasn't let down in that regard.

    steam_sig.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Doctor Who spoiler:
    Spoiler:

    PSN: allenquid
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    PantsB wrote: »
    Paul on CNN just said he is running on the foreign policy of George W Bush in 2000.

    The one that deemphasized counterterrorism and allowed 9/11 to happen. Also George W Bush.

    I'm no fan of George W., but come on.

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    devCharles wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Paul on CNN just said he is running on the foreign policy of George W Bush in 2000.

    The one that deemphasized counterterrorism and allowed 9/11 to happen. Also George W Bush.

    I'm no fan of George W., but come on.

    It's not that absurd a statement. With a serious emphasis on counterterrorism from January 21, 2001? Certainly possible. Hell, with decent intelligence sharing between CIA and FBI, it's stopped. We had all the pieces, just didn't act in time.

    Instead it was ignored.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    devCharles wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Paul on CNN just said he is running on the foreign policy of George W Bush in 2000.

    The one that deemphasized counterterrorism and allowed 9/11 to happen. Also George W Bush.

    I'm no fan of George W., but come on.

    It's not that absurd a statement. With a serious emphasis on counterterrorism from January 21, 2001? Certainly possible. Hell, with decent intelligence sharing between CIA and FBI, it's stopped. We had all the pieces, just didn't act in time.

    Instead it was ignored.

    I grant that if counterterrorism had been emphasized in the early Bush administration, or they had revamped the communication sharing process between the CIA and FBI it might have been caught, but that's essentially a hindsight 20/20 remark. To say the Bush administration allowed September 11th to happen is just over the top.

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Not a Robot Skeleton A Robot Skeleton PartyRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Is there a way I can re-watch the debate online? I was sleeping when it happened and I don't have cable.

    tQCnY.giftom_sig2.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    There was plenty of foresight. It was called the Clinton administration.

    Also "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." It was an utter failure.

    I suppose it's how you define the terms. Did they know that 9/11 was going to happen as it did and let it happen because they needed a Pearl Harbor moment as an excuse restructure the Middle East? No.

    Did they know that terrorism generally and bin Laden in particular was a clear and present danger to the United States and do precisely jack with absolutely no urgency about it? Yes.

    Sad thing, that's about the fourth worst Bush Administration scandal.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • ToxTox I kill threads Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Wait. I've got it!

    Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment because they think there's a limit on how many Amendments the Constitution can have at any one time, and that's the reason the No-Gay Amendment keeps failing. So they have to cut another one, first, and they didn't think anybody would care about the 17th.

    Yeah, that has to be it.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Tox wrote: »
    Wait. I've got it!

    Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment because they think there's a limit on how many Amendments the Constitution can have at any one time, and that's the reason the No-Gay Amendment keeps failing. So they have to cut another one, first, and they didn't think anybody would care about the 17th.

    Yeah, that has to be it.

    Honestly, I suspect they'd prefer the repeal of at least half of the post-Civil War amendments. A frightening number of them have to deal with expanding voting rights, and we know how that goes with them.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    There was plenty of foresight. It was called the Clinton administration.

    Also "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." It was an utter failure.

    I suppose it's how you define the terms. Did they know that 9/11 was going to happen as it did and let it happen because they needed a Pearl Harbor moment as an excuse restructure the Middle East? No.

    Did they know that terrorism generally and bin Laden in particular was a clear and present danger to the United States and do precisely jack with absolutely no urgency about it? Yes.

    Sad thing, that's about the fourth worst Bush Administration scandal.

    If I were to say it, I would say that the Bush Administration did not recognize the threat of Al Qaeda as being as serious as it turned out to be, and did not act on intelligence that turned out to be true out of the vast amount of intelligence they receive, some of which was related to 9/11 and was false. I view it as similar to blaming the Clinton administration for not acting on Able Danger. Why? 9/11 Commission says because the FBI and CIA made a number of mistakes. The amount of intelligence they have to deal with is likely gigantic. Israel thought there were 200 terrorists in the US preparing some kind of assault.

    Honestly, if you don't want to believe the 9/11 Commission Report, that's up to you, but it's pretty clear that they were working with classified material that we just don't have access to and making assumptions about it is certainly you're right, but it's basically speculation. Declarative statements out of speculation is bizarre. Especially something as declarative as saying it was "allowed to happen."


