Newt On Fire During The Debate: Wow ! Sept. 7, 2011

Perry got owned on gardasil/parental rights vs forced executive order, how is that coming out on top?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

You keep posting that link to MSNBC.
---------------
Here is a clear picture of what happened last night.
- September Debate -

Rick Perry took shots from all around and but came out on top.
However, it was NEWT who pushed NBC back on their heels!

Of course Perry took shots from all around. He was the center, of a bias, corrupt, rigged debate, meant to pshh the newly created MSM "celebrity" to the forefront. Your point?

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I only saw the start of the debate, the two times Newt came up, he hit homeruns. He saw the big picture..... The media was going to try and get Republicans talking ill of other Republicans, all for the benefit of President Obama. He was the only one following Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment Newt will never win the nomination but will be an asset to the Republican party. I can see a lot of the lesser candidates getting cabinet level jobs.....

edit on 8-9-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)

Fox News ran that Newt clip all day.
---------------
I'm glad Newt was there to set the tone. NBC has egg all over their face.
Newt pushed them back on their heels.
------
A few of the 1% candidates should drop out.
Leave Newt there.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Newt has no chance of winning the nomination, and he also attacked the debate moderators at the Iowa debate.

Perhaps this is just his role in this cycle? He is supposed to be the one attacking the liberal media, and liberal agenda, and standing up for the chosen candidates in Perry/Romney?

I wonder what he is getting for his actions? A cabinet position perhaps?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Newt has no chance of winning the nomination, and he also attacked the debate moderators at the Iowa debate.

Perhaps this is just his role in this cycle? He is supposed to be the one attacking the liberal media, and liberal agenda, and standing up for the chosen candidates in Perry/Romney?

I wonder what he is getting for his actions? A cabinet position perhaps?

Did you notice that everyone cheered when they heard Newt blast NBC?
- He simply did the right thing.-
----------
Sometimes people do selfless acts and expect nothing in return.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


RIght, but he did the same thing in Iowa. He used part of his response time to berate the moderators of the debate. It is now becoming a pattern. And, it is well-deserved, but it seems to be more than just anger, or doing the right thing. It is starting to look like an agenda of its own.

I'm not criticizing it. I liked Newt in both debates, but he is a politician, there is always an agenda.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by josh2009s

 

The above Newt clip was the best of the night. Newt made NBC look like idiots.
----------
Ron Paul can't win.
Look at the polling data.

You say Ron Paul can't win, look at the polling data...

Well I looked at the polling data and it sure appears that Ron Paul is winning, so if he can gain the support of voters, can you explain to me why "he can't win"? Is your vote strictly about picking the "winner" or are you actually casting a vote because you are searching for a Candidate that makes your world a better place? If you are basing your decision to vote on who you think can win, please do everyone a favor and keep your butt away from the voting polls on election day.

The main reason for my reply though is I am very curious as to your mindset. Are you basing you potential vote strictly on what you hear these candidates say while they are on TV?

If you would bother to look at what Rick Perry has actually done, you would probably change your opinion of Rick Perry. Maybe the best thing people can do, not only listen to what they say but then go back and look at their voting records. Go back and look at the legislation they have passed, introduced or supported. If what you hear does not go hand in hand with your research, then you know the person is full of malarkey.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by josh2009s

 

The above Newt clip was the best of the night. Newt made NBC look like idiots.
----------
Ron Paul can't win.
Look at the polling data.

You say Ron Paul can't win, look at the polling data...

Well I looked at the polling data and it sure appears that Ron Paul is winning, so if he can gain the support of voters, can you explain to me why "he can't win"? Is your vote strictly about picking the "winner" or are you actually casting a vote because you are searching for a Candidate that makes your world a better place? If you are basing your decision to vote on who you think can win, please do everyone a favor and keep your butt away from the voting polls on election day.

The main reason for my reply though is I am very curious as to your mindset. Are you basing you potential vote strictly on what you hear these candidates say while they are on TV?

If you would bother to look at what Rick Perry has actually done, you would probably change your opinion of Rick Perry. Maybe the best thing people can do, not only listen to what they say but then go back and look at their voting records. Go back and look at the legislation they have passed, introduced or supported. If what you hear does not go hand in hand with your research, then you know the person is full of malarkey.

I'm sorry but it's down to Rick Perry & Mitt Romney.
Go ahead and back Ron Paul if you want to.
Eventually, reality will sink in.
-------
I'm hoping Gov.Sarah Palin comes riding in on her great white horse to save us all.
Palin / Marco Rubio sounds good to me.
- Socialism - OUT / Capitalism/Smaller Government - IN

reply to post by Eurisko2012


You can tell me who you think it is down to all you want.

I will support whomever I choose.

That being said, you failed to answer three very direct questions. So I will ask them again.

1. Can you explain to me why "he can't win"?

2. Is your vote strictly about picking the "winner" or are you actually casting a vote because you are searching for a Candidate that makes your world a better place?

3.Are you basing your potential vote strictly on what you hear these candidates say while they are on TV?

edited to add: If you think Palin would bring smaller Government than you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I would suggest you go to Youtube and watch all the debates from 2008 and listen a little more carefully.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

You can tell me who you think it is down to all you want.

I will support whomever I choose.

That being said, you failed to answer three very direct questions. So I will ask them again.

1. Can you explain to me why "he can't win"?

2. Is your vote strictly about picking the "winner" or are you actually casting a vote because you are searching for a Candidate that makes your world a better place?

