CNN GOP Debate 8pm EST

LuckyDan said:

No, it's OUR GUY OR OBAMA. There will be two viable alternatives. I'm sick of "cons" who can't figure out who the enemy is.

Click to expand...

ENEMY????

That tells me much of what I needed to know.

Caine said:

ENEMY????

That tells me much of what I needed to know.

Click to expand...

Obama is the enemy of traditional America.

MarineTpartier said:

Obama is the enemy of traditional America.

Click to expand...

I dunno... even if his plan stated in the State of the Union address isn't how you THINK it should be done... he quite assuredly laid out his purpose was to do something to give companies an incentive to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

Manufacturing jobs are very much "traditional America"

Caine said:

ENEMY????

That tells me much of what I needed to know.

Click to expand...

I thought about qualifying that word with "political" but tact is wasted when dealing with the left. Read it however you like.

Caine said:

I dunno... even if his plan stated in the State of the Union address isn't how you THINK it should be done... he quite assuredly laid out his purpose was to do something to give companies an incentive to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.

Manufacturing jobs are very much "traditional America"

Click to expand...

I want results, not plans. What results has this guy provided? His plans are what got us here to begin with. If he would have tried some of this stuff to begin with instead of all the social engineering, green job "creating", and big company "bailouts" we might be better off right now. Sorry if I greet any plans or promises by Obama with a suspect mind. I'm sure you do to, judging by your lean.

MarineTpartier said:

I want results, not plans. What results has this guy provided? His plans are what got us here to begin with. If he would have tried some of this stuff to begin with instead of all the social engineering, green job "creating", and big company "bailouts" we might be better off right now. Sorry if I greet any plans or promises by Obama with a suspect mind. I'm sure you do to, judging by your lean.

Click to expand...

Listen, im not a fan of Obama in particular.... but....

Its not the President's job to craft and pass legislation. On legislative matters he is limited to what the legislature puts before him after it has passed it.

I know his leadership is important in these matters, but the President (not particularly Obama, im speaking of the position itself) gets all the credit AND blame for things when they don't go well.

As for the other topics, had the plans worked out great, we would all be singing a different tune........ I always try to watch out for "monday morning quarterbacking" as my profession is one of the #1 sufferers of this type of criticism.

Caine said:

Listen, im not a fan of Obama in particular.... but....

Its not the President's job to craft and pass legislation. On legislative matters he is limited to what the legislature puts before him after it has passed it.

I know his leadership is important in these matters, but the President (not particularly Obama, im speaking of the position itself) gets all the credit AND blame for things when they don't go well.

As for the other topics, had the plans worked out great, we would all be singing a different tune........ I always try to watch out for "monday morning quarterbacking" as my profession is one of the #1 sufferers of this type of criticism.

Click to expand...

I'm not accusing you of being an Obama supporter. Just debating the topic.
The President can craft legislation and present it to the congress. Or, he can convene a group that can present methods for recovery. Oh wait, he did that and ignored everything they said. His plans were doomed for failure from the beginning because they have been tried before and didn't work. Obamacare won't work (proven in Europe and Canada), the stimulus didn't provide nearly what he said it would, all of the "green" jobs aren't there, his "shovel ready" programs weren't even survey ready. The guy is just scatter shotting out there and not focusing on anything.

MarineTpartier said:

I'm not accusing you of being an Obama supporter. Just debating the topic.
The President can craft legislation and present it to the congress. Or, he can convene a group that can present methods for recovery. Oh wait, he did that and ignored everything they said. His plans were doomed for failure from the beginning because they have been tried before and didn't work. Obamacare won't work (proven in Europe and Canada), the stimulus didn't provide nearly what he said it would, all of the "green" jobs aren't there, his "shovel ready" programs weren't even survey ready. The guy is just scatter shotting out there and not focusing on anything.

Click to expand...

I've got to say, it's getting a little tiresome hearing conservatives make **** up about the Bowles-Simpson Committee. The fact is that it was created with specific guidelines in mind. Specifically, they needed to get 14 votes of its 18 members in order to present consensus recommendations. That never happened, and thus there was no consensus recommendation for Obama to act on OR ignore. Nonetheless, many of the commission's recommendations were considered during the debt ceiling crack up. Ultimately the majority recommendation had no chance, as it had more entitlement spending cuts than Democrats would accept, and more new revenue than Republicans would accept.

