who won last nights debate? [Archive] - Debate Policy

PostmodernProphet

11-29-2007, 07:45 AM

I went with Huckabee.....

Thompson looked so freakin OLD!.....I remember when Nixon lost points in a debate because he had 5 o'clock shadow.....Thompson would have looked better if he had some 5 o'clock shadow to cover up everything else.....

Paul came off as a shrill, hysterical old woman.....reminded me of the wicked witch of the west in the original Oz movie.....

the rest had their share of stumbling over their notes and trying to remember what they believed.....

JohnDoe

11-29-2007, 08:53 AM

I actually THINK Mccain won....based on some of his answers, like the way he said he could not promise NOT to raise taxes like Tommy Thompson said because of a possible national Emergency that could happen.

And I also believe he whipped Romney's butt when it came to Waterboarding as torture and it being against the Law....Romney was tap dancing and mccain was direct, firm, and clear on the issue.

I also thought the way McCain said that he would not need a vp, to make any decisions on Foreign policy was another highlight of the Debate.

I liked Huckabee and duncan hunter also.

I did not think that Rudy came off strong at all, and nor did Romney, who was just a pretty face imo.

Ron Paul, although I see how some say he came off as a screamer or schreecher.... I do believe he had some very good points that are always avoided by the rest of the crew, other than mccain, like not raising taxes, MUST be connected with reducing the spending, and how we have gotten in to the mess we are in with overspending, because some project or program, like the space program, is always someones favored project.

jd

chesswarsnow

11-29-2007, 09:26 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. I liked the way Thompson did last night.
2. Seemed to be right on target with his answers.
3. Huckabee came in a close second, with Romney taking third, a few lengths back.
4. Looking as thou its turning into a *THREE MAN HORSE RACE*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Pale Rider

11-29-2007, 12:45 PM

I thought Romney won. He looked prepared, answered all his questions straight away without stumbling or stammering AND gave the RIGHT answers, especially when he told Huckabee, pertaining to Huckabee wanting to pay for illegal aliens schooling at tax payers expense, "it's not your money to give away like that, it's the people's," to which he got a loud round of applause.

Thompson looked very old and haggard. Giuliani is a pathetic broken record. EVERY SINGLE ANSWER HE GAVE WAS New York, New York, New York. OK Rudy, we get it, you can SHUT UP now... sshhhheeeezzzzuuzz. I still like Tancredo, but was surprised when he said he wouldn't fund NASA, that put a chink in his armor as far as I'm concerned, and I still like Duncan Hunter. McCain, someone please tell him to go home. He's too liberal for this field of conservatives, but came off last night as bitter and mean, irritated with everyone else. Paul... he's just too whiny. I don't care what his positions are, he's just too damn whiny to be President.

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 12:52 PM

Romney believes Jesus appeared to the Native Americans and that whites originally lived in North America.
Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy.

Both of these guys are kook nut-jobs.

Pale Rider

11-29-2007, 01:01 PM

Romney believes Jesus appeared to the Native Americans and that whites originally lived in North America.
Prove it please.

Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy.No, he doesn't. He said he believes whats written in the Bible is the word of God, but that those words can be open to interpretation and can mean something different to each person. He went on to say that parts of the Bible are allegorical.

Why do you have to lie like that Hag?

These guys are both decent men. Better than any liberal POS running for President ten fold.

Abbey Marie

11-29-2007, 01:05 PM

Though he is not my ideal candidate, I thought Giuliani sounded like a real leader, and he had a lot of accomplishments to cite.

I missed the beginning, but it seemed to me that Hunter wasn't given much air time, darn it.

Romney did well, also.

Line of the night was, (I think) from Huckabee about WWJD re: the death penalty. His answer was, Jesus would be smart enough not to run for office. :>)

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 01:24 PM

Prove it please.

No, he doesn't. He said he believes whats written in the Bible is the word of God, but that those words can be open to interpretation and can mean something different to each person. He went on to say that parts of the Bible are allegorical.

Why do you have to lie like that Hag?

These guys are both decent men. Better than any liberal POS running for President ten fold.

1. That's what mormons believe. http://www.wikiality.com/Mormon

2. Early Life, 10th line. He seems to have changed his tune for the campaign probably because he know's how insane his pov is. http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9600/waterandpityrr5.jpg

Pale Rider

11-29-2007, 01:53 PM

1. That's what mormons believe. http://www.wikiality.com/Mormon

2. Early Life, 10th line. He seems to have changed his tune for the campaign probably because he know's how insane his pov is. http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9600/waterandpityrr5.jpg

I don't care what the Mormons believe.

