Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: JOHN MATRIX on October 28, 2015, 06:50:10 AM
-
Carson will continue to have half closed eyes and speak softly and meekly, everyone will say he didn't do well but his numbers will continue to be high regardless???
Bush will still get 50% of all the questions?
the liberal partisan moderator will do hatchet job on TRUMP???
Cruz will get one question 45 minutes in, answer perfectly, then get ignored for another 45 minutes??
a 1%-er will go for broke and get crazy??
make or break for Carly??
-
the liberal partisan moderator will do hatchet job on TRUMP???
If I, and George Will, are correct... Tonight we'll see a coordination of attacks from moderator/CNBC and Trump. Sure, they'll still take their potshots at trump regarding him losing in this week's polls... BUT the line of questioning from trump vs carson will be the same.
Religion + His changing stories on violence.
RIGHT NOW - MSNBC/Esquire are already breaking the "modified" versions of his violent stories.
and Deana Bass, carson campaign story, just sat there mouth ajar, unable to even comment on the multiple stories. She's on right now. Babbling, unprepared for the allegations of the multiple versions he's told.
-
that's just his usual though lol and he hasn't affected his support
-
that's just his usual though lol and he hasn't affected his support
If the stories are true, then YES, repubs love a tough guy, love violence.
BUT if the stories are lies, repubs will abandon him. That Popeyes robbery just didn't happen. The police confirm. And they're now opening up and comparing all of Carson's versions of teh stabbing story, huge differences.
CNBC will likely ask him about it tonight, and he'll deflect, but at some point, the reasonable voters that abandoned Carly for lying, and moved to Carson, will move on to a Cruz or someone....
Being busted caught lying hurt Carly - I think it'll hurt Carson too.
-
g
-
neither of them lied
-
Rubio has skipped 30% of his votes. and he's blaming a newspaper for pointing it out.
-
huckabee just said social security is NOT entitlements. it's the people's money, taken against their will, they deserve to get it back.
He's right. I've been yelling this.
-
Cruz is killing it......
-
huckabee just said social security is NOT entitlements. it's the people's money, taken against their will, they deserve to get it back.
He's right. I've been yelling this.
if you receive more than you put in its an entitlement...and the reason youre yelling about it is b.c youre living off it you POS
-
if you receive more than you put in its an entitlement...and the reason youre yelling about it is b.c youre living off it you POS
I always hear about this, but how many people actually get more than they put in?
Plus, factor in the people who put in and die before they can ever collect it... I'm not sure I buy that there's a bunch of free loaders getting social security in and of itself.
I've been putting into it since I was 12, I highly doubt I will get everything back that I've been forced to put into it.
-
I always hear about this, but how many people actually get more than they put in?
Plus, factor in the people who put in and die before they can ever collect it... I'm not sure I buy that there's a bunch of free loaders getting social security in and of itself.
I've been putting into it since I was 12, I highly doubt I will get everything back that I've been forced to put into it.
how would we be out of money if people didnt take out more than they put in?
-
how would we be out of money if people didnt take out more than they put in?
seriously though...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/
"According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion."
-
Because the money is sent to other programs and not left in the bank like it should be.
If the money we put in, is left in an interest bearing account, it would be fine.
-
I always hear about this, but how many people actually get more than they put in?
Plus, factor in the people who put in and die before they can ever collect it... I'm not sure I buy that there's a bunch of free loaders getting social security in and of itself.
I've been putting into it since I was 12, I highly doubt I will get everything back that I've been forced to put into it.
understand holmes Im not necessarily for cutting social security benefits, maybe delaying them.
The fact is though if you take out more than you get, its an entitlement
-
understand holmes Im not necessarily for cutting social security benefits, maybe delaying them.
The fact is though if you take out more than you get, its an entitlement
Hey, I'd be perfectly fine taking all of what I've put into it, in one lump when I turned 65. One lump sum... Done.
I'd be able to put it into the bank and compounding interest would probably take care of me forever.
That's why it sucks.
-
Cruz is killing it......
THIS
-
Hey, I'd be perfectly fine taking all of what I've put into it, in one lump when I turned 65. One lump sum... Done.
I'd be able to put it into the bank and compounding interest would probably take care of me forever.
That's why it sucks.
BUT every time a stock does bad, some 2 or 3% of our retired population will lose their shirts.
