View Full Version : NBC New Hampshire Debate Jan 8, 2012......
The last Debate hosted by David Gregory of NBC/MSDNC......afterwards Gingrich and Santorium left NH and moved down to So. Carolina. Leaving NH to Romney, Paul, and Hunstman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwUm-dRGt2o&feature=related
Part 1.....:wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfT-RPJHd_k&feature=related
Part 2....:smiley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08PS_LCQj7Y
Part 3.....:cool2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83ZotkwRr8o
Part 4.....:afro:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unXZlFngQBA&feature=related
Part 5.....:grin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5bGhOOppvg
Part 6.....The End!
The last Debate hosted by David Gregory of NBC/MSDNC......afterwards Gingrich and Santorium left NH and moved down to So. Carolina. Leaving NH to Romney, Paul, and Hunstman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwUm-dRGt2o&feature=related
Part 1.....:wink:
Starts off with Gingrich going after Romney saying he is unelectable. That there is a difference between a Reagan conservative and a Timid Moderate from Massachusetts. He also questions if Romney can be able to handle the type of billion dollar smear campaign that Obama will run.
Right away Romney talks about NH watching him as a Govenor next Door. Yet NH is mainly independants. They say so themselves. Which is why Romney has the air of confidence. Not like last time running against a war hero. Then Romney says he passed illegal immigration laws. That should be checked. Romney keeps talking about being a leader.
Santorium hit Romney with then why did you not run for re-election. Hit him with saying he would be left of Ted Kennedy. That Romney does not stand up for Conservative principles. Romeny defends why he is not a career politican. Romney says he has never been a career politican. Romney states he is for term limits.
Gingrich jumped him saying quit the BS. Romney has been running for office since the 1990's. Course Romney defended his run against Kennedy.
Tho Romney did say his views are progressive. Then listen to what Paul said he was dead on. Perry gets a shot in calling them all insiders. Then Perry called out for the Tea Party. Romney says his record for Govenor shows he will stand up for conservative principles. they didnt allow Huntman to get any shot off and then asked him a completely different question to start part 2.
Yet this was suppose to be the showdown Huntsman vs Romney. Course the media stated that the rest of the GOP only got mild shots off on Romney. You decide! I thought they were getting some good shots off for Round!
Conley
01-09-2012, 10:16 AM
I think I would have liked Huntsman as a candidate if he had ever gotten any traction.
As it is I think I am voting for this guy (not because of his joke, but check this out)
Then, on September 21, Fox News decided that because Johnson polled at least 2% in five recent polls, he could participate in a September 23 debate in Florida, which it co-hosted with the Florida Republican Party (the party objected to Johnson's inclusion).[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#cite_note-gqprofile-60) Johnson participated, appearing on stage with Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich), Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Rick Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry), Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. During the debate, Johnson delivered what many media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times), and Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_(magazine)), called the best line of the night: "My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel ready (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shovel_ready) jobs than this administration."[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#cite_note-63)[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#cite_note-64) Entertainment Weekly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Weekly) even opined that Johnson had won the debate.[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#cite_note-65)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson#Primary_campaign
Gary Johnson.....that aint happening.
Conley
01-09-2012, 11:28 AM
Gary Johnson.....that aint happening.
C'mon that was a great joke!
Anyway, he will probably win the Libertarian nomination - he switched from Republican - so that is probably who I will vote for. His platform aligns with mine more than Obama or Romney.
You are going to vote for Gary Johnson? I am just asking and not trying to sound funny or anything. But didnt you want your vote to matter? Don't you think he just helps divide the vote as he is clearly not a contender?
Conley
01-09-2012, 11:45 AM
No problem, I don't mind answering. I haven't decided yet who I'll vote for but right now that's my thinking. Do I think Romney would be a better president than Obama? Probably. Do I think there's a big difference between the two? Nope. For example, I think Romney would have agreed to the same thing Obama did in allowing American citizens apprehended in America to be held indefinitely. No matter whether the next president is Obama or Romney both will continue the path that's been laid out for them. Sure, Romney may be better for the economy, it might even improve a little bit in terms of growth and the stock market (but not wages or unemployment), but the big picture will remain the same.
Both Obama and Romney will run up the debt. Why not? Who has ever been held accountable by the American people for doing so?
The rich will get richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class in this country will continue to disappear. I see it everywhere, small businesses leaving, the middle class homes all getting foreclosed, etc. Corporations will continue to grow in power and jobs will continue to go overseas.
If we never vote for a third party candidate then what incentive is there for the two parties to ever change?
We are nearing the point of no return and may have already passed it.