I believe Tancredo doesn't stand a chance in hell, and Hunter probably doesn't either. But Romney does, and I will vote for him, and he will beat any dem challenger.

Better get used to him. He's probably going to be the next President of the United States.

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 01:55 PM

Romney believes Jesus appeared to the Native Americans and that whites originally lived in North America.
Huckabee believes in Biblical inerrancy.

Both of these guys are kook nut-jobs.

I think both of them have a much firmer stance on reality than you do sometimes.

And "whites" did live in North America at one point. There have been a number of pre columbian discoverys where skeleton remains appear more european. I am not saying they are seriously widespread. But it seems ridiculous to make absolute statements of what is impossible to have happened for a time period we have absolutely little to know historical records from and what few information we have is highly interpreted.

As far as the faith aspect, there is nothing wrong with faith. Its a good thing.

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:01 PM

I think both of them have a much firmer stance on reality than you do sometimes.

And "whites" did live in North America at one point. There have been a number of pre columbian discoverys where skeleton remains appear more european. I am not saying they are seriously widespread. But it seems ridiculous to make absolute statements of what is impossible to have happened for a time period we have absolutely little to know historical records from and what few information we have is highly interpreted.

As far as the faith aspect, there is nothing wrong with faith. Its a good thing.
If you're talking about the short-lived Viking settlements in what is now New Foundland, Canada, I'm way ahead of you. No, Mormon lore states that whites, as well as numerous animal species not native to North America lived together in North America before Europeans discovered it and that Jesus appeared to them and gave them what is now the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith found after he talked with angels who told him where to look. He used a magical "seer" stone to translate the golden tablets he found, which he put in a hat together and recited to a friend of his, who wrote down what he said. That's what Mitt Romney believes.:laugh2:http://www.14lds.com/mormon.htm

As for Huckabee, World History class is not for him. If you want to know the real story, you need only open your Bible. :lol:

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 02:02 PM

As i said in the other thread my assessment was as follows:

I thought Romney came off strong.

I thought Thompson and Guiliani were dodging questions. Thompson particularly didnt appear to have any enthusiasm for what he said. I was disappointed with the add they showed of him which didnt give me any reason to vote for him, just tried to take his opponents down.

Guiliani dodged a number of issues. particular the gun ones. and I know he has a stellar record in NY but i am really tired of hearing about it every time he has a question he doesnt want to answer. and can we get a debate where we dont talk about the Yankees?

Tancredo came off positive to me.

Hunter seemed a bit odd.. i cant really explain it well though.

Paul was Paul.

Huckabee was nailed on the immigration issue. and i dont deny that he is a charasmatic man but he just seemed to care more about joking around than answering the question and defending his record.

McCain was still trying to convince people that his bill wasnt amnesty. i think his best exchange was with Ron Paul. And personally i wouldnt even be seeking to put myself on Paul's level.

So it seems to me Romney was on target all night. He easily defended the attacks on him. He was on point when asked questions. And he has substance to his answers.

Pale Rider

11-29-2007, 02:04 PM

If you're talking about the Viking settlements in what is now New Foundland, Canada, I'm way ahead of you. No, Mormon lore states that whites, as well as numerous animal species not native to North America lived together in North America before Europeans discovered it and that Jesus appeared to them and gave them what is now the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith found after he talked with angels who told him where to look. He used a magical "seer" stone to translate the golden tablets he found, which he put in a hat together and recited to a friend of his, who wrote down what he said. That's what Mitt Romney believes.:laugh2:

I'm far more relieved and happy that he at least believes in something, instead of believing in nothing at all as atheists do. Now THAT is funny... :laugh:

Pale Rider

11-29-2007, 02:08 PM

As i said in the other thread my assessment was as follows:

I thought Romney came off strong.

So it seems to me Romney was on target all night. He easily defended the attacks on him. He was on point when asked questions. And he has substance to his answers.

ITA. Romney looked damn good last night. Heads above anyone else.

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:10 PM

I'm far more relieved and happy that he at least believes in something, instead of believing in nothing at all as atheists do. Now THAT is funny... :laugh:

Because the amount of magical stories and fables a person believes in is what REALLY matters when picking out a President. As for me, I believe in the Harry Potter books. THAT'S as magical as it comes! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

manu1959

11-29-2007, 02:12 PM

Because the amount of magical stories and fables a person believes in is what REALLY matters when picking out a President. As for me, I believe in the Harry Potter books. THAT'S as magical as it comes! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

well you belive the fable that man was once an ape and an ape was once a fish and that a fish was once a pile of goo and a pile of goo was once dust and dust appeard from nothing.....

oh and that a women that was married to an adulterer makes her qualified to be president.....