AdamT said:

I've got to say, it's getting a little tiresome hearing conservatives make **** up about the Bowles-Simpson Committee. The fact is that it was created with specific guidelines in mind. Specifically, they needed to get 14 votes of its 18 members in order to present consensus recommendations. That never happened, and thus there was no consensus recommendation for Obama to act on OR ignore. Nonetheless, many of the commission's recommendations were considered during the debt ceiling crack up. Ultimately the majority recommendation had no chance, as it had more entitlement spending cuts than Democrats would accept, and more new revenue than Republicans would accept.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was Dems who would not come to center more so than the GOP.
PolitiFact | John Kerry says Simpson-Bowles proposal raised $2 trillion in new revenues
The reason this is Obama's fault is his failure to push his party and tell them to meet in the middle on the plan. He merely dismissed the plan and moved on as though it didn't happen. He didn't champion even a portion of the committee's proposals. The whole things shows what a debacle he is in charge of up there. His Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days. He tells them not to leave D.C. until a payroll tax holiday is passed, they do it anyway. And thats the part of the legislature HIS party controls! At least the House had the respect to stay in session when he told them to. He called raising the debt ceiling a "leadership failure" in 2006 yet he's done it 5 times going on 6. The guy can't lead. He needs to go be a motivational speaker somewhere. That's something he's good at.

MarineTpartier said:

Actually, it was Dems who would not come to center more so than the GOP.
PolitiFact | John Kerry says Simpson-Bowles proposal raised $2 trillion in new revenues
The reason this is Obama's fault is his failure to push his party and tell them to meet in the middle on the plan. He merely dismissed the plan and moved on as though it didn't happen. He didn't champion even a portion of the committee's proposals. The whole things shows what a debacle he is in charge of up there. His Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days. He tells them not to leave D.C. until a payroll tax holiday is passed, they do it anyway. And thats the part of the legislature HIS party controls! At least the House had the respect to stay in session when he told them to. He called raising the debt ceiling a "leadership failure" in 2006 yet he's done it 5 times going on 6. The guy can't lead. He needs to go be a motivational speaker somewhere. That's something he's good at.

Click to expand...

Again, there was no plan. The commission could not come to agreement under the commission rules.

AdamT said:

Again, there was no plan. The commission could not come to agreement under the commission rules.

Click to expand...

My claim was he ignored EVERYthing they said. Which he did. He paid no attention to the proceedings nor took any kind of interest in it. I agree both parties failed to reach a middle ground. However, judging by the fact check provided, it looks like the right gave more than the left. The left being Obama's side. The side he didn't lead.

MarineTpartier said:

I can see his point of view on gay marriage though. He views gay marriage as perverting the institution of marriage and the beginning of the perversion of the bedrock morals of our country. I agree with him. I also think he's spot on with his judgement that if states dictate gay marriage, we would have situations where one state says two gay people are married, while another says they're not.

Click to expand...

I don't know if I see that as a major problem. You have the rights of a married couple in the states that recognize that union (either as a marriage or a civil union) and you don't have those rights in states that do not recognize that union. There might be a few hicups I'm thinking of at the moment, but for the most part it would be pretty simple.

Also, he makes an excellent point about adoption. The Catholic Church is the leading source of adoption arrangements. They aren't going to allow gay couples to adopt. So, should we then not allow all of those children to be adopted just so a very small, special interest group can be married? I think thats wrong. There are a lot of kids that would suffer just so Bob and Bill can be married.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with him here. Even if gay marriages are legalized and recognized, that doesn't mean the Catholic church should have to give up its right to practice its religion as they see fit. There other avenues that gay couples can seek to adopt from. Shutting down the Catholic church's adoption program only hurts kids who are in need of help.

As far as the sodomy thing, he has said that it wasn't the law he supported, but the states right to institute it if they wanted to. I have heard him say that numerous times.

Click to expand...