    All the same, it's pretty clear Ron Paul meant that he wanted to return to what George W. said in 2000 with regards to ending nation building. Foreign Policy and Homeland Security related to counterterrorism share traits, but Ron Paul has talked about this subject a lot before.

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • DacDac Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Tox wrote: »
    Wait. I've got it!

    Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment because they think there's a limit on how many Amendments the Constitution can have at any one time, and that's the reason the No-Gay Amendment keeps failing. So they have to cut another one, first, and they didn't think anybody would care about the 17th.

    Yeah, that has to be it.

    Honestly, I suspect they'd prefer the repeal of at least half of the post-Civil War amendments. A frightening number of them have to deal with expanding voting rights, and we know how that goes with them.

    You guys just don't understand. You think the average American even reads the constitution? It's way too long for that. You and me, we have shit to do! The Constitution clearly needs to be revised into a three-page format, suitable for teaching in all sixth-grade classrooms.


  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So is there a summary of the debate anywhere?

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Did Romney actually endorse not raising the debt ceiling unless Obama leads or some other vague piece of crap? Since when the fuck was using an immediate short term problem that had to be solved in a very specific way or else we all die become something you could attach requirements to?

  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Couscous wrote: »
    So is there a summary of the debate anywhere?

    Romney: Everything Obama has done is terrible. Even the stuff I did first, which was awesome. But now it's terrible. But I'm still awesome because I did all those things. But Obama's terrible.

    Bachmann: I'm running for President. Fuck the French. Disband the EPA. Repeal Obamacare! Lower taxes! Obama wants to steal your children in the night! We should pick my VP like American Idol!

    Santorum: I strengthened the borders of Minnesota. The economy can grow exponentially if we just want it bad enough. Obama wants to kill you and everyone you ever loved.

    Tim Pawlenty: I hate Iowa. I hate taxes. I hate the Federal Government. I hate old people. I hate Obama. Why doesn't everyone love me?

    Ron Paul: I'm the Commander-in-Chief. Withdraw all troops from everywhere. Poor people deserve to die. Obama wants to devalue the dollar so that he can steal your gold. Do away with taxes! Disband the Federal Reserve!

    Cain: The first step in solving a problem is identifying the problem. We have a problem in this country. See, I identified the problem and solved it. Obama's a racist.

    Newt Gingrinch: Obama has caused a worldwide depression and the death of all hope. We can escape this depression by winning the senate and the house and enslaving Muslims to build private sector elevators to the moon.

    This might be paraphrased slightly.

    There's a liveblog of the thing here.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    ktumulty: Predictions, anyone? What will Ron Paul advocate legalizing tonight? Going to be hard to top heroin

  • Curly_BraceCurly_Brace Not a Robot Skeleton A Robot Skeleton PartyRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Watching clips from the debate now, and I gotta say Gingrich's comments on NASA and space exploration are politically problematic to say the least.

    EDIT: And Cain's comments on Muslims, Sharia law, etc... yeesh! This is gonna be a loooong debate.

    tQCnY.giftom_sig2.jpg
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Newt Gingrinch: Obama has caused a worldwide depression and the death of all hope. We can escape this depression by winning the senate and the house and enslaving Muslims to build private sector elevators to the moon.

    Nah man, its okay to enslave criminals. Who are brown.

    steam_sig.png
  • AlegisAlegis Impeckable Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    is there a summary vid of some kind of all the crazy?

  • DynagripDynagrip destroy everything you touch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2011
    Watching clips from the debate now, and I gotta say Gingrich's comments on NASA and space exploration are politically problematic to say the least.
    How so? He's right about NASA being an impediment to progress, at least in respect to manned spaceflight. Ok, now I just got to the part about comparing it to the transcontinental railroad, that would be a less than ideal system, yes.

    gusinrepose.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    To be fair to Bachmann, I'm reasonably sure the VP Idol thing was a joke.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I'm feeling pretty good in my Romney prediction right now.

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    However she did say that Biden was wrong about everything, and that Palin was a better VP pick. I think she almost said that Palin had more experience, but she couldn't get it out.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Dynagrip wrote: »
    Watching clips from the debate now, and I gotta say Gingrich's comments on NASA and space exploration are politically problematic to say the least.
    How so? He's right about NASA being an impediment to progress, at least in respect to manned spaceflight. Ok, now I just got to the part about comparing it to the transcontinental railroad, that would be a less than ideal system, yes.

