So where's the thread for the GOP debate Sunday night?

Maybe folks have their own, but feel free to trot this out for the next debate:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-maxwell21x07oct21,0,6807966.column?coll=orl_news_local_orange_util

 

Gee willikers, something that didn't come up the other night.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/22/dyncorp.spending/index.html
Did anyone mention the incumbent president's name this time?
And is the Huck as loopy as the rest of these clowns?
Of course, he is.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/137/

 

The fact that this debate was going against Game 7 of the ALCS and Sunday Night football probably didn't help much.

Also, I don't know if anybody saw John Stewart last night but he made this comparison:

[img height=200 width=150]http://www.buddytv.com/articles/Law_&_Order/Images/fred-dalton-thompson-5.jpg[/img]​

[img height=200 width=150]http://www.hometownfavorites.com/images/items/Large/hfce103.jpg[/img]

 

Huckabee wants the VP spot. He isn’t ruffling feathers. He is carving his niche and courting the religious. Nothing more. This way, when Rudy or Romney end up winning the nomination they can add Huckabee to their ticket and gain that base without appearing to court them.

I don’t like Huckabee at all. I think that if someone says they don’t believe in evolution they shouldn’t even be in consideration for the presidency. It tells me that the person is a) stubborn, b) would rather believe something written a thousand years ago and c) cannot accept facts as presented.

Someone that has a chance of being president should be able to take in factual information, review what occurred and adjust their policy accordingly. Someone that refuses to accept evolution is someone that I, and the rest of the world, should not trust to do that.

 

Game Seven was a liberal plot.

 

This one kind of tickled me...

 

I like this one, actually.


"Washington Parts The Potomac."

(h/t -- Attaturk.)

 

Couldn't wait for this one...just because he's a Baptist preacher? As if these people (and he is a social conservative, no bones about that) can't offer this country better leadership than an endless array of corruption?

And that's why this country really doesn't deserve good leadership.

 

Pastor's theology:
Anyone with any brain utterance pre 1,000 A.D. is irrelevant.

You, too, are as narrow - to think that the total package of a man with moral character and one who has raised solid debate arguments can't be President.

 

No, but I think someone who will say, in public, that most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen, when only one of them was, is putting his secular duties subordinate to his religious beliefs in an unacceptable way.

And I'm not sure what this means:
"Anyone with any brain utterance pre 1,000 A.D. is irrelevant."
...unless you're sticking up for Aristotle, which I doubt.

 

The worst thing about the "I don't believe in evolution" approach is how cynical it really is. The GOP candidates who stand there and say that with a straight face are simply courting the most ignorant of the voters. That's why everyone who declares publicly that science is invalid should be disqualified from the presidency. Not because it makes them too stupid, but because it demonstrates how desperately willing to pander they are.