I've heard him make that statement on laws banning controceptives, not on sodomy laws. But even if that is true, is that a defensible position? I'm all for states rights, but I'm not for the right of the states to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Here's the issue with this, and the issue we will always fall into with these types of operations. When we go into these countries and take out the leadership, it creates a power vaccuum and anarchy. Trust me, I was in Baghdad in 2003 when the rioting started. It made the post Rodney King LA Riots look like a picket line. It was CRAZY. People were stealing everything including bathroom sink basins and carrying them home. I literally saw a woman carrying a double basin on her head lol. We created that situation. I do believe that whole war was a debacle. I was there for it and it was. Our military leadership totally underestimated the need for Military Police and didn't examine the ramifications of aboloshing the Iraqi Police and Army. It was very disheartening to sit in a bunker and listen to women being raped, men screaming because their house was being broken into, and children running scared in the street while I sat and watched because I wasn't allowed to do anything. I will always hold a grudge against Rumsfeld and the rest of them for that. They failed to plan, I have to live with the memories. If you want an accurate depiction of this, watch the HBO special Generation Kill. That is how Baghdad was. They got it right.
Sorry, the point of all this is that it would be very irresponsible of us to go into a country, create this situation, and then just leave. Iraq was a huge mistake, however, I think Bush realized it was but felt responsible for the situation and felt he was obligated to stay and fix it. He was screwed either way. Think how much he would have been demonized if we would have left it the way it was. Think about who would be running that country right now if we would have left. It would be an Iranian colony by now. That is much worse than what is there now IMO.

Click to expand...

The mess we created in Iraq did not need to be created. We could've limited our focus to the facilities and possibly personel that we believed were key to Hussien's alledged WMD programs. We did not need to roll into Baghdad, topple the government, disband the Iraqi police and military and create that huge vacuum. Bush Sr. had the foresight to realize what a mess that would be and showed restraint, recognizing that while Hussein was a vile dictator, he could be penned in and effectively contained and the alternative was much worse and more costly for us.

And you are absolutely right that not only did the Bush administration make a very bad decision to topple Hussein, they also failed to adaquetely plan and prepare for the aftershocks of the regime change.

Psychoclown said:

I don't know if I see that as a major problem. You have the rights of a married couple in the states that recognize that union (either as a marriage or a civil union) and you don't have those rights in states that do not recognize that union. There might be a few hicups I'm thinking of at the moment, but for the most part it would be pretty simple.

Click to expand...

The tax code would be the big one to me. Of course, it may cause tax reform which wouldn't be all bad lol.

Psychoclown said:

I've heard him make that statement on laws banning controceptives, not on sodomy laws. But even if that is true, is that a defensible position? I'm all for states rights, but I'm not for the right of the states to infringe upon the rights of the individual..

Click to expand...

My view of it is if a state wants those laws, who are we to say they can't have them? Like the sex toy ban in Alabama. I've heard no uproar from anyone that actually lives in Alabama. Its only from people outside. If they don't want laws like that, they will vote the guys out that enact them. Also, if someone doesn't like the law, they can sue the state gov't for enacting an unconstitutional law and see what the court has to say. There are quite a few avenues people are against this can approach from in order to get laws like these repealed.

Psychoclown said:

The mess we created in Iraq did not need to be created. We could've limited our focus to the facilities and possibly personel that we believed were key to Hussien's alledged WMD programs. We did not need to roll into Baghdad, topple the government, disband the Iraqi police and military and create that huge vacuum. Bush Sr. had the foresight to realize what a mess that would be and showed restraint, recognizing that while Hussein was a vile dictator, he could be penned in and effectively contained and the alternative was much worse and more costly for us.

Click to expand...

Well, the whole strategy was to eliminate a terrorist safe haven. Not saying it was correct, just saying that was the mind set. I will say, having been there, that the country is better than when we got there. I went in 2003, during the invasion, and in 2007 for a year on a military advisor team. I was embedded with the Iraqi Army. I got to know those guys very well. They all said that their country was MUCH better now than before. Civilians we stayed with (we slept in civilian's houses everynight) also said this. Iraqi's are not people that tell you what you want to hear either lol. If they don't agree with something, they let you know.