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 02:14 PM

If you're talking about the short-lived Viking settlements in what is now New Foundland, Canada, I'm way ahead of you. No, Mormon lore states that whites, as well as numerous animal species not native to North America lived together in North America before Europeans discovered it and that Jesus appeared to them and gave them what is now the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith found after he talked with angels who told him where to look. He used a magical "seer" stone to translate the golden tablets he found, which he put in a hat together and recited to a friend of his, who wrote down what he said. That's what Mitt Romney believes.:laugh2:http://www.14lds.com/mormon.htm

As for Huckabee, World History class is not for him. If you want to know the real story, you need only open your Bible. :lol:

Actually, I was refering to this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0903_030903_bajaskull.html

particularly on page two:

Kennewick Man

The identity of the first Americans is an emotive issue for American Indians, who believe their ancestors were the first to inhabit the Americas.

Controversy erupted after skeletal remains were found in Kennewick, Washington, in 1996. This skeleton, estimated to be 9,000 years old, had a long cranium and narrow face—features typical of people from Europe, the Near East or India—rather than the wide cheekbones and rounder skull of an American Indian.

A coalition of Indian tribes, however, said that if Kennewick Man was 9,000 years old, he must be their ancestor, no matter what he looked like. Invoking a U.S. federal law that provides for the return of Native American remains to their living descendants, the tribes demanded a halt to all scientific study and the immediate return of the skeleton for burial in a secret location.

The matter is still stuck in the courts

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 02:15 PM

-Cp

11-29-2007, 02:17 PM

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:18 PM

well you belive the fable that man was once an ape and an ape was once a fish and that a fish was once a pile of goo and a pile of goo was once dust and dust appeard from nothing.....

oh and that a women that was married to an adulterer makes her qualified to be president.....

If that's a fable, so is the one about how everything is made of atoms. Hey how about that fable about how negative and positive ions in the atmosphere create the charge to spark lightening? I always liked that fable about the "cells" in plants that convert sunlight into energy--"the fable of photosynthesis." The fable of the apple that falls to the ground because of gravity is always knee-slappin' good too. :rolleyes:

YYYYYYYYYYou've been schooled. No need to thank me shmarty pansh.

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:21 PM

tell me, why do you think God doesn't have the power to do what you term "magical stories"?

Because nothing anybody has ever EVER observed on Planet Earth can in any way be classified as super natural. Everything has a material, natural explanation.
These are the people we're considering to be the F'ing Executive leader of our country. And the ones you guys support are the ones who believe in nonsense.
For most people that'd be cause to pause for reflection.

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:22 PM

And even goofier - you don't believe in God!! HAHAHAHAHHAHA

What a loser!!

Speak for yourself bub. I'm the last thing from a loser. :lol:

manu1959

11-29-2007, 02:26 PM

If that's a fable, so is the one about how everything is made of atoms. Hey how about that fable about how negative and positive ions in the atmosphere create the charge to spark lightening? I always liked that fable about the "cells" in plants that convert sunlight into energy--"the fable of photosynthesis."

YYYYYYYYYYou've been schooled. No need to thank me shmarty pansh.

lets see you toss out three things that have nothing to do with what i posted .... and one of you claims is incorrect .....

so you change the topic and claim victory ..... ok i can play

H2O is water ... 1 - nil to me

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:30 PM

lets see you toss out three things that have nothing to do with what i posted .... and one of you claims is incorrect .....

so you change the topic and claim victory ..... ok i can play

H2O is water ... 1 - nil to me

You alleged that evolution is a "fable." If it is, then so is every other observation-backed scientific theory out there. And none of the things I posted are incorrect. You're incorrect. :poke:

Oh, and about the adulterer comment :rolleyes: What the hell do you call Rudy Giuliani?

manu1959

11-29-2007, 02:41 PM

You alleged that evolution is a "fable." If it is, then so is every other observation-backed scientific theory out there. And none of the things I posted are incorrect. You're incorrect. :poke:

Oh, and about the adulterer comment :rolleyes: What the hell do you call Rudy Giuliani?

evolution is not creation.....

so you justify the behaviour of democrats with that of republicans? i thought democrats were smarter more ethical and better? so what you are saying is rudy is just as good as bill?

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:49 PM

evolution is not creation.....

so you justify the behaviour of democrats with that of republicans? i thought democrats were smarter more ethical and better? so what you are saying is rudy is just as good as bill?