They aren't 25 with decades to rebuild. Suddenly they're dependent on the system or starving/picking up their rifles and going hunting for food/meds.
I love the idea of privatization EXCEPT what do you do when we have another 2008 crash... where you have 10 to 20% of the retired population instantly BROKE. If I'm 75 and I need my meds or I die, you bet your ass I'm taking my AR-15 out and robbing some punk ass college potheads for their wallets.
So yes, unless you want tens of thousands of elderly shitting on the streets - privatization doesn't work.
-
Hey, I'd be perfectly fine taking all of what I've put into it, in one lump when I turned 65. One lump sum... Done.
I'd be able to put it into the bank and compounding interest would probably take care of me forever.
That's why it sucks.
I agree with you broham, I would be more than happy with my money back.
Fact is though we arent getting shit back, we need to pay for people like rob
-
BUT every time a stock does bad, some 2 or 3% of our retired population will lose their shirts.
They aren't 25 with decades to rebuild. Suddenly they're dependent on the system or starving/picking up their rifles and going hunting for food/meds.
I love the idea of privatization EXCEPT what do you do when we have another 2008 crash... where you have 10 to 20% of the retired population instantly BROKE. If I'm 75 and I need my meds or I die, you bet your ass I'm taking my AR-15 out and robbing some punk ass college potheads for their wallets.
So yes, unless you want tens of thousands of elderly shitting on the streets - privatization doesn't work.
LOL stricter gun legislation is a pipe dream but this is reality? hahahaha fear monger much?
-
LOL stricter gun legislation is a pipe dream but this is reality? hahahaha fear monger much?
earlier, you said hilary called for mandatory gun turn in. Link, please?
-
earlier, you said hilary called for mandatory gun turn in. Link, please?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA first I said that she was contemplating a mandatory buy back....HAHAHAHHAHA what a fucking reach.
Second, i quoted your retarded ass from the thread moron.
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA first I said that she was contemplating a mandatory buy back....HAHAHAHHAHA what a fucking reach.
Second, i quoted your retarded ass from the thread moron.
so hilary never said that?
i know when someone calls names, they don't have a lot of win in their argument.
-
earlier, you said hilary called for mandatory gun turn in. Link, please?
here you go you fucking idiot
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=585148.0
and the link to the original story...
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback?ref=yfp
and a quote from the article for your dumb ass
Hillary Clinton praised the gun control measures Australia adopted in 1996-'97 at a campaign stop Friday, saying, "It would be worth considering doing it on the national level," in the US. She stopped short of outright saying the US should copy the laws, but expressed sympathy with the idea. "I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work," she told a voter who asked about Australia, per a transcript from the Washington Free Beacon, "but certainly your example is worth looking at."
-
the gun control measure australia adopted was......WAIT FOR IT!!!!
A MANDATORY BUY BACK
-
I always hear about this, but how many people actually get more than they put in?
Plus, factor in the people who put in and die before they can ever collect it... I'm not sure I buy that there's a bunch of free loaders getting social security in and of itself.
I've been putting into it since I was 12, I highly doubt I will get everything back that I've been forced to put into it.
Family members can usually collect it though.
-
That debate was just horrible. All of them are pretty stupid and really do not have a clue of what they are doing. I think they actually are as dumb as their target audience.
-
She stopped short of outright saying the US should copy the laws, but expressed sympathy with the idea.
Oh. So she never said we should do it in the USA. She just "sympathized". We sympathize with a lot of things and don't do shit.
I guess what i'm saying it - with all we know about politics and american culture - do you really think any politican would ever commit political suicide by taking our guns on a mandatory buyback basis? Even hilary said "not that we should copy it".
-
Family members can usually collect it though.
I know that spouses can, but I am unaware of others.
-
That debate was just horrible. All of them are pretty stupid and really do not have a clue of what they are doing. I think they actually are as dumb as their target audience.
Yeah, they attacked the media every time they couldn't answer a tough question.
I WANT the dems and repubs to be faced with tough Qs. If you can't be straight with the public on a simple Q, how the F can you handle yourself against Putin?
-
I know that spouses can, but I am unaware of others.
Children of deceased family members, once they turn 18 can also collect it if the spouse did not.