Conley
01-09-2012, 11:49 AM
Really I feel that at this point voting for Obama or Romney is throwing one's vote away more than voting for a third party. That is unless you agree with what they stand for. There are some who agree with what Obama is doing but those numbers are far, far fewer than the number of people who will vote for him. I would bet over half of the people who vote for Obama are not happy with him but are voting that way because they think he is the lesser of the two evils, or because he is a democrat. Isn't that a sign that something is very, very wrong?
Mister D
01-09-2012, 11:53 AM
That's what people have bee doing for a long time or so it seems. People always pay lip service to the idea that the systenm is rotten but go rigth back to rooting for their team onmce that conversation ends.
I understand what you are saying.....I seriously think if Paul would take a different stance with Foreign policy he would be better off. Or at least let those know who he would pick as his VP. Still even if he won. I think he would have both parties against him. Unless he could pick cabinet positions that would offset what Paul would discover the reality of.....once in the Oval office.
We have a bunch of flip-floppers. Use to be Democrats. Call themselves Conservatives all based on fiscal conservatism. Did you listen to the Wallace Interview with Paul. Note what he states about character and perception. But then listen to what he clearly states is the Liberty. What is defined as the Right of Equal Availability of Oppourtunity for each and every individual. Despite the good or the bad. Yet when it comes to law then we must be able to define such with the rights of private property. Paul explains it pretty good. But not how I defined it.
I don't know about the rigidness of his teachings in Austrian Economics. Althought when he talks about the gold standard he is not talking about what we have today. Which is says is what needs to be changed. But I have always disagreed on the aspect that if there is no Central Banck or Federal reserve so to speak, that Countries will not wage war. Wherein Paul thinks then they would not have the money.
One can look at the Warlord Module and in means with moving with the ages and technologies an thus becoming a Corporate mogul and still player or finacier in the game.
Mister D
01-09-2012, 12:16 PM
RP's foreign policy views do put a of potential supporters off.
Lets not forget Santorium is the one who is saying he is the only true conservative up there. Althought it didnt surprise me with what Perry pulled in the first round.
Which this is up to this point. Still Gregory of MSDNC was able to take shots at the GOp as well in the Debate. Which he thanked them for having debates like every ten hours. I don't know if he was trying to get a laugh from the crowd. But to me it shows the way Gregory leans and tries to influence those of left.
wingrider
01-09-2012, 12:45 PM
RP's foreign policy views do put a of potential supporters off.
I guess what it boils down to is do we understand exactly what Paul is saying on foriegn police or is it a misconception on our part?
personally I think a non intervention policy is the right approach,, we can do business with other countries but do we have to police the world and impose our way of life on others? to me Paul is dead on the mark , We interfere in how other cultures wish to run their countries but at the same time we take offense when other countries point out the flaws we have.. We should really learn how to live our own lives and not be sticking our noses in other peoples fights.
I could see reduce basing overseas and looking at the planet that we could work with regionalization for National Security Issues and as Paul says Defense of the Country. Also I would not oppose the stopping of giving away our military tech. Like WR says trade still could go on. But there is no reason to share military technology. Especially if ours is the State of the Art.
Yet from the Iowa Poll Ron Paul is pulling like 40 some percent of Independant voters. Not to mention he is pulling the youth vote from Obama. If he pulls 5 caucus states then he could be the keynote Speaker at the Convention. Which I mentioned in the other thread with his interview on Fox.
Also right away Gingrich flocked to the Reagan mantle and his credentials when attacking Romney. Plus now Gingrich knows he has that Vegas guy to back him for 20 mil. That would give him more than Perry. Both Gingrich and Santorium are in So Carolina hitting it there. Course today still taking their shots at Romney.
Mister D
01-09-2012, 02:00 PM
I guess what it boils down to is do we understand exactly what Paul is saying on foriegn police or is it a misconception on our part?
personally I think a non intervention policy is the right approach,, we can do business with other countries but do we have to police the world and impose our way of life on others? to me Paul is dead on the mark , We interfere in how other cultures wish to run their countries but at the same time we take offense when other countries point out the flaws we have.. We should really learn how to live our own lives and not be sticking our noses in other peoples fights.
As far as imposing our way of life I agree. My complaint is that we obviously have concerns around the world and strict isloationism just isn't realistic.
wingrider
01-10-2012, 12:34 AM
As far as imposing our way of life I agree. My complaint is that we obviously have concerns around the world and strict isloationism just isn't realistic.
who has said anything about isolationism?
Paul sure hasn't, even though he has been labeled as such, D there is a world of difference between islolation and non interferrence.
it has been the United states meddling in other countries both politically and economically that has caused most of the bull shit we now have to put up with.
who has said anything about isolationism?
Paul sure hasn't, even though he has been labeled as such, D there is a world of difference between islolation and non interferrence.
it has been the United states meddling in other countries both politically and economically that has caused most of the bull shit we now have to put up with.
