Skip to comments.LIVE THREAD: Huckabee's Republican Presidential Forum: 8/7 Eastern/Central 5:PM Pacific
Posted on 12/03/2011 4:00:01 PM PST by onyx
Short commercial ad first.
Six candidates are participating.
Eddie Haskell Hunstman has declined the invitation.
Herman Cain suspended his campaign today and will not participate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
You are a Perrywinkle.
Some are Mittbots.
Some are bong-using Paulbots.
I was open to all but Paul, Romney, Huntsman and Johnson - and now that things have settled out I am willing to support Newt. He is a known quantity who has actually delivered results for conservatives, who has proven leadership and communication skills, and is ready to restore America on day one.
Well, then you should heed the advice. Stop ripping Perry supporters (calling them Perrywinkles) and promote the better points of your own candidate (rather than calling Perry a Nazi).
“Good grief. Everyone was listening to Global Warming scientists until the UEA scandal was exposed.”
Good grief. Newt’s ad with Nancy Pelosi was 2007, the same year he said he “strongly supports cap-and-trade”. He lied about that yesterday.
Nobody with meaningful brain activity has been on the GW bandwagon for years.
Joining this sort of liberal trendy causes seems to be the defining element in Newt’s career (Amnesty, “radical rightwing social engineering”, Fairness Doctrine etc).
Obama, Clinton, Gore, Richardson and Senor Perry were all members of today’s nazi(aka dem) party.
The party of abortion. You know, the party that has murdered 50 million innocent babies?
Of course Senor Perry should get credit for bailing after the first 25 million murders.
Which primaries do you think Perry can actually win?
He’s in single digits everywhere right now and has done nothing to trend upwards. He’s gonna have to do a lot more than pull out a copy of the constitution.
True. I’m just asking if the polls shift, that you consider him.
Can someone confirm:
In the last 4 presidential primary seasons, did any primary candidate who was polling over 25% but after debating at least once went down to near single digits ever recover to rise up above 25% again?
That seems to be an unlikely situation.
-Gingrich has risen as a result of scrutiny.
-Those who have bursted up high fell under scrutiny (Perry, Bachmann, Cain).
-Romney won’t really allow scrutiny because he is always on script and refuses to reveal how he actually feels about anything (except when he expresses disdain at scrutiny).
-Paul can’t get traction despite 5 years of scrutiny.
-Santorum and Huntsman have not caught on despite scrutiny even though the volatility gave them plenty of chances to break through.
Thanks for posting that video of Perry campaigning. It was high energy and very right on! My sister told me that he ran through the crowd in Orlando shaking hands when he was here and she could not believe his energy. He did well in the debate tonight.
“I think after this my line up is Bachmann, Perry and Santorum.”
Did you watch the show after the debate on Fox? It was Judge Jeanine(something or other) and she had the three AG’s on as guests. It was interesting to hear their take on the answers to their questions. The AG from VA said that Bachmann didn’t answer some of the questions, but skirted around them. He said he tried to get her to be more forthcoming, but she wouldn’t. I thought that was interesting. All three of them felt that Newt could not be trusted. Hummmm.
You are a Perrywinkle.So using your standards we should refer to you as a Neuter? (Pronounced Nooter or Newter)
Some are Mittbots.
Some are bong-using Paulbots.
I was open to all but Paul, Romney, Huntsman and Johnson - and now that things have settled out I am willing to support Newt.
(Newt) is ready to restore America on day one.
Yea right. He doesn't even know if Global Warming is caused by man or not. (He said that BTW)
And doesn't even know what criminal invading illegal alien colonist means. Panderer and finger-in-the-wind beltway insider.
I was originally open to 5 of the nine candidates (and am still open to 4). I just see Newt has the momentum BECAUSE after all 9 have been vetted he ends up as the strongest).
I would be a “Newter” only if I had eliminated all other candidates except Newt in the beginning and then supported him no matter what.
Contrast Perrywinkles chose Senor Perry long ago and won’t accept that he has been vetted and rejected.
Same with Paulbots.
Same with Mittbots.
I have not been here for months trying to prop up a candidate I like by tearing other candidates down. I have posted against Romney and Paul and Huntsman, but not in favor of any one candidate (Johnson does not really count), but rather in favor of the 5 candiates who I thought might be good.
Now that Newt is doing the best of all 9 I am doing all I can to stifle and defeat the pathetic bots (Mittbots, Perrybots and Paulbots). We only have a few weeks left and the bots must be destroyed.
If you want to make a fair criticism of Newt, go for it. But when you do so be prepared to hear about the weaknesses of your chosen candidate.
All 3 of them said good things about Gingrich.
All 3 criticized Perry, Paul and Romney.
Just adding the bits you left out.
No, you are even more insidious than that, using juvenile descriptions of supporters of the candidates you don't agree with.
...the bots must be destroyed.See what I mean. Sounds like Olberman/Matthews/Maddow etc etc. Or a kid in a basement who cuts himself.
Nothing wrong with fair criticizm of any candidate, but slamming supporters is just plain whack and destroys any credibility of those that do so.
It is an absolute lie that any law, real or proposed, allows a vaccination of any child in Texas without parental consent or notice.
The Legislature passed the requirement for parents to opt out of vaccinations for their children. They then passed a specific law against the mandating of a vaccine against Human Papilloma Viruses. Gardasil was never mandated in the State of Texas.
No child received a Gardasil vaccination due to the Executive Order, but many parents learned about the opt out procedure and were able to more easily access the forms than before.
Viruses don’t care what you do. Vaccinations to prevent viral disease are not “sex disease vaccines.”
Nevertheless, the vaccine is one of the most requested and provided vaccinations in the US. For all children, boys and girls under the age of 19 who qualify for the Vaccines for Children, it’s free of charge.
The Vaccines for Children provides free vaccinations on the “approved” list if the child is on Medicaid, CHIPs, Indian Health Service, or is uninsured or has insurance that will not pay for vaccines.
Talk to the Democrats for Life. http://www.democratsforlife.org/
or the Texas Democrats for Life http://texas.democratsforlife.org/
They ARE not a conservative bunch, even though they are against abortion and mandated contraception. But the Democratic party WAS conservative in Texaa at one time.
A child gets the sex disease vaccine unless his parents take special action to avoid it.
In other words, it is a mandatory vaccine for all kiddies unless the parents are aware that they have to complete special paperwork and then actually properly fill out and send in the special paperwork.
In other words most kids get the sex vaccine and their parents have no clue.
That’s Senor Perry’s law in Texas
As I recall, they all hedged on some of the questions, especially if they maybe thought they were trick questions.
I really don’t trust Newt either. He has changed his story many times. He’s very intelligent,, but seems to want to say what WE want to hear. Just my observation, though.
No. It is not.
No. It is not.
No. It is not.