-
Oh. So she never said we should do it in the USA. She just "sympathized". We sympathize with a lot of things and don't do shit.
I guess what i'm saying it - with all we know about politics and american culture - do you really think any politican would ever commit political suicide by taking our guns on a mandatory buyback basis? Even hilary said "not that we should copy it".
HAHAHAHHAHAHA so you get proven wrong and you try and weasel out by saying well she really only says its worth thinking about it and stopped short of saying we should?
shit man, youve gone downhill bro
you used to be just a piece of shit, now....I dont even know
-
Children of deceased family members, once they turn 18 can also collect it if the spouse did not.
There must be some limit to this.
What are the rules there?
-
HAHAHAHHAHAHA so you get proven wrong and you try and weasel out by saying well she really only says its worth thinking about it and stopped short of saying we should?
shit man, youve gone downhill bro
you used to be just a piece of shit, now....I dont even know
She said we shouldn't copy it. She was very clear.
I think hilary is a bag of shit and I'll never vote for her. But I can be honest and say "she isn't going to try to ban guns".
People would be shooting cops 24/7, it'd be a huge black market, violent gangs... shit, it'll never happen.
-
She said we shouldn't copy it. She was very clear.
I think hilary is a bag of shit and I'll never vote for her. But I can be honest and say "she isn't going to try to ban guns".
People would be shooting cops 24/7, it'd be a huge black market, violent gangs... shit, it'll never happen.
no what she said was...""It would be worth considering doing it on the national level,"
are you seriously that much of a fucking weasel to not admit that?
-
There must be some limit to this.
What are the rules there?
No limit really. It will be the full amount that the spouse would normally get. After my father died when I was a child, my mother never bothered to claim it. I decided to claim it when I turned 18 and invested all of it. It was a large (max) amount.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html
-
I can agree she isnt going to try and ban all guns
Carson isnt going to do away with abortions or medicare but you seem to give that credence ::)
-
I can agree she isnt going to try and ban all guns
Carson isnt going to do away with abortions or medicare but you seem to give that credence ::)
But he has the ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges which may wish to do so. THAT is dangerous.
-
But he has the ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges which may wish to do so. THAT is dangerous.
and clinton would have the same authority to do so with judges that may wish to do away with guns.....your point?
-
But he has the ability to appoint Supreme Court Judges which may wish to do so. THAT is dangerous.
truth
-
No limit really. It will be the full amount that the spouse would normally get. After my father died when I was a child, my mother never bothered to claim it. I decided to claim it when I turned 18 and invested all of it. It was a large (max) amount.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html
Ah... Got it.
Yes, you have to be what is considered a "minor" (18 or 19 is allowed)
Spouses can receive it as well.
-
truth
and clinton would have the same authority to do so with judges that may wish to do away with guns.....your point?
^^^
and this isnt "truth"?
Hahahaha fucking moron
-
and clinton would have the same authority to do so with judges that may wish to do away with guns.....your point?
Uh, that would take an amendment to the Constitution. TOTALLY different process.
-
Uh, that would take an amendment to the Constitution. TOTALLY different process.
actually abortions are deemed part of "life, liberty and pursuit or happiness"...overturning that would take a constitutional amendment as well ;-)
-
Uh, that would take an amendment to the Constitution. TOTALLY different process.
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/roe-v-wade-and-right-abortion
The Decision to Have an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy
In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion. The Court made clear that as a basic right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the woman’s right is “fundamental,” meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The law or policy must also be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so.
-
The Court held that the Due Process Clause’s guarantee that no individual shall be deprived of “liberty” applies to this most personal decision.
-
http://www.nwlc.org/resource/roe-v-wade-and-right-abortion
The Decision to Have an Abortion is Protected under the Constitutional Right to Privacy
In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied this core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion. The Court made clear that as a basic right to privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the woman’s right is “fundamental,” meaning that governmental attempts to interfere with the right are subject to “strict scrutiny.” To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its law or policy is necessary to achieve a compelling interest. The law or policy must also be narrowly tailored to achieve the interest and must be the least restrictive means for doing so.
There is a difference between using the Constitution to determine legality (something that can change depending on how judges vote or how they interpret the law) and requiring that the Constitution to be amended and changed (2nd amendment) for legality.
You do know this (at least I think you do). Totally different process.
