I think Newt's comments about the BS questions was awesome. He probably has no chance in the election, but the entire "debate" was such a sham with BS questions that have next to nothing to do with what we should be talking about in sizing up candidates. Bravo Newt, they deserved to be challenged and the applause from the audience validates that you said exactly what everyone else was thinking but too cowardly to say.
And he'll occasionally hit the nail on the head. The problem is, he's also an arrogant jerk who continually shoots himself in the foot and seems to have no clue about how to manage a campaign. If can't even manage his own campaign successfully, how could he possibly manage the country?
Of course, some could speculate that a bad campaigner might be a bad choice for potus. Personally, I'm not concerned about that discussion in a debate. I'm more interested in what he intends to try and accomplish and how he would go about that. I don't care about his campaign rhetoric. Afterall, let's look at our current potus... excellent campaign and one liners, but the sorriest potus in the history of our country.
Current POTUS, great campaigner horrible POTUS
GW Bush, horrible campaigner, equally horrible POTUS
Clinton, great campaigner, decent POTUS
GHW Bush, average campaigner, decent POTUS
Reagan, great campaigner, great POTUS
The lesson that can be learned from this IMO, is absolutely nothing. lol
Running a campaign is about managing people and resources, listening to your staff and being decisive. Newt has proven to be a terrible CEO of his own campaign and made choices like going on a cruise to Greece (no! really!) when he should have been fund-raising. He let his wife make important decisions, which led most of his staff to resign. This is what I was thinking of when I said it doesn't bode will for a Presidency.
Any inkling of credibility you may have had at ranking presidents (and there was none, so I guess that gives you a negative grade) went out the window with you identifying Reagan as a "great POTUS." You have to look beyond your erotic fascination with the man to see that we're still muddling through the consequences of policy that he advanced during his time in the White House - the trickle-down bullshit, solidifying wage stagnation, the useless, deadly, costly war on drugs, further shitifying what was already shitty regulation of financial institutions, etc, etc, etc. Sure a lot of people found his speeches to be inspirational and encouraging (which I still don't understand), but these types of things are a bit deeper than who makes you cum fastest when your'e jerking off to them on TV, man. It really is. It really, really is.
come to think of it, I can't remember when he has ever had anything worthwhile to say.
Like others have said, "there must be something in the water in Atlanta"
Perhaps THE most tepid, uninspiring reply yet. It's certainly something to get emotional about.
Actually, no...it doesn't. I'm not going to get into a useless, teen magazine-esque hearthrob ranking of past US presidents. What I WILL do for you, however, is drop in from time to time to weigh on the dumb, unprofound shit that people like you blow out of their assess on this board. How's that sound, champ?
It sounds like you have the balls of a woman. All i asked was that you rate the same presidents in the same simple manner that GaG did. In terms of characters it would have taken just as long to type your pussyfaced reply to me.
Tell ya the truth, I knew you'd pussout. As fucked up as his shit is, willy at least has the balls to put it out there for the rest of us to mock. You OTOH lack the balls.
game over, thanks for playing
Zorff is nothing but a critic. He has nothing to relevant to contribute.
Newt stood out for a lot of reasons. That question was BS because one was asked before we went into Libya and one was asked after we went in so the context of each question was different. I'm also happy that he called this "budget super committee" a stupid idea because it truly is. He probably gained the most but of course he won't win. He's just not very likable.
Th media is trying to define Michelle Bachmann as the next Sarah Palin but it won't work. She is smart and she does have a grasp on all the issues. But she is trying to use Palin's playbook and is acting more like a pundit and less like a realistic candidate. I think Santorum nailed her on that.
I really like Santorum. He walks the line well between Washington Insider who knows how to work the system and someone with principles. The Family Values thing is a turnoff to me but not a deal breaker.
Romney did what he needed to do. I'm fine with his "RomneyCare" explanation. The Obama "never had a job" zinger was good.
Pawlenty is toast. I felt he won his heated little side-debate with Bachmann but it probably hurt him.
Half the time I love Ron Paul and half the time I think he's a little nuts.
Why is Herman Cain there?
The "secessionist" makes his formal POTUS announcement tomorrow.
Bachmann & Santorum have NO chance of getting the nomination.
As for RR being great POTUS, hardly a universal opinon; below is pic of him entering 1st stage of Alzheimer's------
Pri- I know you're not a fan of Reagan but most polls vote him as either the greatest or one of our greatest Presidents ever. His popularity continues to expand and he has taken on a more myth than man kind of identity. The Right and Left regularly use the symbol of Reagan to advance their argument. In other words- He's very friggen' popular!! (Not trying to argue with you if he deserves it or not.......but he does!!).
who actually ranks higher on POTUS polls ( as meaningless as they may be )& certainly deserves being there.
Its all subjective, OC ; both POTUS's rank high on polls, but libs despise RR & conservatives despise FDR. Make of that what you will.
IMO, RR & JFK are 2 of the 20th century's most overrated POTUS's.
and yes RR was great, and FDR sucked. lol
I will agree about JFK being overrated however.
To all freeloaders, illegals and lazy union clock watchers ......
" You'll get nothing and you'll like it ! "