Psychoclown said:

And you are absolutely right that not only did the Bush administration make a very bad decision to topple Hussein, they also failed to adaquetely plan and prepare for the aftershocks of the regime change.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say toppling Hussein was bad. Toppling the gov't structure was bad. We nutured that country as soon as we took Baghdad. No police, no army, nothing. People ran wild. Also, our Baath Party hunt didn't do to well either. We should have had the Lincoln attitude of not punishing people for their past deeds but rather looking forward. By hunting down Baath Party members like we did, it made Shia's think we hated Sunni's. That, in turn, created the Sunni terrorism swell we say over there. Al Qaeda convinced the Sunni's that Americans hate them and are there to oust them and displace them. It worked.

MarineTpartier said:

The tax code would be the big one to me. Of course, it may cause tax reform which wouldn't be all bad lol.

Click to expand...

Tax reform is badly needed. But I don't see the tax code as a problem that warrants a federal marriage law. We currently have some states with gay marriage and someone with civil unions and others without, but it hasn't created a crisis in the federal income tax code. I don't know for sure because I haven't researched it, but I imagine that people who are a part of a legal same sex marriage or civil union get to file at the married rate. Those who are not a part of such a union, file as single. I don't see how that warrants the federal government limiting the types of contracts (legally speaking that is what marriage is) states can recognize.

My view of it is if a state wants those laws, who are we to say they can't have them? Like the sex toy ban in Alabama. I've heard no uproar from anyone that actually lives in Alabama. Its only from people outside. If they don't want laws like that, they will vote the guys out that enact them. Also, if someone doesn't like the law, they can sue the state gov't for enacting an unconstitutional law and see what the court has to say. There are quite a few avenues people are against this can approach from in order to get laws like these repealed.

Click to expand...

Yes, but someone in Texas did sue the state government and the law was overturned. The case is called Lawerence v Texas and it went to the Supreme Court. Santorum disagrees with the Court and would like to see it overturned. Going back to the wiki article I linked on Santorum:

Santorum then brought up the then-pending U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, which challenged a Texas sodomy law, and went on to declare that:[7][8]

- he did not have a problem with homosexuals, but "a problem with homosexual acts"
- the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"
- sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts which "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family"

Click to expand...

Another quote from the man himself ...

"Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

Click to expand...

And again, I'll remind you that sodomy is not limited to same sex acts. If you and the wife want to get a little kinky, Senator Santorum are undermining the concept of family and should be punished by law.

Well, the whole strategy was to eliminate a terrorist safe haven. Not saying it was correct, just saying that was the mind set. I will say, having been there, that the country is better than when we got there. I went in 2003, during the invasion, and in 2007 for a year on a military advisor team. I was embedded with the Iraqi Army. I got to know those guys very well. They all said that their country was MUCH better now than before. Civilians we stayed with (we slept in civilian's houses everynight) also said this. Iraqi's are not people that tell you what you want to hear either lol. If they don't agree with something, they let you know.

No, I didn't say toppling Hussein was bad. Toppling the gov't structure was bad. We nutured that country as soon as we took Baghdad. No police, no army, nothing. People ran wild. Also, our Baath Party hunt didn't do to well either. We should have had the Lincoln attitude of not punishing people for their past deeds but rather looking forward. By hunting down Baath Party members like we did, it made Shia's think we hated Sunni's. That, in turn, created the Sunni terrorism swell we say over there. Al Qaeda convinced the Sunni's that Americans hate them and are there to oust them and displace them. It worked.

Click to expand...

We're starting to veer off topic here. But I am enjoying the conversation. I think we both agree that the Bush administration failed to properly execute the occupation on many levels. But again, I'll say the decision to topple the government in the first place was a poor one.

I'm happy to hear that the Iraqi people believe their country is better off, but I have to ask a simple question. What national interest is served by making the nation of Iraq a better place to live? I have trouble answering that question. I certainly have even more trouble thinking of answer that is worth the cost in dollars, blood, and mangled veterans. Hussein was a vile dictator. I'll say it again, because I'm not one of those guys who acts like it was a horrible immoral thing to go oust him, but I simply ask, what was in it for us? He was isolated, contained, and crippled. In fact I think the post Gulf War treatment of Iraq should be a model for how we deal with these rogue state. Destroy their capacity to cause trouble on the international stage and then quarantine them like the disease that they are. If they try to get out of line and develop WMD or we find ties to terrorist organizations or they get into any sort of mischief that threatens stablity, a narrow, well defined surgical strike can remove the the sites and if necessary personel they are using to pursue those nefarious objectives.

