Mr Bean wrote:Bachmann just called it Congrish, I am amused.
Ohshit Church and State question!
*Edit
And yes Ron Paul literally said "There should be no restrictions on expressing your CHRISTIAN Faith"
Yeah...
I think that right there encapsulated the entire stance of the Right Wing Regarding Religion.
That basically America should be free to worship religion, as long as it's "Their" Religion.
Really the whole debate reaffirmed a lot of things... One of them being how silly the "Liberal" Media assertion is.
If the Media was truly out to get the right wing, they would be playing clips of Cain saying he doesn't believe in Naturalized citizenship, or of practically anything else where one of them came out for a position that flys in the face of the Constitution.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan Read "Tales From The Crossroads"! Read "One Wrong Turn"!
Yeah, it was quite weird when the Fourteenth Amendment was blithely dismissed as being unimportant in the face of making sure that children of illegal immigrants being born in the US do not get US citizenship.
You were required to poll at least 1% in one of half a dozen national polls, failing to do so meant you were not a serious contender. Keep in mind that counting everyone whos declared they are running for the Republican nomination clocks in at 12 people at the moment, they had those debates last go around and they were a disaster in CNN's opinion so they narrowed it down to only people who managed to capture 1% more of their polls. They did about six of them I believe in the months leading up to the debate and Huntsman has never polled well, but such polls are also defective in that possible support for him might have been going to the half a dozen people theorized about but who dropped out.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Liberty wrote:I want to say "Hooray, Obama will WIN in 2012!" But then I remember that (a) one of these crazies could well win given the craziness of America at the minute; and (b) Obama is himself so far to the right that him winning again is only a victory inasmuch as it keeps the power away from them.
Obama has been shown to lose in polls to a mythical Republican candidate who can solve all problems (and who also doesn't exist). In head to head polls regarding actual candidates and potential candidates he wins quite handily. I expect that during presidential debats he'll easily be able to mop the floor with these Republican candidates who are used to going on Faux News and their own Tea Party rallies where their ideas are never questioned.
TheHammer wrote:
Obama has been shown to lose in polls to a mythical Republican candidate who can solve all problems (and who also doesn't exist). In head to head polls regarding actual candidates and potential candidates he wins quite handily. I expect that during presidential debats he'll easily be able to mop the floor with these Republican candidates who are used to going on Faux News and their own Tea Party rallies where their ideas are never questioned.
He only has to face one of them not all seven(Technically all twelve) and we should expect by March 1st when we expect Obama to know who he's likely to face and start beating up on him or her then depending how the Primary season goes. If it turns into a blood bath he won't have to lift a finger till June. Maybe longer if it goes to a party delegation vote.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Eframepilot wrote:
Amusing thought: Romney gets the nomination and loses, Bachmann comes in second, and by the rule that the runner-up gets the nomination next time (and the GOP's rage at losing with a "moderate" like Romney), she actually gets the nomination in 2012. Though I doubt that she could beat Jeb Bush.
eh runner up doesnt always get the GOP nom. see- Pat Buchanan who was number 2 in both 1992 and 1996.
Go back far enough and you'll end up blaming some germ for splitting in two - Col Tigh
You were required to poll at least 1% in one of half a dozen national polls, failing to do so meant you were not a serious contender. Keep in mind that counting everyone whos declared they are running for the Republican nomination clocks in at 12 people at the moment, they had those debates last go around and they were a disaster in CNN's opinion so they narrowed it down to only people who managed to capture 1% more of their polls. They did about six of them I believe in the months leading up to the debate and Huntsman has never polled well, but such polls are also defective in that possible support for him might have been going to the half a dozen people theorized about but who dropped out.
Hmm.. There was a fair bit of money going on him (Huntsman) recently on the UK markets leading me to believe he may be something of a 'dark horse'. Shows how much I know about the reality of US politics at the moment!
Eframepilot wrote:Amusing thought: Romney gets the nomination and loses, Bachmann comes in second, and by the rule that the runner-up gets the nomination next time (and the GOP's rage at losing with a "moderate" like Romney), she actually gets the nomination in 2012. Though I doubt that she could beat Jeb Bush.
eh runner up doesnt always get the GOP nom. see- Pat Buchanan who was number 2 in both 1992 and 1996.
And Bush Jr. didn't even run in 1996, nor did McCain get the nomination in 2004 (for obvious reasons). I'd be reluctant to say that this is a rule- it worked for Reagan/Bush and Bush/McCain insofar as after the two term president steps down the runner-up who campaigned against them got the job. But in Bush Sr.'s case that had a lot to do with his status as vice presidential candidate. So we're down to one instance, which does not a rule make.
