Because the last one worked so well, they're doing it again tonight! Live from Iowa, it's Children of the Corn 2: Pandering Boogaloo! Join us, tonight on Fox at 9:00 PM EST, casual dress, overalls preferred, B.Y.O.B. Farm subsidies for the first twenty people through the door!
Come one, come all....
... will Newt insult us all?
... will Romney say something memorable?
... will Ron Paul praise our new Iranian overlords?
... will Rick Perry shake the Teletubby?
... will anyone finally realize Santorum offers us utopia?
... will Bachmann don black-face to attract Cain's supporters?
... will Huntsman finally become a 2%er?
All this and more, tonight! Leave your thoughts below.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
T-Rav's Sockpuppet Theater Presents: Children of the Corn 2!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
534 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 534 of 534the most coherent thing he's said!
Why is it always the Republicans who are politicizing issues?
Can't we just deem that everyone will give the same answer to this stupid question and move on?
Hey Ricks, wanna bet $10,000 that Iran doesn't invade the US anytime soon?
You know what? Forget Perry; doesn't Santorum's head and neck look kind of screwy?
The rivers keep them from wandering too far.
BINGO -- no job, no stayee
I think the problem is that the Ricks switched heads.
Andrew, at least they brought up Fast & Furious rather than asking something stupid like "What's your favorite color?"
see - he's making sense again...
King says Gingrich is a dingbat.
My favorite color is, "the color." I think that really says it all, doesn't it?
Gingrich avoids the answer by throwing out lots of words and then ducking to the easy parts.
Everything Newt just said would be 100% irrelevant under his amnesty plan.
My high school history teacher was from Iowa, and she was a nice person. Took the volleyball team to state and everything. Then again, she also voted Green Party.
I hate the fact I agree with Huntsman... hate it a LOT.
it's all OK because they have slowed down their illegal crossings??
T-Rav, I once spent a few days in Iowa for a wedding. They should vote for me.
Rather than pandering to Hispanics, we need to be pandering to the Chinese.
rlaWTX, Yeah, when he got to that point, it all went wrong.
Hells no! There is no evidence that legal immigrants want amnesty for illegal immigrants. It sure wouldn't make sense if they did.
Andrew, but did you visit all 99 counties? Huh? Did you?
I changed my mind on abortion too. I advocate it for Democrats only.
T-Rav, They all look alike. ;)
tryanmax, actually, many legal immigrants have expressed the most intense opposition to amnesty for illegals. Funny how that never gets covered in the media.
Romney has a problem here, no doubt.
Keep going. I'm sure there's an answer somewhere in that string of words.
Is it too late for me to be aborted? I think I'm in the 129th trimester if my math is right.
Are you now or have you ever been a gay loving, gun hating communist?
oh! time for Santorum's foot to go into his mouth!
tryanmax, Not if you're a Democrat under my bill! :)
T-Rav, how can they report it? They've never taken a poll on it. Can't report the news if there's no poll.
I'm all over this like a fly on rye! Is that how that expression goes?
Maybe I'll switch parties just to get away from these debates!
I hate gays.
Honestly, don't care. I'm all for gay marriage, but I oppose gay divorce.
Anyone know how this actually went down? (Darn you, lack of New England members!)
Newt personally performed abortions.
Yeah, well when Newt was working with Reagan...
abortion is a seminal issue... did she mean to be funny?
Did Newt just swallow a gallon of vinegar or something?
rla, that's just gross right there.
I dunno, but I think it's funny.
T-Rav, No idea, but I can tell you that what Santorum has described would be unique in the annals of legal history if it were true.
In other words, odds are Santorum is wrong.
As clear and consistent as my positions on every other issue.
this debate could take 5-6 days...
Uh uh, could Newt be lying again?
Okay, I will say, I could not support a Republican who backed partial-birth abortion. That is a non-starter for me.
Get Joe Biden out of here!
What the...???
T-Rav, I honestly have no idea what Newt just said but if he said that then, I think you're right.
Santorum: I'm in Iowa! Go Iowa!
Iowa!
Not Tebow?
Guys! I just realized! This may be the first debate in which Bachmann did NOT reference being a tax attorney or her 23 foster kids! Is that a sign of the end times?
Perry: Footbawl!
Mitt: let me just not answer that question either.
Newt: rambling will confuse you into thinking I've answered.
Oops! I had my fingers crossed!
T-Rav, That and the beeper... the end is nigh!
Go away. Idiot.
Paul: rEVOLution
There goes Michelle again stealing from prior Presidents.
Shelly: what was the question? Nevermind, I'll just say some stuff.
Who is this Reagan? We should vote for him.... not these jokers.
Yeah, well, I crawled up Reagan's pant leg - so I was closer!
Oh, thank God... it's over.
Huntsman, sadly, gave the best answer to the closing question.
y'all are a blast!!!!!!!!
all the analysis they need is right here!!!
