Posted on 11/05/2011 3:16:26 PM PDT by blueyon
Republican 2012 presidential candidates Republican 2012 presidential candidates Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich met in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on current economic and social issues facing the U.S.
You waltz in and call me a liar, and your upset that I call your arguments silly?
You stick yourself in the middle of a conversation without taking the time to figure out what it is about, and make an inane comment having nothing to do with the conversation, and you are upset that I explain that to you?
If you want to be spared, stop being an idiot. I waste my time because it’s mine to waste. Why do you personalize things and make everything into an assault on character? You invite ridicule and then complain about it.
I believe on the Oct 17 thread I called you on your liberal trait of projection as well.
And here you are doing it again.
That's an assinine thing to say. I've asked you to provide a link to all these "liberal" things to make it easy for them. You haven't. Why not? They can click on my name, and see everything I write. But if you have examples, it would make it easier for them.
Again, I urge everybody to go through my posting history. I can guarantee you there will be things in there you will want to scream at me about. It won't be boring.
I refuse to waste time with you in an attempt at serious debate
I think that is clear to everyone who reads this thread.
October 17th Cain thread that offends you so
You are the one who showed up here complaining about that thread. I don't see how a thread could offend someone.
they will discover hundreds of posts between us with you making wild-arse accusations
The won't, but hopefully they will find that out for themselves and not take your word for it. Of course, they only need THIS thread to see who is making the wild accusations and not providing links to support them.
They will also discover you backtracking when after accusing me for several PAGES of not answering your questions, you had to admit that you ‘missed it’ and that I had indeed.
You mean, they will find that when I'm wrong, I admit my mistakes? That won't be a shock to most people, because that is actually what adults do.
In short Charles, I stand behind everything I have ever posted here.
You should really learn about that admitting mistakes thing. You have ducked, dodged, spun, lied, ignored, obsfucated and your post history which is there for the record, shows that
Again with the wild accusations with no evidence. WHere is the link? It's not hard, most of us know how to do it.
In this entire thread tonight, you have only "engaged" me in a single question based on a misunderstanding of the thread you were responding to. I answered that query fully, and you got upset because it wasn't short enough for you.
The rest of your comments are just personal insults and wild accusations. Which I am still responding to, as best I can given you provide no evidence and have no interest in serious conversation.
Wouldn’t expect you to mind. That’s how I know you are a serious person who can actually have a civil conversation when you have a mind to, and it’s why I can’t fathom what is wrong with you here.
Sorry, can’t do that. Not only do I have no interest in it, but even explaining what my reasoning was from the last election would violate the forum rules.
You aren’t the first person to try that trick. It might work I suppose if I had any interest in Romney this time around, but my goal is getting him defeated, not explaining why someone might support him.
But rather than telling you HOW, I’ll just point out that other people who you clearly believe are conservative did it — so it clearly IS possible. Jim DeMint and Herman Cain both did it, so howeer they did it, it’s possible.
What trick Charles? Just another way to duck the issue and question?
I should also point out the obvious since you took it upon yourself to Ping Jim...
Democrats and liberals get massively upset when conservatives bring up past statements and positions on issues when they become relavant. They then attempt to put blame on their opponents.
Charles gets massively upset when I bring up his past statements and positions on issues when they become relavant. Note complaints over supposed ‘rules violations’ made on this very thread. Notice also the attempt to ‘blame’ me on any number of things so far.
I welcome people to look up my past statements on positions and issues and my past post history shows me making that very comment MANY times.
One of these things is not like teh other.
LSU won? I confess, being the Auburn Alumna that I am, I turned it off about 9:30 pm. I haven’t checked a sports page yet this AM.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2794230/posts?q=1&;page=1
We can start with several posts on this thread Charles, since you asked nice ;)
Cain has considerable learning to do but he has the edge on charisma.
We could use more debates like this. Even with the broad agreement, the format pulled out differences in personality, in style, in approaches.
The game show debates are ceaselessly frustrating as a potential voter. They are beneath the dignity of the office and make light of the seriousness of America's situation. Their uselessness is on the press but it doesn't help when candidates take the bait.
I hope these two get to that debate on the economy and taxes. I watched Rich Lowry's defense of 9-9-9 last week on C-SPAN and learned a few things.
I watched this last night, and Newt Gingrich totally dominated it, even to the point of a standing ovation from the crowd. To their credit both men was gracious and extremely friendly with one another, but after two occasions when Herman Cain deferred to Newt Gingrich to answer a question, it was obvious to me that even Herman considered Newt to be the expert in the room.
