Posted on 09/12/2011 7:14:30 AM PDT by newzjunkey
Broadcast on: CNN
Broadcast time: 8pm EDT/5pm PDT
The Candidates:
Michele Bachmann
Bachmann is serving her 3rd full term in the U.S. House. Founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, she earned a Master of Laws degree, worked as a tax attorney, and was a foster mother for 23 teenagers. She is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Herman Cain
Cain is the former chief executive of Godfather's Pizza and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He lost the Georgia Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat in 2004. He was recently the host of Atlanta-based radio show.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich served as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. He represented Georgia's 6th congressional district as a Republican member from 1979 to 1999. He has a PhD in modern European history.
Jon Huntsman
Huntsman was Utah Governor, former ambassador to China under Barack Obama.
Ron Paul
Paul is serving his 11th full term in the U.S. House. He’s an ob-gyn and was Libertarian nominee for president in 1988. He unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for president in 2008
Rick Perry
Perry is the three term governor of Texas, from 2000 to current. He is a retired Air Force captain for former farmer. He has a degree in animal science.
Mitt Romney
Romney was governor of Massachusetts (2003 to 2007) and former CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm. He unsuccessfully sought the Republican 2008 nomination for president. He has an MBA (Harvard) and JD (Harvard Law).
Rick Santorum
Santorum served two terms in the U.S. House and two terms in the U.S. Senate. He became the Senate's third-ranking Republican in 2001. He was defeated for reelection in 2006.
Pomegranate juice is the answer to cancer /s
You probably described "real life" quite correctly.
Add to that the thought that those parents raising immoral kids would never consider paying the $350.00 for the vaccine, even it it might have helped their immoral kids.
The GOOD parents would have taken the option Perry put in to opt out. The other do-nothing parents would have done nothing and received a vaccine their parents didn't care enough to pay for but their daughters may have benefited from.
I am on the fence on this, especially having cared enough to home school my children. Obviously, I don't like any kind of interference of parental rights at all. But then, as I mentioned to you previously, I cared enough about my parental rights to keep my children out of government schools to begin with.
[No you have not destroyed my thoughts about you.]
Good, I’m glad!
[neither the ‘state’ or the ‘government’ have the ‘right’ to treat US like their slaves.]
I know and we are over burdened by laws and laws = mandates. A mandate is a directive imposed by a higher level of government on a lower one.
Perry stated that we need less government in our lives and he seems firm on that. I believe him.
I was draftable, but joined instead.
It was Vietnam era. You don’t have to tell your story. I already know it; lived it along with 10s of millions of young men our age who had the same decisions to make at the time.
And especially after the government gave up trying to win that war in about 1969/70.
Cranberry juice cures something. I forget what it is, but next time I get it, I'll drink it.
I thought I gave her a pretty good review. Oh well. I am fine with Bachmann. I prefer Palin though. Go Palin 2012.
“Perry is taking an awful beating over those vaccinations by executive order...”
As he should!
Why?
Because
she’s
not
running
yet.
...and IF and when she does, I’m for it!
CNN - Actually did a fairly good job, I will give them props especially compared to that farce of a debate NBC had last week.
Michele Bachmann - um.. she is starting to reek of desperation and it shows, I was turned off by how hard she went after Perry, although she did manage to stand out more in this debate than the last. On a side note, whoever does her hair and makeup needs to be fired. Her eyeshadow in particular makes her look crazy and her hair style just isn't very flattering on her. She is actually a very pretty lady, but you can barely see it.
Herman Cain - Sharp as always (and looks great in a suit), he would make a great president, but I fear he has no chance. I would love for him to be offered a job in the next administration.
Newt Gingrich - freaking brilliant as always, although he wobbled out onto the stage like humty dumpty. He like Cain has no chance of winning but deserves to be offered a job in the next administration.
Jon Huntsman - I hate that smug dorky sob. He is in the wrong party and I am sick and tired of having him on stage deriding the other candidates.
Ron Paul - OMFG just when you thought Paul couldn't get any nuttier! he quotes OBL! I would of loved to have seen a huge hook appear and drag him off the stage or maybe some doctors arrive and put him into a straight jacket before they haul him off the stage.
Rick Perry - Did good, he improved on his last performance and managed to clarify some of his more controversial comments (with the help of some of the others) He entered the debate as the leader and will leave it as the leader, (which is all he had to do). On a side note his back problems cause him to look a little awkward at times as he stands at the podium and when he walks out. He looks great in a suit like Cain, and they managed to fix his makeup since the first debate so his facial wrinkles don't make him look like an elephants scrotum.