You are correct WR.....as Paul when he interviewed on Fox last month had stated he was not for isolationism and was for trade. He also mentioned that people had to at least understand that when he comes from such that it is with the understanding of the basics when dealing with other foreign countries. That it was not common sense to believe that there could not be any dealings with other foreign countries.
BTW I hope you head all of that interview with Wallace in the other thread on Paul!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfT-RPJHd_k&feature=related
Part 2....:smiley:
Huntsman hit Romney up right away in this segment. The one thing that I have noted about Romeny is his way to say all the right things. Note to say them. Not that I believe for a minute that he is looked into all that he says. To attack Republicans or Conservatives all due to going to work for Obama. This is what Romeny believes about those who did so. Huntsman is right to play the Patriot card here. Country first over party.
Listen to what Santorium says about cutting 3 areas where Americans will feel the pain. Note that is how Gregory asks as a journalist/host/reporter. All in the phrasing of the questions. Yet Both Huntsman and Santorium cite the Ryan plan. Santorium nails it dead on. Which is why the MSM stays away from him. Huntsmen and Paul. As the the MSM already knows the Demos do not know how to respond back to those that have the answers. Santorium is right to suggest that the entitlement programs need to be moved from what they are now. A dependecy program to a transitional program to move people out of poverty. He is dead on stating give it back to the states. Housing, Food stamps, and welfare programs. In this I agree with both Huntsmen and Santorium.
Once again Romney is allowed to respond yet says nothing but how he will get the country back on track. how he stands for Conservatism principles. How we need to take back the country from Obama. All the useless comments to say to the base. Santorium hits about tax on labor, another mark right on the money! Which is what Ryan stated.
WHOA.....Gingrich pops Gregory with what I was talking about. On the issues of seniors and care. Again Gingrich hits them with the facts here. Give him credit for this. But more importantly how Gingrich comes at gregory with how highly paid Washington Commentators and analysts. All want to talk about pain and who is going to feel the pain. Like Gingrich says the bureaucracy should be the one to feel pain! gregory then changes the subject and goes to another candidate.....Perry.
Perry doesnt even answer the question and he wants to give his answer to what was asked of the first two Candidates. Perry goes into a spiel about being a govenor and what 3 programs he would cut. Now remembered!
Gregory then goes to Romney about taxes. Using once again what Warren Buffet says as opposed to Nordquist. Romney spouts off about not raising taxes on any Americans. Not only is the issue about Not Raising taxes on any Americans. There is another more important issue which needs to be taken to both parties and full head on. Tho Republicans do understand the true depth of the meaning. Which is.....
The specifics of taxing a SPECIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE MORE.....and what that would exactly mean to the US CONSTITUTION!!!!! The Democratic Republican Party.....Their real name! Would throw out all that our Founding Fathers worked so hard to achieve. EQUALITY! The Availability of Equal Opportunity for each and every single Citizen of this Country. Harping on that they want laws made for specific groups of people. Laws that favor specific groups of people. This is what needs to be taken to the American people.
I don't care if they are liberal, conservative, male or female, what their race is, Democrat, Republican, Independant, or anything else. Each needs to ask themselves one question. Do you wanted to be treated equally as others. Do you want the same equality. The same Equal Availability of Oppourtunity. Your liberty! On you.....to make it or break it! Let them who have Ears.....Hear the Roar!
Mister D
01-10-2012, 09:41 AM
who has said anything about isolationism?
Paul sure hasn't, even though he has been labeled as such, D there is a world of difference between islolation and non interferrence.
it has been the United states meddling in other countries both politically and economically that has caused most of the bull shit we now have to put up with.
We "meddle" in other countries affairs because we have strategic interests around the globe. Anyone who does not understand that or who will not acknowledge that reality should not be anywhere near the Oval Office.
wingrider
01-10-2012, 04:24 PM
We "meddle" in other countries affairs because we have strategic interests around the globe. Anyone who does not understand that or who will not acknowledge that reality should not be anywhere near the Oval Office.
out side of OIL what strategic interests could the United states have, ? NO paul is correct, it is our continued interferrence in other countries that has caused most of the problems in the world, I mean really just what business is it of the United states if a country is run by a dictator like pol pot or Kim Il or even saddam husein,? or even an idiot like Castro. no we meddle in other countries because we are strong enough to do it, and for no other reason than the procurement of oil. which brings me to Afghanistan,, Just what the hell are we in there for, they got nothing we need or wnat yet we are spending valuable american lives and treasure on nothing, our government is INSANE.
we have over a trillion barrells of oil right here in the states that could be brought online, but tree hugging bleeding hearts won't let it be produced,
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.