-
There is a difference between using the Constitution to determine legality (something that can change depending on how judges vote) and requiring that the Constitution to be amended and changed (2nd amendment).
You do know this (at least I think you do). Totally different process.
LOL what roe v wade established is that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, it wasnt simply determining legality of the act. Something can be legal and not be constitutional protected...YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT?
people have the right under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to get abortions, just like we have the right to bear arms.
-
LOL what roe v wade established is that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, it wasnt simply determining legality of the act. Something can be legal and not be constitutional protected...YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT?
people have the right under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to get abortions, just like we have the right to bear arms.
The difference is, you have to change an amendment to get rid of one of those things and one you do not.
-
The difference is, you have to change an amendment to get rid of one of those things and one you do not.
hahaha as it has been determined that it is a constitutional right.....YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AN AMENDMENT TO GET RID OF ABORTION ENTIRELY.
restrictions can be placed on it just like they already have been and have been on guns, to ban abortions...youre going to need a constitutional amendment
-
hahaha as it has been determined that it is a constitutional right.....YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AN AMENDMENT TO GET RID OF ABORTION ENTIRELY.
restrictions can be placed on it just like they already have been and have been on guns, to ban abortions...youre going to need a constitutional amendment
No you don't.
-
hahaha as it has been determined that it is a constitutional right.....YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AN AMENDMENT TO GET RID OF ABORTION ENTIRELY.
restrictions can be placed on it just like they already have been and have been on guns, to ban abortions...youre going to need a constitutional amendment
I guess you never heard of Plessy vs. Ferguson and the subsequent Brown vs. Board of Education.
-
No you don't.
what legislation then has been proposed to ban all abortions?
if it was as simple as passing legislation then surely some nut job rep would have proposed it right?
trust bro, Im dating a liberal attorney who graduated at the top of her class from one of the best law schools around...i have gotten more than an ear full LOL
-
I guess you never heard of Plessy vs. Ferguson and the subsequent Brown vs. Board of Education.
so your point is to point out cases that had rulings deemed unconstitutional later on???
how do these apply to the constitutional right to an abortion but not guns?
you and 240 man LMFAO
-
what legislation then has been proposed to ban all abortions?
if it was as simple as passing legislation then surely some nut job rep would have proposed it right?
trust bro, Im dating a liberal attorney who graduated at the top of her class from one of the best law schools around...i have gotten more than an ear full LOL
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/07/3608821/congress-20-week-abortion/
Congress Introduces A National Abortion Ban On Its Very First Day Back
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1797
H.R.1797 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act113th Congress (2013-2014)
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any person from performing or attempting to perform an abortion except in conformity with this Act's requirements.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/07/3608821/congress-20-week-abortion/
Congress Introduces A National Abortion Ban On Its Very First Day Back
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1797
H.R.1797 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act113th Congress (2013-2014)
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit any person from performing or attempting to perform an abortion except in conformity with this Act's requirements.
HAHHAHAHA
that was a 20 week abortion ban moron, again restrictions can be placed on it just like they have been on guns.
try again....
-
Here you go I found one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Amendment
theres a problem though....ITS FOR AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
-
so your point is to point out cases that had rulings deemed unconstitutional later on???
how do these apply to the constitutional right to an abortion but not guns?
you and 240 man LMFAO
How can I help you understand the difference between The Constitution which gives every citizen natural rights-explicitly stated (only to be changed by a Constitutional amendment), and other rights, that are implied-derived from Supreme Court interpretation and can be changed without a Constitutional amendment? ???
-
Here you go I found one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Life_Amendment
theres a problem though....ITS FOR AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
Thanks for proving my point.
They want an AMENDMENT to the Constitution so that they can subvert the previous Supreme Court rulings and establish a ban on abortion as an explicit power STATED DIRECTLY in the Constitution which would require any opposition to go through the Amendment process.
Now you are getting it. (I think)
-
Carson would love to appoint Pro Life Judges that would support such a stupid Amendment as the Human Life Amendment and even worse, appoint judges that would not have any problem with overturning previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
-
Thanks for proving my point.
They want an AMENDMENT to the Constitution so that they can subvert the previous Supreme Court rulings and establish a ban on abortion as an explicit power STATED DIRECTLY in the Constitution which would require any opposition to go through the Amendment process.