Mitt Romney - his greasy slicked back hair and the way he answers questions just oozes dishonesty to me. I don't trust him, he's a little to slick, like a used car salesman that's trying to sell you undercoating.
Rick Santorum - needs to GIVE IT UP. Seriously, I am starting to hate this dude. Sanctimonious jerk.
Tea Party is to remind US about ‘government’ mandates/taxation without representation. NOT cancer drugs.
>> “I am thinking the snipes at her from tonight are Perry pouters” <<
.
No question about it!
Perry will self-destruct soon.
Looking at this Guardasil reaction, it is clear to me that Perry has just shaped the debate again.
The next debate will be about healthcare.
Looking at this Guardasil reaction, it is clear to me that Perry has just shaped the debate again.
The next debate will be about healthcare.
From what I have read in other threads, it's not an easy process. Not only do you have to get the form, you must either have a doctor sign it if it's for health reasons or state that it is against your religion. Then, the form has to be notarized. It's still not clear to me how often you have to do it. Only once, once a school year? Every 2 or 3 years?
Thanks for the encouragement. I just wanted to point out that not every conservative thinks this vaccine is a bad thing.
It should have been an “opt in.” I’m kind of surprised how so many are giving Perry a pass over a BIG government move, such as this executive order. You’d all be screaming bloody murder (and rightly so) if Obama had done the same thing. But, since Perry is “one of ours” I guess we have to be understanding. Is that it?
Ping to post #1416
If Texans don’t like something, we’re not shy about it. What everyone is calling the Texas DREAM Act (it isn’t, BTW)is about ten years old already. If we didn’t agree with it, we would get the legislature to repeal it. The Harry Reid DREAM Act applies to illegal “children” up to 35 years old, for one thing.
We do have a long and closely entwined history with Mexico. (He!!, we used to BE Mexico!) That said, it’s not the answer for the entire country. And it is very much a states rights issue.
Perry does want the borders secured, and he is for a guest worker program versus amnesty. He brought the legislature back this summer to try one more time to get the ban on sanctuary cities passed.
But you can’t put a fence up in the middle of the Rio Grande river. What little bit of border fence that’s been completed has cost millions and millions of dollars.
If anyone has time, I suggest looking deeper into eVerify. It’s not the silver bullet everyone assumes, and can raise as many issues as it tries to solve.
I'm not into watching these early debates, so I just read the running commentary on the live threads. From everything I picked up from the last debate thread and this one, I'd have to agree with you.
Besides, none of those people are gaining any traction with the public that I'm aware of. No buzz, but plenty of zzzzzz.
She took lots of “corporate donations”, if by that you mean donations from people who were president of corporations. Further, many were in the oil business, in companies that would benefit from more drilling in Alaska. And then she supported a change in the law which cost established oil companies extra money, and favored new drilling projects, which helped the companies whose presidents gave her money.
But first, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. That’s how donations work — you get money from people who think you will do things that help them. Nobody gives money to candidates who do things that hurt them. We all give money to candidates who will vote the way we want, and we stop donating if they vote the wrong way, do things we don’t want.
Second, Palin has the advantage that she never had to run for re-election. So she never had to raise any money as Governor. And when she needed money for the defense fund, someone else set that up and took donations (which I know eventually things went bad there and there were attacks on Palin because it was run by her friends but nobody every tied that directly to her and they gave the money back).
On the other hand, $5000? Nobody in their right minds thinks that a Governor is doing something he didn’t want to do for a $5000 donation, especially when it was clear it wasn’t going to play well to his base.
The more rational argument, which it appears Palin was making (I haven’t heard her yet, so I don’t yet believe she falsely accused him of taking a bribe like some people are saying) was that because Perry’s Chief of Staff left and joined Merck, it gave Merck the ear of the Governor. Perry would have listened to the man, because he trusted him. Not because of the money.
Perry would have done what he did not because his friend would make money, but because his friend would convince him that it would save lives. Perry wouldn’t want girls who engage in sex to pay for it with their lives, if there was a vaccine that could protect them (this isn’t like the argument for birth control, because getting CANCER isn’t the same as getting pregnant).
So now I can see that it is a form of crony capitalism, but not the type of “politician takes money and acts differently”, but rather “person of influence gets cushy private sector job and lobbies his old boss and convinces him to do something that helps his new company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.