    I would buy an argument that NASA is not the best way to get into space NOW. But there is no way that getting rid of NASA in 1969 would have given us a space mecca today.

    camo_sig2.png
  • azith28azith28 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Ah huh...

    well I'm feeling pretty confident that the huge amount of people in this thread voting for Bachman or palin are democrats trying to skew the vote to the least likely obama unseaters.

    Its not that i dont like palin's attitude, or am unappriciative of the womens republican voting trend shes boosting but no I dont think many conservatives see her as a viable candidate. Bachman's a one trick pony that failed...I honestly have no idea why she thinks she has a chance.

    Romney is too much a politician for me. I dont want a politician right now, I want someone who can actually get things done. I honestly am liking Herman Cain as a candidate, not just because he would split the black vote from obama but because he knows what hes talking about economically (And has the experience), and has the feel of a leader that can get things done instead of someone doing it for the popularity. I find it pretty funny at the democrats already calling him racist.

    Newt just needs to give it up. I've never really liked him and hes not going to get far in this race acting like he always has....the 2012 race is going to be extremely polarized from a political (Mostly economical view) standpoint. Liberal vs conservatism (again, economically not socially). Newt and Romney arent going to get anywhere with the flipflopping they have been known for.

    Santorum might have a shot due to experience. the others i dont know much about.

    steam_sig.png

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning (poster is a bear)Registered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited June 2011
    azith28 wrote: »
    Romney is too much a politician for me. I dont want a politician right now, I want someone who can actually get things done.

    Ignoring the rest of this (it'll be Romney, the rest are tourists), how do you imagine the quoted working, exactly? What's in your head when you imagine this heroic non-politician "getting things done"?

    “You could tell by the way he talked, though, that he had gone to school a long time. That was probably what was wrong with him.”
  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    He plugs Herman Cain in that role, so apparently it requires Fair Tax and Muslim loyalty oaths?

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    edited June 2011
    azith28 wrote: »
    I honestly am liking Herman Cain as a candidate, not just because he would split the black vote from obama but because he knows what hes talking about economically (And has the experience), and has the feel of a leader that can get things done instead of someone doing it for the popularity. I find it pretty funny at the democrats already calling him racist
    No. Not even close. Contrary to popular belief, blacks as a voting block don't just head to the voting booth looking for the first black name on the ballot. He wouldn't get 10% of the black vote. His Muslim bashing doesn't help him in this regard because blacks are far more accepting of muslims than a lot of other voting blocks.

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Yeah pretty sure people call Cain a racist because he's extremely anti muslim. Sorry you can't say you want muslims specifically to take a loyalty test and pretend thats a policy decision.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    azith28 wrote: »
    well I'm feeling pretty confident that the huge amount of people in this thread voting for Bachman or palin are democrats trying to skew the vote to the least likely obama unseaters.

    Don't be ridiculous. I want Bachmann to run to unseat her from the 6th District in Minnesota. Obama is going to destroy whomever runs anyway. Did you see him campaign in '08? Do you think any of these jokers can generate either excitement or a coherant platform that isn't "Whatever Obama does, that sucks"?
    Its not that i dont like palin's attitude, or am unappriciative of the womens republican voting trend shes boosting but no I dont think many conservatives see her as a viable candidate.

    Palin doesn't have a voting trend. She was a half-term governor. Governors don't really vote on things, they decide what to veto and sometimes introduce legislation. The stuff she did introduce and champion wasn't even all that Republican. They share the wealth like crazy in Alaska, and they blow tons of money on bridges to nowhere.
    Romney is too much a politician for me. I dont want a politician right now, I want someone who can actually get things done.

    I don't really know how to say this, but running for president makes you a politician. The debate last night made it pretty clear that none of these people, with the possible exception of Paul, has any beliefs other than what the Republican party wants in order to support them for their presidential run.
    I honestly am liking Herman Cain as a candidate, not just because he would split the black vote from obama

    If, by split, you mean 90/10. Black people don't vote for people just because they're black. Obama does have historic levels of African American support, but him being black really is a small part of it. He actually endorses a platform that doesn't savagely fuck black people. Go find Alan Keyes's record with blacks. That's what's going to happen with Cain if he makes it to the general.
    I find it pretty funny at the democrats already calling him racist.

    I find it funny, too, but I suspect for different reasons.
    Newt just needs to give it up. I've never really liked him and hes not going to get far in this race acting like he always has....the 2012 race is going to be extremely polarized from a political (Mostly economical view) standpoint. Liberal vs conservatism (again, economically not socially). Newt and Romney arent going to get anywhere with the flipflopping they have been known for.