Now you are getting it. (I think)
hahah no fucktard....
from the link
"The Human Life Amendment is the name for any amendment to the United States Constitution that would have the effect of overturning the Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, that denied states the authority to prohibit abortion. All of these amendment proposals seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, but most of them go further by forbidding both Congress and the states from legalizing abortion."
pay attention to the glowing part first, the underlined part is in addition to the first not in place of the first...idiot
-
let's clean up the name calling. Things have been happy and friendly here without all that.
-
let's clean up the name calling. Things have been happy and friendly here without all that.
im sure it is nice to contradict yourself in the same thread without being called out...not gonna happen with me but im sure it is nice
-
hahah no fucktard....
from the link
"The Human Life Amendment is the name for any amendment to the United States Constitution that would have the effect of overturning the Supreme Court 1973 decision Roe v. Wade, that denied states the authority to prohibit abortion. All of these amendment proposals seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, but most of them go further by forbidding both Congress and the states from legalizing abortion."
pay attention to the glowing part first, the underlined part is in addition to the first not in place of the first...idiot
???
Oh my, you are making my point exactly but don't even realize it.
-
Repubs are not acting very tough about the debates.
Holding a conference because they didn't like the line of questioning. Hey, don't lie, yall love having he media captive to beat on them. You were just mad they called yall when you tried to dodge questions. Which you did.
Just shut up and get tough. If you had the good answers, then crap questions don't bother you, cause it gives u a national audience of swing voters you Will need.
-
The questions were BS...gimme a break. CNN - who is your enemy....softball to bash repubs/teaparty/cons
CNBC - what is your greatest weakness.....in reality "tell us why you suck"....wtf kinda question is that.
-
What is your greatest weakness?
This question is asked in most interviews, from bag boys to librarians.
We should step back and wonder how "tough" the repubs are, if they're angry they are asked such a simple q that the rest of us have been asked in interviews.
All this whining takes away the rugged, renegade, tough image they've worked hard to cultivate. They only get to play the victim for a day. It's day 2 now? At some point, we have to tell them to get over the butthurt and use this platform to give us some solutions to the problems facing America.
So much butthurt. Toughen up. Party of Clint Eastwood huh?
-
The questions were BS...gimme a break. CNN - who is your enemy....softball to bash repubs/teaparty/cons
CNBC - what is your greatest weakness.....in reality "tell us why you suck"....wtf kinda question is that.
Tell me about it. Worst I've seen.
-
Tell me about it. Worst I've seen.
still, they want to be tough. they want to say they can face down isis and putin. But they've been real wimps about this.
they attacked each other way worse than the moderators did. Jeb bitching out Rubio for not voting enough, lol, what was that? Kasich telling everyone to STFU about fantasy football lol.
Reince priebus trying to stay relevant, making all these motions about banning NBC involvement because they were too mean.
that kinda wimpy talk is what makes republicans lose elections. Grow a backbone, and say "Bring the tough Qs, because once you do, I have 30 seconds to say what i want to a LIBERAL AUDIENCE, and I'll win them over!
You can do all the 'home games' that you want, for friendly FOX viewers and religious base voters. but that doesn't give you the swing voters (like CNBC viewers and MSNBC viewers) that you need to win the election.
See, if fox voters decided elections, obama never wins ;)
-
still, they want to be tough. they want to say they can face down isis and putin. But they've been real wimps about this.
they attacked each other way worse than the moderators did. Jeb bitching out Rubio for not voting enough, lol, what was that? Kasich telling everyone to STFU about fantasy football lol.
Reince priebus trying to stay relevant, making all these motions about banning NBC involvement because they were too mean.
that kinda wimpy talk is what makes republicans lose elections. Grow a backbone, and say "Bring the tough Qs, because once you do, I have 30 seconds to say what i want to a LIBERAL AUDIENCE, and I'll win them over!
You can do all the 'home games' that you want, for friendly FOX viewers and religious base voters. but that doesn't give you the swing voters (like CNBC viewers and MSNBC viewers) that you need to win the election.
See, if fox voters decided elections, obama never wins ;)
Exactly the kind of thing I would expect you to say. What's funny is even the MSM saw how bad those moderators were and only the worst of the worst, like Huffington Post, had a headline that said "you can't handle the truth." You have to be a real liberal hack to watch that debate and not see how incredibly biased it was.