3.Are you basing your potential vote strictly on what you hear these candidates say while they are on TV?

edited to add: If you think Palin would bring smaller Government than you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and I would suggest you go to Youtube and watch all the debates from 2008 and listen a little more carefully.

edit on 9-9-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

1. Ron Paul is to naive about Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Now is a bad time to be an isolationist.

2. Rick Perry & Mitt Romney have the $$$ Millions to run a national campaign.

3. I have read Sarah Palins books. She is a great capitalist and would make a great
replacement for the socialist Obama. Also, the liberals are -terrified - of Sarah
and the Tea Party.

reply to post by Eurisko2012

1. Ron Paul is to naive about Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Now is a bad time to be an isolationist.

Ron Paul is not an Isolationist. He wants to open Diplomacy and Trade with Iran. He doesn't want them to get a Nuke, but he understands why they would want one, especially as long as we are using them as our boogie man.

Ron Paul doesn't understand why we would ever take Diplomacy off the table as an option, like we did by refusing to even talk with Iran. I don't understand it either. We talked with China, and Russia, and it worked!!

He plays the left/right card well, trying to "unite" the republicans, so long as it is AGAINST the democrats. Meanwhile Ron Paul tries to unite everyone. Newt is too one sided for me to trust him, as Ron Paul said, we're against mandates like the Obamacare mandate, so why are we for mandates like medicare and minimum wage?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Now is a bad time to be an isolationist.

Oh, well when is a good time to be a NON-INTERVENTIONIST (checks watch), oh wait, never, because you real isolationists want to have trade restrictions and tarriffs on any country that doesn't accept the dollar for oil.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

1. Ron Paul is to naive about Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Now is a bad time to be an isolationist.

Ron Paul is not an Isolationist. He wants to open Diplomacy and Trade with Iran. He doesn't want them to get a Nuke, but he understands why they would want one, especially as long as we are using them as our boogie man.

Ron Paul doesn't understand why we would ever take Diplomacy off the table as an option, like we did by refusing to even talk with Iran. I don't understand it either. We talked with China, and Russia, and it worked!!

Talking to that nut job in Iran will not work.
As soon as Iran gets the bomb, they will put it on one of their many missiles and shoot it at
Israel. Israel will not allow that to happen.
---------
Go ahead and cheer for Ron Paul.
Lets just see what happens.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


And IF Iran were to fire a nuke at Israel what do you think would happen?

That is the cool thing about Radar, you kind of know whats coming before it gets there. So chances are Israel would fire a nuke right back and both countries would blow up...

This is the same issue we had with Russia. Would you like to take a guess as to why neither country fired a nuke? Because it would result in the destruction of both Countries. It is the same reason why Pakistan has never fired on India and vice versa. It's called Self Preservation.

Iran would not fire on Israel because doing so would result in their own destruction.

Originally posted by MrWendal
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

And IF Iran were to fire a nuke at Israel what do you think would happen?

That is the cool thing about Radar, you kind of know whats coming before it gets there. So chances are Israel would fire a nuke right back and both countries would blow up...

This is the same issue we had with Russia. Would you like to take a guess as to why neither country fired a nuke? Because it would result in the destruction of both Countries. It is the same reason why Pakistan has never fired on India and vice versa. It's called Self Preservation.

Iran would not fire on Israel because doing so would result in their own destruction.

edit on 9-9-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)

Haven't you heard?
If Iran nukes Israel, then Israel nukes Iran and then they believe that they all go to heaven where there
are 72 virgins waiting for them. - Destruction is their - destiny -.
The nut job in Iran wants to commit suicide.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


"Nutjob" is an act. Nobody gets to his station in life by being a suicidal nutjob. Iran will not shoot a missile at Israel, because it would be certain suicide, even without the US's help.

Nope, just like Lil Kim in NK, it is all for show, and they rattle their sabres, and they get the attention of the UN, and they buy a little bit of relief from the harsh sanctions. Take away the sanctions, and the need for sabre rattling goes away.

Besides, Ron Paul has stated openly that he would not continue to influence Israel, and he would let them act on their own accord. If he takes the leash off of Israel, we won't need to worry about Iran!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I wonder what he is getting for his actions? A cabinet position perhaps?

I can see Gingrich, Cain, maybe even Huntsman in cabinet level positions. And who wouldn't want to have Ron Paul as Chairman of the Federal Reserve or a Supreme Court Justice, he'd chew them up!

The VP candidate should be interesting, might not be a current Presidential Candidate as a pick (Rubio or Palin or Christie or Jindal) Rubio and Jindal make the most electoral college sense, as they will help in the South.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

"Nutjob" is an act. Nobody gets to his station in life by being a suicidal nutjob. Iran will not shoot a missile at Israel, because it would be certain suicide, even without the US's help.

Nah, they (Ahmadinejad's circle and the Revolutionary Guards) over there are nutjobs. They just aren't totally nuts in that they will sacrifice Iran to take out Israel. They would however, sacrifice Syria and the Palestinians to do that.

You are correct, they won't directly attack, but they are still mighty unstable. I'd rather work with the Mullahs in Iran than Ahmadinejad or the Revolutionary Guards. Those two are too unstable and unpredictable while the Mullahs you at least know their limits. Hopefully.

Originally posted by josh2009s

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
It looks like Newt won the battle but Rick Perry won the war.
------------
Rick Perry looks like best so far.

What do you mean?

edit on 8-9-2011 by josh2009s because: (no reason given)

I think the forum user might've been swayed by Gov "GoodHair" Perry's epic head o'hair.