    Newt isn't serious about running anyway, and never was. He's been conning conservatives out of money ever since he left the House in the '90s. I suspect the only reason he's actually putting forward the image is because Maddow called him on it and he needs some cred to keep the money train chugging.
    Santorum might have a shot due to experience.

    Santorum's frothy mix of racism and homophobia gives him only a slightly better chance of becoming president than my left shoe.

    I'm not saying that Obama is going to win for sure, let's at least be honest: Any of these candidates that wins will win based on whether or not Obama screws up and the economy gets worse. Their own merits are, currently, immaterial, because they're either running away from them (like Romney) or not currently in possession of any merits (Bachmann, Palin, Santorum).

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    azith28 wrote: »
    I honestly am liking Herman Cain as a candidate, not just because he would split the black vote from obama but because he knows what hes talking about economically (And has the experience), and has the feel of a leader that can get things done instead of someone doing it for the popularity. I find it pretty funny at the democrats already calling him racist.

    Isn't that the guy that promised he won't sign any legislation longer than three pages?

    Or is he the guy that did the radio ad about two black guys talking about how awesome republicans are, that couldn't even get two black dudes to voice act it?

    http://i.imgur.com/SVLUjAW.png
    Vanguard wrote: »
    ...poetry is actually the worst
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Hahaha, I love when people say someone has "experience with the economy" because they were in charge of some random business concern. I ran a successful chicken farm for 25 years, I'm certain I can get America back on track!

    Also yeah Herman Cain is a racist because of all those racist things he said he believes are good ideas.

  • ClevingerClevinger Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    azith28 wrote: »
    I honestly am liking Herman Cain as a candidate, not just because he would split the black vote from obama but because he knows what hes talking about economically (And has the experience), and has the feel of a leader that can get things done instead of someone doing it for the popularity. I find it pretty funny at the democrats already calling him racist.

    Isn't that the guy that promised he won't sign any legislation longer than three pages?

    Or is he the guy that did the radio ad about two black guys talking about how awesome republicans are, that couldn't even get two black dudes to voice act it?

    No, I think he's the guy who doesn't trust Muslims.

  • RaggaholicRaggaholic Registered User
    edited June 2011
    Azith, I don't want you to think we're ganging up on you. We're not. I actually think it's interesting to have a fresh face in here.
    azith28 wrote:
    Its not that i dont like palin's attitude, or am unappriciative of the womens republican voting trend shes boosting but no I dont think many conservatives see her as a viable candidate.
    Palin doesn't have a voting trend. She was a half-term governor. Governors don't really vote on things, they decide what to veto and sometimes introduce legislation. The stuff she did introduce and champion wasn't even all that Republican. They share the wealth like crazy in Alaska, and they blow tons of money on bridges to nowhere.
    I think he's referring to Palin starting to move the numbers of women who vote republican instead of democrat. Without looking up the numbers, I think it's a fair assumption. Of course, if someone pulls up the numbers, I could be wrong.

    Feral wrote:
    Hell just froze over, because I just agreed with everything Raggaholic said in post about sex.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    KalTorak wrote: »
    One of the complaints I hear a lot about Kerry is that he ran on "I'm not Bush!" and not much else. And it seems like all these candidates are running on "I'm not Obama," plus crazy. I may be wrong but I remember Bush being less popular in 2004 than Obama at the moment; I don't think that strategy is going to work any better this time around.

    People don't want to hear you're not a canidate, they want to hear what you are going to do. As much as republicans try and claim Obama was running on a "I'm not bush" platform in 2008 he had policy proposals out the ass. If anything it was McCain running on the not bush train, he said it so often I hear Palin got waxed for good measure.

  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Doesnt look like theres much on "Palin women poll" in the google, but here are some things:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/110638/did-palin-help-mccain-among-white-women.aspx
    http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/poll-palin-struggles-among-african-americans-women/

    Seems like women dont like her much, or at least didnt not swing in her favor once she got into the game.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Palin was an obvious conservative attempt at trying to get hillary voters put off by Obama. That conservatives thought an anti choice cronyist hypocrite would appeal to women shows how little they think of them.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So Palin wasn't part of the debate. Does this mean her bid for a run in 2012 is officially over?

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
This discussion has been closed.