Republican Presidential Debate 11/28

So I see that CNN didn't even allot the same amount of time to each candidate. Say, whose election is this anyway—-the citizens' of the United States or the main stream media's? I think that in the future I will confine my attention to the reporting on the internet. The MSM is irrelevant, and dishonest. The major stations are showing themselves to be nothing but panderers to corporate special interests and propagandists for the government line. At some point even Boobus Americanus will wake up and see the blatant manipulation.

The GOP candidates are pretty insane. If you liked Bush these last six years, you have lots of options for '08. I was laughing the whole time while refreshing the 'Firsts' page: http://garlinggauge.com/2007/11/28/cnnyoutube-rep...

Tortuca, Great post on the debates on your blog!

Certainly not everything about Bush, but you are correct we have a number of interesting options; no one perfect (never is), yet but lightyears ahead of the options on the other side of the aisle. I took all I could to watch the first 45 minutes of the Dem YouTube debate and then it was only to check out the YouTube angle so as not to come off like too much of an idiot if they were actually worth a damn. I also had been invited to call into PVR for a chat….my Gard what a silly little farce. We can pass on the discussion of the CNN oopses…not sure that I would recognize them described by any unhinged ones. Overall, at this moment I am pretty much stepping back from the media force feeding, dog and pony shows and the celebrity crap involved in the circus regardless of party. Not a huge fan of Paul although I did like some of his answers; he absolutely is persona non grata in my book with his stance of international relations and Iraq. What exactly is "non-intervention" anyway? I'll be looking into that. I will not count the Dems out for 2008 but the interest in them is misled and likely magnified by the glowing green air around these days. Kerry wouldn't have done nearly as well as he did last time around if there were not so many unhinged among us. Interesting stuff as long as you can see past the kliegs.

Giuliani:" I agree with the senator that it didn't make it a safer city. And some of these gun laws do not make a city a safer city. The things we did in New York, indisputably, made New York City a much safer city. And the law in the District of Columbia and the law in New York are different." Anybody else feel like throwing up in all of their faces after that debate? This has got to be the most blatent contradictory remark I have ever seen. Thompson rips Giuliani for the fact that his gun laws did not make new york a safer city. Giuliani agrees with him on the fact that what he did, did not make things safer, and then immediately says the things he/we did in new york definitely made it a safer city. People like this should not be allowed to run for president. Anyone who makes missteps like this in a televised debate is not the caliber of person we need to run this country and on top of that him, along with all his cronies on stage, are all liars.

Hey thanks, debate firsts can be as hilarious as the candidates!

McCain needs to stop, drop and roll - he was on fire!

Non-intervention should have always been the norm. It's a deep respect for national sovereignty in which one political state acting on principals agrees not to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Unfortunately, in an age when Russia's old stock pile of nuclear weapons or other easily transportable bio weapons can be transported from one country to another, it doesn't always work.