Psychoclown said:

Yes, but someone in Texas did sue the state government and the law was overturned. The case is called Lawerence v Texas and it went to the Supreme Court. Santorum disagrees with the Court and would like to see it overturned.

Click to expand...

I don't see the big deal with a guy stating his views. No one is ever going to agree with everything someone says. This is his opinion. He said "he would like" to see it overturned. According to the Bible, sodomy of either sex is wrong. That is is stance, with the Bible. I see nothing wrong with that.

Psychoclown said:

We're starting to veer off topic here. But I am enjoying the conversation. I think we both agree that the Bush administration failed to properly execute the occupation on many levels. But again, I'll say the decision to topple the government in the first place was a poor one.

I'm happy to hear that the Iraqi people believe their country is better off, but I have to ask a simple question. What national interest is served by making the nation of Iraq a better place to live? I have trouble answering that question. I certainly have even more trouble thinking of answer that is worth the cost in dollars, blood, and mangled veterans. Hussein was a vile dictator. I'll say it again, because I'm not one of those guys who acts like it was a horrible immoral thing to go oust him, but I simply ask, what was in it for us? He was isolated, contained, and crippled. In fact I think the post Gulf War treatment of Iraq should be a model for how we deal with these rogue state. Destroy their capacity to cause trouble on the international stage and then quarantine them like the disease that they are. If they try to get out of line and develop WMD or we find ties to terrorist organizations or they get into any sort of mischief that threatens stablity, a narrow, well defined surgical strike can remove the the sites and if necessary personel they are using to pursue those nefarious objectives.

Click to expand...

Many national interests were progressed. 1) We have a major ally in the Middle East now. Iraq, compared to many of the other countries in that area, is actually looking VERY stable in comparison. Our media wants to talk about the explosions and protests in Iraq. I would wager that their per capita crime rate is equal to ours right now and we have more riots than they do at this point and time. I still keep in touch with my Jordanian interperator, who lives near Baghdad. He tells me the country is doing fine. The populous is not falling for the attempts of Iran to circumvent their gov't. 2) We prevented a very oil rich country from falling into the hands of terrorists. Imagine how much clout Al Qaeda would have if they controlled that oil. That scenario is unacceptable. 3) If Iran ever decides to kick their nuke program into high gear, we have a staging point. Iraq can say all it wants that we can't use their country for that. When it gets down to it, they will take the money and protection we offer by staging there. Those are three off the top of my head. If I sat down and thought about it, I'm sure I could think of more.
These surgical strikes everyone talks about are not as easy as people think. The OBL operation was one of the first of its kind that we have attempted and been successful. I can point to numerous other operations that fell flat. I've been on a few ops using the same concepts. It takes many days of planning. A perfect time line that is hit to the second. All equipment to work properly. Those are a lot of ifs. It isn't that our SpecOps guys aren't good. Its that the operations are that hard. In addition, those kind of operations require equipment liberals and many conservatives aren't willing to spend the cash on. Surgical strikes aren't a matter of a few guys who are in good shape kicking a door in. Or some mystical drone that everyone thinks is always in the air waiting. Those drones are expensive and (many people don't know this) require an observer on the ground. Who do you think actually confirms the target for the drone? Those drones aren't good enough to confirm the presence of someone.

Peter Grimm said:

Mitt Romney is being forced down our throats. That upsets me as a citizen and a member of the Republican Party.

The tea party needs to break away from the Republican Party. We need to stop talking about it and actually do it and start running our own candidates.

The fact that we ran John McCain last time was bad enough. Look at all of the Republican candidates after Reagan and they are just awful and not conservative in the least.

George Bush the elder: Read my lips...WORST president of all time. Worse than Obama, worse than FDR, worse than Hoover, Wilson, or Carter. Single-handedly destroyed the Republican Party from the inside.

Bob Dole: Liberal

George W Bush - Liberal

John McCain - Liberal

Mitt Romney - massachusetts liberal

I rest my case.

I've had enough. I'm finished with this party.

Click to expand...

So not only don't you look at anyone chosen before the 20th century (some of whom have great reason to be called the worst), you also call conservatives liberals because it fits the hissyfit.