Democratic Debate June 3, 2007

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm trying to remain objective and listen to what they have to say. It's hard because it seems to me I've heard all this before, from both Politcal Parties. I only remember as far back as the second term of Ronald Reagan but all of the issues are the same. I'm not hearing anything new so it all just smacks of rhetoric and b.s. I've been hearing the healthcare issue every single debate I've ever watched and nothing has changed. They all talk big about how they will do this and do that but don't do anything. It all seems like lip service and I can't listen to it anymore.

Whoa, they just said they want to have a carbon tax thereby making gasoline more expensive! I can't believe I just heard that.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 830 • Replies: 12

No top replies

All Americans should be genuinely embarrassed.

0 Replies

Re: Democratic Debate June 3, 2007

RfromP wrote:

Whoa, they just said they want to have a carbon tax thereby making gasoline more expensive! I can't believe I just heard that.

Didn't surprise me in the least. I'd have been more surprised if they hadn't said it.

0 Replies

Anybody else notice Gravel was the only guy that had the nerve to admit the truth about his own party. The spin ever since the war started and no WMD was found, the spin has been this is Bush's war. Gravel reminded everyone of the Democrats that were in favor of it, but now for political reasons have turned tail. Spineless politicians with no honor to take responsibily for their own decisions. They have spent years figuring out how to explain themselves out of any responsibility. Of course, Edwards says he made a mistake, big deal, but blames his mistake for listening to the wrong people, etc. blah blah blah.

Interesting though, Hillary went into detail to explain how she got the best information from all sources she could find. Evidently Bush must have brainwashed all of those people as well. And even Hillary says we are safer now than we were. Libs and Democrats, why isn't she repeating the Democratic party line? I thought we are more unsafe and we have created more and more terrorists? Here we have Hillary, the brain trust of the Democratic Pary and is privy to everything going way back into her husband's terms and before. She thought there was WMD. How can this be?

Gravel also admits things cost money, such as health care plans, etc. etc. How come hes the only Democrat that knows this? Anyone else notice he was passed off as some old out of the loop Democrat, and marginalized as some oddball guy from the backwoods of Alaska?

0 Replies

Same way as your side marginalize Ron Paul every time he starts talking sense.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Same way as your side marginalize Ron Paul every time he starts talking sense.

I think that's part of the problem. The unproductive my side your side petty bickering that only serves to steer the focus away from the issues. I believe it is done by design, to purposefully not have to address the issues at hand.

Just like in the debate one of the candidates was asked how he would reduce the price of gasoline, the candidate went into filibuster mode and did not even answer the question. He did knowing full well that he would only have a minute or so to respond to the question so by prattling on he didn't have to actually have an answer.

Another time in the debate, a woman asked about ending the war in Iraq, the candidates went on to praise the troops and pander to the audience like the one candidate who had the audience applaud the troops thereby effectively eating up the time he had to answer the question so ultimately he didn't have to. Don't get me wrong I'm all for saluting the troops, I'm one of them, but that's not what last night was about and those tactics that were being used were transparent and made the candidates who used them look foolish and flacid.

0 Replies

RfromP wrote:

one of the candidates was asked how he would reduce the price of gasoline

But then again, the problem is that lower gas prices might not even be desirable. For various reasons. So how would you possibly answer such a question? If the candidate just answered "I'm actually opposed to lower gas prices," he would make himself an easy target. Giving a comprehensive explanation why lower gas prices are possibly not a good thing, on the hand, is kind of hard to do in just a minute.

A loose-loose situation, really.

0 Replies

I wish just one of them would say... in answer to all these questions " I have many ideas and plan to surround myself with reasonable and wise counsel in order to implement them but quite frankly, neither I nor anyone standing before you who will answer honestly has any REAL idea of how long it will take and how complicated it will be to extricate us from the colossal f**k ups of the bush administation. Situations change and plans change along with them, but I can assure you that as different situations call for course corrections they will be made with care and thought rather than hanging on stubbornly to failed ideas and policies as a result of megalomania." "Here are my current ideas for specific issues"

Fat chance of that though.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I wish just one of them would say... in answer to all these questions " I have many ideas and plan to surround myself with reasonable and wise counsel in order to implement them but quite frankly, neither I nor anyone standing before you who will answer honestly has any REAL idea of how long it will take and how complicated it will be to extricate us from the colossal f**k ups of the bush administation. Situations change and plans change along with them, but I can assure you that as different situations call for course corrections they will be made with care and thought rather than hanging on stubbornly to failed ideas and policies as a result of megalomania." "Here are my current ideas for specific issues"

Fat chance of that though.

I think they said that in different words. They all said, everything is Bush's fault, and as Hillary said, it is Bush's war, nevermind the fact I voted to go to war after I got ALL the information from every expert I knew on the subject of Saddam Hussein and WMD and all the rest. Now that is so logical from a woman that claims to be logical?

Every one of them followed the recipe: It is Bush's fault and I will solve every problem by negotiating with terrorists and with Iran, and by taxing the rich, and by the way, don't ask me what defines rich, except it is more than I make, like maybe 200,000 or 250,000. There you have it. Tax the rich and negotiate with the madmen that want to wipe us off the face of the earth. Those two things will solve virtually any problem that faces us.

0 Replies

Okie - that's the impression I got as well. It's almost like they don't realize Bush isn't running in '08.

0 Replies

Quote:

nevermind the fact I voted to go to war after I got ALL the information from every expert I knew on the subject of Saddam Hussein and WMD and all the rest.

Um, they got all the POSITIVE information. Not the dissenting info, which said 'maybe the positive info isn't right.'

But that's neither here nor there. They are quite correct in saying that this is Bush's war. They hold some complicity in enabling him, but it was Bush who convinced them and others to go forward with the plan and Bush who has been the leader during the colossal f*ckup which ensued. The only question now is how to end our involvement in the region ASAP.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Twelve years of republican fu-k ups and the worst of it is that the democrats don't have the ba-ls to start repairing the country even after they were given a majority in congress. Bush and Cheney still thumb their nose at congress and the dems still stand around with their thumb up their rear end. The only way to change things is to start from scratch and throw out all the politicians out and elect a totaly new government. Rep, Dem, no difference in them all are bought by money. This was started by the supreme court and thier money is the same as voting which negated the graft laws.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
nevermind the fact I voted to go to war after I got ALL the information from every expert I knew on the subject of Saddam Hussein and WMD and all the rest.

Um, they got all the POSITIVE information. Not the dissenting info, which said 'maybe the positive info isn't right.'

But that's neither here nor there. They are quite correct in saying that this is Bush's war. They hold some complicity in enabling him, but it was Bush who convinced them and others to go forward with the plan and Bush who has been the leader during the colossal f*ckup which ensued. The only question now is how to end our involvement in the region ASAP.

Cycloptichorn

Your assertion mirrors Hillary's assessment, which is two faced, almost treasonous in my opinion. Hillary says she voted for the authorization to go to war, after consulting all the experts she knew by the way, and now wishes to take no responsibility for it. This, my friend, illustrates the hypocrisy, the utter lack of any courage or honor to take any responsibility for anything. This is America's war, and it is also the Democrat's war. This is not just Bush's war. Sorry, my dear Hillary, you snake and the rest of your coward Democrats and accomplices in the press. The Democrats also voted for this, and backed it until they now think it is not politically popular.

We need adults to run for president, not children.

0 Replies

Democratic Debate June 3, 2007

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know