-
Exactly the kind of thing I would expect you to say. What's funny is even the MSM saw how bad those moderators were and only the worst of the worst, like Huffington Post, had a headline that said "you can't handle the truth." You have to be a real liberal hack to watch that debate and not see how incredibly biased it was.
Read the BOLD below. I want hilary and bernie to be grilled exactly the SAME way by levin, hannity, etc.
Seriously, you dont know if a canddiate is worth their salt until you see them sweat, til you see them hit with some tough Qs, til you see them get blindsided. If a candidate is that frozen, befuddled, knocked back by a rude Q from a CNBC nobody... how will they react to "sir, we've just been attacked and we have 10 minutes to send $ or they do it again".
Shit, yall are too soft on them. I want brain scans, blood tests, urinalysis, and yes, rude questions, from a person we trust with our lives, economy, and the nuke football. Ya know, DE, maybe if Hannity and Levin had asked obama tough Qs in 2008, he might have lost the election after coming unraveled? OReilly had him on right before election and tossed softballs, I recall ;)
hey, you don't think Putin will try to demonize, while at the same time threatening financial collapse or nuclear winter?
I want these cats (from both parties) to face brutally tough, total bullshit questioning on a weekly basis. Cause if they don't break a sweat and melt on weak shit like this, maybe they CAN hold their own against world leaders.
They can use their campaign stops for the cookie cutter answers and their networks for the softball interviews. I want to see what Hilary, Trump, Cruz and others do when they're standing alone, against a HOSTILE party, with no one to lean on.
Maybe others prefer softball circle jerks. I want to see these candidates attacked, so they can bloody the fck out of the moderators. I want to see who is tough. Who will huck whine to, when he can't get a word in at the G8 summit? Who will Trump bitch to when trade talks last more than the allotted 2 hours he agreed to?
Shit... let's see who is tough. And I want to see Hilary and bernie grilled by Beck, Levin and Hannity too!
-
Exactly the kind of thing I would expect you to say. What's funny is even the MSM saw how bad those moderators were and only the worst of the worst, like Huffington Post, had a headline that said "you can't handle the truth." You have to be a real liberal hack to watch that debate and not see how incredibly biased it was.
this is there the disconnect is - I KNOW THE MODERATORS WERE BIASED.
I KNOW they were rude little bitches. And I'm okay with that. I hope FOX treats the dems the same way!!!! Well, if FOX actually had one, they're scared of fox like MSNBC scares repubs lol.
see, i WANT to hear rude Qs, insults, and acusations fired at these canddiates on BOTH sides. You want softballs tossed so they can share their best stump speeches.
-
Read the BOLD below. I want hilary and bernie to be grilled exactly the SAME way by levin, hannity, etc.
Seriously, you dont know if a canddiate is worth their salt until you see them sweat, til you see them hit with some tough Qs, til you see them get blindsided. If a candidate is that frozen, befuddled, knocked back by a rude Q from a CNBC nobody... how will they react to "sir, we've just been attacked and we have 10 minutes to send $ or they do it again".
Shit, yall are too soft on them. I want brain scans, blood tests, urinalysis, and yes, rude questions, from a person we trust with our lives, economy, and the nuke football. Ya know, DE, maybe if Hannity and Levin had asked obama tough Qs in 2008, he might have lost the election after coming unraveled? OReilly had him on right before election and tossed softballs, I recall ;)
Oh horse manure. You do nothing but rag on Republicans on this board. You don't care about fairness. And having a debate with biased moderators is not some kind of test for how well a candidate will perform as president. Ridiculous.
-
this is there the disconnect is - I KNOW THE MODERATORS WERE BIASED.
I KNOW they were rude little bitches. And I'm okay with that. I hope FOX treats the dems the same way!!!! Well, if FOX actually had one, they're scared of fox like MSNBC scares repubs lol.
see, i WANT to hear rude Qs, insults, and acusations fired at these canddiates on BOTH sides. You want softballs tossed so they can share their best stump speeches.
::) I want good, tough, fair questions, just like most people watching who are undecided. But you liberal hacks love this stuff. You are in the minority.
-
::) I want good, tough, fair questions, just like most people watching who are undecided. But you liberal hacks love this stuff. You are in the minority.
fair? LOL sorry, the world isn't fair.