Nobody said that, in fact if you'd ever paid attention to anything I've said, you'd know I think dems and 'pubs are the same thing. The only thing that separates them are the colors red and blue and a few trivial wedge issues. They're all going to f*ck things up no matter who gets the hot seat.
You got it right. Rudy is just as good as Bill. Hillary is just as good as Bush. Hillary's bought and paid for by lobbyists. Huckabee and Romney are freako religious wack-jobs. McCain is a hero, but he's a wimpy ding-dong who can't stand for anything. Obama has a stupid name and is too young to have enough experience to wipe his own ass. They're all a bunch of clowns. I think Dan has the right idea about not even bothering to vote anymore. Regardless though, you'll find me there on election day.
And your insight into the obvious is correct. Evolution is NOT creation. :dance:

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 02:50 PM

Because nothing anybody has ever EVER observed on Planet Earth can in any way be classified as super natural. Everything has a material, natural explanation.
These are the people we're considering to be the F'ing Executive leader of our country. And the ones you guys support are the ones who believe in nonsense.
For most people that'd be cause to pause for reflection.

Well here is your problem. You define anything you cant explain as super natural. You assume that there is no material natural explaination for it.

I tend to think the miracles of Gods are merely higher expressions of natural law. He understands them much better than we do after all. Simply because we can't explain them doesnt mean they aren't miraculous or have a natural explaination.

i would guess if people from 400 years ago saw every advancement in technology we have today they would call it miraculous and magic. (And quite frankly our society is miraculuous). But we see it as normal because we have lived with it. We understand the laws that created this society.

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 02:53 PM

Well here is your problem. You define anything you cant explain as super natural. You assume that there is no material natural explaination for it.

I tend to think the miracles of Gods are merely higher expressions of natural law. He understands them much better than we do after all. Simply because we can't explain them doesnt mean they aren't miraculous or have a natural explaination.

i would guess if people from 400 years ago saw every advancement in technology we have today they would call it miraculous and magic. (And quite frankly our society is miraculuous). But we see it as normal because we have lived with it. We understand the laws that created this society.

Well this would be a general re-writing of the account in Genesis wouldn't it? Does this mean you think God is subject to the same laws of physics/nature we are? This convo needs to be moved to another thread before dmp comes in and regulates on it. :D

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 03:05 PM

Well this would be a general re-writing of the account in Genesis wouldn't it? Does this mean you think God is subject to the same laws of physics/nature we are? This convo needs to be moved to another thread before dmp comes in and regulates on it. :D

I think God created law and lives by His law. They may be higher laws than the ones we are bound by.

But you are still missing the point. You are claiming that "magical" experiences just happen. Our ancestors would find all of our society magical simply because they dont understand the laws that make us work. I think likewise when we understand the laws of the universe better we will see how the Lord's "supernatural" experiences with men were simply based on laws higher than our own.

however, a new thread might be a good idea if we are to continue this discussion.

Abbey Marie

11-29-2007, 03:07 PM

Nobody said that, in fact if you'd ever paid attention to anything I've said, you'd know I think dems and 'pubs are the same thing. The only thing that separates them are the colors red and blue and a few trivial wedge issues. They're all going to f*ck things up no matter who gets the hot seat.
You got it right. Rudy is just as good as Bill. Hillary is just as good as Bush. Hillary's bought and paid for by lobbyists. Huckabee and Romney are freako religious wack-jobs. McCain is a hero, but he's a wimpy ding-dong who can't stand for anything. Obama has a stupid name and is too young to have enough experience to wipe his own ass. They're all a bunch of clowns. I think Dan has the right idea about not even bothering to vote anymore. Regardless though, you'll find me there on election day. And your insight into the obvious is correct. Evolution is NOT creation. :dance:

And for which one of the candidates will you be voting?

Hagbard Celine

11-29-2007, 03:18 PM

And for which one of the candidates will you be voting?

I'm undecided right now. Kucinich maybe.

JohnDoe

11-29-2007, 03:45 PM

avatar4321

11-29-2007, 07:30 PM

I agree with you that Romney did score points when he said that about taxes not being Huckabee's money. I had completely forgotten about that...

However, I think he did stumble when it came to waterboarding, he was not at ease with his own answer, at least that is the way it appeared to me.

jd

well i don't blame him for being at unease with that. Because he has opened himself to an attack by McCain claiming he supports torture and Romney is absolutely right in that we shouldnt be sharing interrogation tactics with the enemy, whether we do them or not.

Incognito

11-29-2007, 08:56 PM

Romney is just too slick for me. I like Giuliani.. but he didn't come off well last night.. thanks to Romney. Paul is the Gravel of the republicans. Tancredo and Hunter have no chance in heck of winning. I liked some of McCain's short concise answers.. Thompson did look tired and uninspired.. none really shone... but I will vote for whomever wins the nom.