While Huntsman's blathering, after a quick read back through the comments, I think Bachmann was claiming Gingrich refused to purge any Republican who supported or did not oppose partial-birth abortion. That's not good, but it's not QUITE a line in the sand for me. I think.
So on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being a perfect performance by everyone and 1 being Saturday night's debate, I'd call this one a 3. Thoughts?
T-Rav, I don't know what she was saying, but it's worth looking into. If Newt did support partial birth abortion, that puts him in a very nasty fringe and should not be our nominee.
Juan & Charles are their responses? seriously?
Shelly did what she's gotten good at, taken a point of minor disagreement and characterized it as the opposing POV.
Before anybody leaves, thanks for coming.
It's important to get the reactions of liberals such as Juan Williams in a Republican primary.
Fun as always.
T-Rav, My thoughts are this.
Overall: Dull, not informative.
Winner: Romney
Runner Up: Santorum
Big Loser: Newt and Paul... WTF
Ditto! Another great performance by the entire cast! :-)
strong 10 for Commentarama
6 for Romney
4 for Huntsman & Bachmann
3 for the rest but Paul
1 for Paul
3 overall
And Newt has earned himself a new picture.
Ron Paul's problem is that he doesn't realize the people supporting a tough stance against Iran are not a neocon "fringe," they are actually the majority of the party.
Don't you know, only a liberal can effectively discuss conservatism. Just like only a liberal can effectively discuss liberalism.
Or how only a liberal can effectively discuss capitalism, small government, deregulation, and so on.
good night all...
Ron Paul totally forgot to take his pills tonight.
Bow down before my awesome polling analysis!
Any name ending in "untz" is funny to me.
G'nite rla! Thanks for sticking around!
Andrew, I can't wait to see the new Newt picture.
I don't think we had any surprises tonight. But we had a lot of confirmation:
1. Newt confirmed to me that he doesn't care about the Constitution.
2. Romney is a safe, unexciting pick.
3. Huntsman is smart, but too liberal.
4. Santorum is getting good at sounding not-toxic.
5. Paul is so far off the deep end on foreign stuff he's becoming scary.
6. Any one of us would be better in the job.
Good night everyone! :)
Boonowa tweepi, ha, ha.
Not me, I'd totally let the power go to my head. Just bein' honest.
Andrew, if a few weeks from now you're in Santorum's camp, I'm going to laugh and laugh....
just logged on; looks like you guys had fun. As expected, I continue to learn to like Mitt Romney. This is just a mixture of the reality of things and how he did tonight (which I thought was pretty strong.) Ron Paul can say some great things, but may have shot himself with the Iran thing. Newt continues to show his debate skills, but He just seems disingenuous to me.
T-Rav, I can assure you that won't happen. While I can appreciate that Ricky manages to sound "not-toxic" compared to the other idiots, I also know the man is a total fool with no idea what he's doing, no platform, and a thought process that scares me as much as Paul's only in a different direction. He is not a man who should ever be trusted with any amount of authority.
tryanmax, Ok, you can be VP. ;)
Jed, I notice you capitalized the "he" when referring to Newt. Is he your God? ;-)
OK I actually watched this debate and I just have this advice for Ron Paul...
Engineer Scott of the StarShip Enterprise said
"The best diplomat I know is a fully loaded phazer bank"
Jed, This was a strong debate for Romney and Paul really pushed himself further out on the ledge.
This debate more than any other should scare conservatives about Newt. He basically proposed shredding the constitution several times to force his will on the courts and the Congress. His ego is insane.
Andrew, that's what you say NOW! (Okay, I'll stop before you chase me out of here with a broomstick.)
ok, stopped back by and totally agree with Andrew's 6...
and looking forward to the Newt pic)
Indi, LOL! Nice reference.
I like a LOT of what Paul says, but I fear that he would get a lot of people killed with his foreign policy which seems more and more like absolute isolationism.
I don't subscribe to the stupid hawk view that's beset the Republican Party, but Paul's "surrender at all costs" is unacceptable as an alternative.
Wait a minute, how is it hard not to like Ron Paul, Newt? As anyone here will tell you, I don't find it hard at all.
I love Scotty.
Romney wins for the eVerify comment
(if we pass that law then illegals can't get a job... well except in Miami of course.. but other than that)
Andrew
If you ignore the foreign policy stuff Paul wins the debate..
Scary huh!
After this debate, my list of candidates, from most to least favorable, is as follows:
1. Michele Bachmann
2. Rick Santorum
3. Mitt Romney
4. Rick Perry
5. Newt Gingrich
6. Jon Huntsman
7. Ron Paul
Keep in mind, this is more based on who I have the fewest problems with, rather than who I actually like.
Oh, and 500 comments! New record!
Bachman had moments where she did very well....
But...