I'd like to see Hilary to sit down, and face 90 minutes of questions from Hannity, beck, Palin, Oreilly, etc. Just those 2 in a room, no audience. Let them HAMMER her with birther Qs, with benghazi, etc. Just hammer her. Then, bernie goes in and has to explain socialism to this group :)
Same with the repubs - I want to see Maddow, mathews, etc, have 90 minutes to unravel carson's bullshit.
These canddiates have such well constructed public personas, and are very rarely challenged. Debates typically just give them topics for their stump speeches.
-
fair? LOL sorry, the world isn't fair.
I'd like to see Hilary to sit down, and face 90 minutes of questions from Hannity, beck, Palin, Oreilly, etc. Just those 2 in a room, no audience. Let them HAMMER her with birther Qs, with benghazi, etc. Just hammer her. Then, bernie goes in and has to explain socialism to this group :)
Same with the repubs - I want to see Maddow, mathews, etc, have 90 minutes to unravel carson's bullshit.
These canddiates have such well constructed public personas, and are very rarely challenged. Debates typically just give them topics for their stump speeches.
Yes, that kind of crap can happen on a message board, the minds of people who write for the Daily Kos, work for MSNBC, mine Democratic Underground for anti-conservative stories . . . .
But in the real world, fairness matters. You liberals would be screaming to high heaven if conservative moderators treated Hillary et al the way those CNBC folks treated the GOP candidates. Bunch of hypocrites.
-
But in the real world, fairness matters. You liberals would be screaming to high heaven if conservative moderators treated Hillary et al the way those CNBC folks treated the GOP candidates. Bunch of hypocrites.
You're just making up things now.
I think most getbiggers would agree I'd be loving seeing hilary and bernie getting eviscerated for 90 minutes by Beck and hannity. I love their attack styles and listen daily - I only wish they could get an interview with her and ask tough Qs.
I'll ask again, dos equis... this person you choose as president - you're giving them control over the SCOTUS, you're giving them control over economy and you're giving them the ability to freakin' WAGE WAR and fire nukes at countries.
Isn't there any part of you that wants to know if this person turns into a 1) warrior 2) fraidy cat 3) sniveling pile of piss
When things get stressful, unpredictable, and scary?
And medical too - I want obama lung scans. I want to know what STDs palin got from glen rice. I want to know what meds these fckers are on. If carson is on 60 MG a day of prozac, you bet that's relevant. If hilary is on brain damage meds, shit yes, we deserve to know.
We piss test people that bag our groceries, but not our congressmen.
We need to know what meds you're on to get a truckers licence, but not to toss around the nuke football as prez.
-
You're just making up things now.
I think most getbiggers would agree I'd be loving seeing hilary and bernie getting eviscerated for 90 minutes by Beck and hannity. I love their attack styles and listen daily - I only wish they could get an interview with her and ask tough Qs.
I'll ask again, dos equis... this person you choose as president - you're giving them control over the SCOTUS, you're giving them control over economy and you're giving them the ability to freakin' WAGE WAR and fire nukes at countries.
Isn't there any part of you that wants to know if this person turns into a 1) warrior 2) fraidy cat 3) sniveling pile of piss
When things get stressful, unpredictable, and scary?
And medical too - I want obama lung scans. I want to know what STDs palin got from glen rice. I want to know what meds these fckers are on. If carson is on 60 MG a day of prozac, you bet that's relevant. If hilary is on brain damage meds, shit yes, we deserve to know.
We piss test people that bag our groceries, but not our congressmen.
We need to know what meds you're on to get a truckers licence, but not to toss around the nuke football as prez.
Any unbiased, reasonable person who regularly reads this board knows you are a liberal shill. Including this guy:
Straight question for you. If you are as unbiased as you claim, then why is the politics page only littered with your trolling view of Conservative dishonesty?
Do you think conservatives are just that much more dishonest? I don't. I think it's fairly even ground on dishonesty. Or is it that you are so biased, you don't care about your own party's dishonesty?
He is absolutely right.
I've already stated what I and essentially every other fair-minded person wants to see in presidential debates: "I want good, tough, fair questions, just like most people watching who are undecided."
You want a sideshow, because you don't live in the real world. MSNBC and liberal hacks everywhere agree with you.