There is no doubt about it. Newt knows what’s going on, he knows the angles, he has total feel for it, and he has ideas for dealing with it. Also, he speaks so easily, so intelligently, so humorously, and so concisely that one has to wonder why he is not the nominee by default with everyone bowing out.
The problem, of course, is some of the positions he’s taken in the past and some of his personal troubles.
His bad positions were not on crucial issues to me: not on life, on guns, on God, on America, on family, on fiscal responsibility. He had a wrong-headed approach to global warming, but I can forgive him that since he was going with scientists who were working with books that had been cooked.
His other political indiscretions are similar. They are not on the great themes that matter.
His personal troubles have been worked out by him over time, and some of them have been mitigated by his daughter’s letter that one has been blown totally out of proportion by political opponents.
If Newt was the nominee, I could vote for him and not totally hate myself for it. He is rock solid on the majority of conservative issues.
But as you say, he’s not perfect. His GW/couch stint with Pelosi really tweaked me because that showed me he’s got RINO blood in him. That’s an issue that financially touches MANY others with the resulting ‘regulation’ that comes along for the ride. I don’t think he clearly thought that shrewd move all the way through.
As a person, I don’t think a lot of him, but he DOES know how to lead when he wants to. And he is far more conservative than not. He ‘troubles’ me on some things, but if he gets the nod, I’m there.
No, I do not believe we should kill a human being if their only crime is crossing our border without appropriate papers.
Yes, I believe we can shoot armed invaders. Yes, I believe Border Patrol Agents can kill illegals if those illegals present a clear danger to the agent.
I believe we should strive to keep illegals out, and to arrest and deport them if they get in. I do not believe we should use a fence whose primary purpose is non-discriminatory killing.
And if I remember correctly, you did believe we could use a killer fence, but you also said that if they made it past the fence and were in the country, we should not kill them, but instead we should arrest and deport them. That was an area we agreed on. I just want to apply that standard WHILE they are crossing the border, not just after they are in country.
And yes, I was pretty rude to you in that thread, now that I've gone back. I apologize -- I took what you were saying, made assumptions about your motives, and treated you in a less civilized manner than I am comfortable with. I tried to say that at the end of that thread, but I will say it again now.
Next time you decide to attack me senselessly, you can tell people how I admitted I was whatever it is you want to say I admitted to.
I have to go to bed, because apparently it's morning here.
Charles, all you ever had to do was answer/admit then what you just did now and we could have avoided 2 major flame wars and a lot of BS.
I do not agree with your positions, but I respect them and respect you for stating them. Except for one thing. The fact you just admitted your error pretty much proves my ‘attack’ was not senseless. It had a legitimate basis.
Thanks for the link to the Cain/Clinton debate. The mathematician versus the carny barker.
Watched the debate a couple of times. Agree with many of the comments here, but all in all, it was really one of the most intelligent debate formats I’ve ever seen. I’d like to hand it to these two men for participating in this — and LEADING in this way.
They’d make a terrific team.
Mr. Cain needs to hold a presser, yesterday not soon enough.
God Bless you Herman, rock on’
He praises Galveston all the time. Do some research and stop being a “nobody but Perry” guy, cause he may not be who has my support right now, but if he gets the nomination, he will get my vote.
State media will run video, nonstop, mocking him as a fat white guy.
But in the end, on stage with Obama, Newt will eviscerate our Islamic Indonesian President. Learning the basics of economics growing up in Jakarta is proving to be a problem .>
in '10...
in '11...
__________________________
The fix is in.
I merely report fact. Can’t help it if you do not like it.
Fact: Perry would not even carry Texas. A number of FR posters from Texas have gone to great pains to insure non-Texans are aware of Perry’s complete record. Those reports more than offset claims Perrywinkle makes for himself.
Fact: Perry was a demrat.
Fact: Perry supported Al Gore candidacy.
Fact: Perry supports the global warming politically charged nonscience.
Fact: Perry does not support meaningful border security.
Fact: Perry believes illegal alien children have a right to free education.
Fact: Perry signed a hate speech law. These devices are routinely used by demrats to suppress oppositon voices.
Fact: Perry pushed and shoved his way into the first Iowa caucus fray. He tried to make it appear he was the winner with a bunch self-serving press releases and outcome based polling.
I believe the RINO Perry is a demrat mole. RINOs like Perry, Romney and Boehner control the GOP. They in turn are controlled by the demrats.
Fact: There is no credible national opposition party to the demrat party. That is a disaster for America.
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.