She lost me totally when she had to tell Gingritch "I am a serious candidate running for office"
Of course Gingritch is going to tell you your facts are wrong Michelle, you are disagreeing with him and he is Gaius Newtus Gingritchinas, leader of the 1994 Cohort of the GOP Congress.
Toughen Up... Men are mean... be mean back... you should excel at that yhou are a woman and should be able to lead the men around by their noses.
Santarum and Huntsman do not impress me for President but somehow I think they would be great at a cabinet post.
I could see a Secretary of State Huntsman
Is that wrong...
I could see Huntsman as Secretary of Appeasement.
Indi, Huntsman strikes me as a great advisor, but not a man I would want making the decision.
Bachmann is not a serious candidate, never has been.
If the Presidency was just economic, then I could support Paul, but it's not.
T-Rav, My list would be:
1. Anybody NOT on stage.
2. leave the office unoccupied
3. Romney
4. turn to crime
That's about as far as I can order them before it gets complex.
Leave out the complicated stuff, where does expatriation fall on your list?
P.S. 500 comments rocks! :)
tryanmax, Ambassador to China for Huntsman.
I'm more of a fighter than a leaver, so I would put expatriation just below "terrorist/revolutionary".
LOL! Whenever my friends start talking survivalism (a rare topic, but it comes up) I always say I won't need to know how to survive because, when the revolution comes, I plan on being against the wall.
Is that a Hitchhiker's Guide reference?
(fyi, I just saw about 6 of your comments in the spam filter. Not sure why. I told it you are not spam.)
If it is, it is unintentional. I just figure with my Kissenger glasses and my subversive rhetoric, some handsome gentlemen with armbands on their sleeves will show up at my door on behalf of The Party.
Ah! It does seem to be a Hitchhiker's Guide thing. I must read them again, soon.
Yeah, because as the book says about the future, "they were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
I must have read it and liked it so much, I took it for my own. In any case, that is my survivalist plan: not to.
Ah yes
the Marketing Deaprtment of Sirus B or some such
I always envision the people who work at the New York times when reading that
Yep, that's them. And that's funny, because I think the same thing!
Perry had a winning comment when he talked about the 10th ammendment
I think Romney should just state..
"Look, I was Governor of freakin Taxachutsetts for Chrisssakes... course I had to be a friggin Rino or they would of Lynched me.... these are the same dolts that kept electing Bwarney the Frwank back to office...
But heyh don't worry I am a true Converserative now... Wink wink
Indi, That seems to be where he gets into trouble, when he tries to recharacterize his prior liberalism as somehow really conservatism. His best bet is "I've changed."
Yea I think you are right
Although I will state that when he equivocates he is giving what appear to me to be honest answers.
The whole Gay Marraige thing is believable. As Governor he had to sign those documents probably for understandable procedural reasons although I am not going to state I understand what they are..
Still that does not help with the soundbite does it.
Don't worry. We may all be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes, but at least we can share the space with the OWSers and the Young Communists. (I know, I know..."but I repeat myself.")
OT Breaking: Christopher Hitchens has passed away.
Indi, Yeah, the flip flopping seems to be the honest answer. Ug.
I have not looked into the gay marriage thing, but the way Santorum described it simply doesn't make sense to me. Governors are not given a choice to follow the law or pick some alternative. My guess is that Romney was right that the court ruled and it was a question of getting the legislature to overturn the court, which ain't gonna happen in Mass.
T-Rav, Let's be zen about this... let's be the wall! :)
I never followed Hitchens. I found him to angry to be worth listening to.
Looks like you had fun. In fact, it looks like your comments are a helluva lot funnier than the debates. I'm ready to vote by flipping a coin. Enough! No more debates until it's time to take on the Evil One.
I just wish Romney could explain himself better. I assume he was just signing something because, as executive, that's what he had to do. But I shouldn't have to make that assumption.
Besides, I can totally see Mass. going in for gay marriage and, if that's what they want, and they go about it through proper legislation, give it to them. We don't want an executive that allows things and strikes them down based on his personal predilections.
Elections have turned too much into "What would Candidate X's do if he were king?" rather than "How would Candidate X uphold the law?"
Tryanmax: "Elections have turned too much into "What would Candidate X's do if he were king?" rather than "How would Candidate X uphold the law?""
Excellent point!!
tryanmax and rlaWTX, That's exactly the problem. These debates stop being about "what would I do as president" and then become about bragging and making promises that can't be kept. They all do it. That's why we should always be suspicious about things that sound too good from these candidates:
... I'm going to fix marriage.
... I'm going to return us to the constitution.
... I'm going to oust liberal judges.
... I'm going to repeal ___.
... I'm going to scrap the tax code!
None of these things can be done by a President, yet this is all we hear because it sounds good. And in the process we end up picking the biggest braggart rather than the person best able to achieve the most conservative result.
We need to hear them tell us what steps they plan to take to make things better rather than tell us how they plan to fix everything in fell swoop.
Post a Comment