PDA

View Full Version : 3 undecided voters




yongrel
11-29-2007, 12:15 PM
I watched the debate with three undecided voters, and here was there take on the candidates.

Romney: The consensus is that he was disingenuous and greasy. "a used car salesman" to quote one.

Giuliani: They all agreed that he came across very well, and they were all impressed by his experience. They all agreed that he seemed the most qualified.

Huckabee: They called him the most likeable. One thought he was too religious, while another loved that he was a man of strong faith. All three were alike in thinking he was the best-spoken candidate, who seemed the most personable.

McCain: They thought he was the most genuine, and they liked his stand on torture. They also thought he looked old, tired and grumpy.

Fred Thompson: No one really knew what he said, because he said "um" so many times. They thought he looked presidential though.

Ron Paul: They liked what he had to say mostly, but they thought he was shrill. "He sounds like he's got his panties in a bunch, his voice is so high." said one person. Two disagreed with him on foreign policy entirely, but liked his positions on spending anyways. All three were unnerved by his wanting to cut the Dept of Ed and Energy though. And two weren't happy about him cutting homeland security.


Remember folks, not everyone sees the candidates like we do.

Anyone else care to add similar accounts?

Tdcci
11-29-2007, 12:20 PM
From one undecided voter

Romney - slime
Huckabee - quick, personable
McCain - honest, also liked the torture bit
Giuliani - this person lived in NYC so they already had an opinion on him
RP - agreeable on foreign policy, needs more information

JosephTheLibertarian
11-29-2007, 12:57 PM
me

Ron Paul: great

Romney: flop flopping cum rag

Giuliani: the second coming of Mussolini

Huckabee: I wonder if he knows how many millions (maybe even billions) were murdered in the name of god? Religious zealot

McCain: pathetic. Is that a tumor in the side of his face?

Tancredo: Just useless

Hunter: extremely boring

Thompson: a fucking moron

leave anyone else out?

Korey Kaczynski
11-29-2007, 01:01 PM
All three were unnerved by his wanting to cut the Dept of Ed and Energy though

How did people manage before the creation of those departments?!?!!?!?!?

There are a lot of stupid people who think that everything, every little thing, needs to be controlled. DAMN. Since when has the Fed even really had to have their fingers in education? It's time to end democracy, people.

Korey Kaczynski
11-29-2007, 01:03 PM
Giuliani: They all agreed that he came across very well, and they were all impressed by his experience. They all agreed that he seemed the most qualified.

My reaction:

:D

:eek:

:confused:

:(

dc74rp
11-29-2007, 06:13 PM
All three were unnerved by his wanting to cut the Dept of Ed and Energy though. And two weren't happy about him cutting homeland security.

At this point, I'm assuming the average person doesn't have an accurate idea of what these departments do.

The Department of Education: Local taxes pay for schools and teachers. The Department of Education doesn't fund them, it's purpose is to dictate policy. Which right now is "No Child Left Behind". You can check it out at: www.ed.gov ........ Be aware, when you see funding for "Local Educational Agencies" it might sound like money for schools, but these are actually adminstrative organizations for carrying out policies. Schools don't qualify as "Local Educational Agencies".

So while many schools and teachers funded by local taxes struggle, billions of tax dollars go to the Department of Education to tell those schools what to do. Since the ED didn't even exist before 1980, I don't think schools would fall apart without it.

Based on the reaction of many to the idea of getting rid of the Department of Energy, you'd almost think it's responsible for producing the countries power. It doesn't.

Besides dictating policy, it does do quite alot of research. It gives this research, along with money, to companies that produce power. While I'm sure the benifits of our tax dollars are a big help to these companies, I doubt we'd be without power if the tax dollars were cut off.

Another of the most important functions of the DOE, if judged by the level of funding, is weapons. All US nuclear weapons are produced by and property of the DOE. Without it, I guess weapon research and production would become the responsibility of the DoD, which doesn't seem an impossible task to me.

The DOE's only been around since 1977. I don't imagine the country would suddenly have no power or weapons without it.

[Edit] I'd also be fine with the State Dept. and DoD taking over Homeland Security. Like we don't already have enough alphabet soup agencies with too much power. It's not like we lost the Cold War for lack of the Dept. of Homeland Security.

rfbz
11-29-2007, 06:16 PM
Yeah I think the Department of Education position could use some clarification. The average Joe might think "What? He wants to get rid of education for our children?

DanK
11-29-2007, 07:32 PM
Yeah, I'm a senior in high school, and I can tell you that most people involved in education aren't very happy with the things the Department of Education does, they just don't make the connection. They hear No Child Left Behind, and are like "We can't leave anyone behind. We'd better listen to them."