# Debate Question



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

This youtube of obama is during his 2008 campaign.....I think the first question posed to him during the upcoming debates should be .....mr. president, how many states are there and you have 5 seconds to answer.

Regards, Mike


----------



## cwright (Oct 19, 2011)

This is interesting.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php?ql3


----------



## Chessiedog (Jul 24, 2009)

I think they're all crooks! Takes the government 100 people to do what a couple do in the real world . They pay them 5 times as much to do it . They have good health plans, they vote themselves raises, for WHAT? Seeing who can spend the most money on the dumbest stuff, or take the most expensive trip ? Sorry just don't see too much difference in donkeys or elephants . Mostly about the power , not much about the people or the country . They all want to take credit for something, but nothing gets done.

Lets see how many committees would it take to plant your corn ,or when to bale your hay ? We'll need at least 50 ,just see if we should do it. Then we'll need another 50 to be sure there right . Then we have to figure when it should be planted, got to send that to a committee too . Oh you better check with someone to see if you can plant it there , and on and on and on. There is just no end to the madness !

Just my opinion .

Oh be sure they tax that too ...


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Yup, that's old news. I've posted it a few times and his supporters claim he meant to say "I've made 57 stops in the states". We all know for somebody who's trained as a lawyer and makes their bread and butter by twisting words could easily make that mistake, after all the first two and the last letter are the same.I point out listen to the syntax, he honestly thought he's been to 57 states with one to go and they are hawaii and alaska...idiots.

All we need is for somebody with an obscene amount of money like Donald Trump to make a tasteful commercial and place it on every channel in the country, something along the lines of "if something would happen to Obummer then Biden becomes president". Romney should get all fifty states then with Obama getting the other 7.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Chessiedog said:


> Lets see how many committees would it take to plant your corn ,or when to bale your hay ? We'll need at least 50 ,just see if we should do it. Then we'll need another 50 to be sure there right . Then we have to figure when it should be planted, got to send that to a committee too . Oh you better check with someone to see if you can plant it there , and on and on and on. There is just no end to the madness !


From how I understand it, that's how Russia used to handle agriculture. Central planning committee used to decide what to be planted and where and by what date. Problem was planning committee was in Moscow, what they decided to be grown might not even grow where they wanted it, and then they would have one date for it to be done by. Russia is so vast it was too late in some parts of the country and so early in other parts that frost would still be in the ground. That's why they failed miserably at feeding their own people.

I had a gov/econ teacher in high school that had 20 years in the marines, then became a teacher upon retirement. His opinion was a government can get away with about anything as long as it's citizens had full tummys.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

No offense guys, but I think the little "gotcha" moments, like 57 states, "potatoe", etc. are less disturbing than which candidate supports late term abortion.
Have you ever just thought a moment about how horrible that is? How could anyone support killing a baby that could survive outside the womb?
One of my kids was born at 29 weeks and is now is a perfectly normal vibrant, smart, athletic child that I couldn't live without.
How could someone murder a baby?


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> No offense guys, but I think the little "gotcha" moments, like 57 states, "potatoe", etc. are less disturbing than which candidate supports late term abortion.
> Have you ever just thought a moment about how horrible that is? How could anyone support killing a baby that could survive outside the womb?
> One of my kids was born at 29 weeks and is now is a perfectly normal vibrant, smart, athletic child that I couldn't live without.
> How could someone murder a baby?


Because if you couldn't, then it would interfere with a woman's "choice".

When it's a medical necessity to save the mother's life okay, personally I don't agree but pregnancy from rape or incest, okay. As a form of birth control or because Mommy changes her mind, never. Late term abortion is vile no matter the circumstance.

I posted once somewhere in a discussion that since the pill and condoms are only 99% effective with abstinence being the only form of birth control that's 100% effective, then if a woman isn't willing to accept the consequences of that 1% then maybe she shouldn't have sex. Boy does that get the lefties and pro-choicers into a lather right quick.

You have to remember usually the strongest supporters of pro-choice also think personal responsibility is evil.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

cwright said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> http://www.opensecre...2/index.php?ql3


Why would universities even be allowed to donate to political campaigns?


----------



## cwright (Oct 19, 2011)

swmnhay said:


> Why would universities even be allowed to donate to political campaigns?


I guess they have a stake in the student loan crisis.


----------

