Nice crowd for the Augustana college….. Strike that. University College Republican debate watching party.
I just breezed in for a moment because I have to do some things in Sioux Falls tonight, but it looks like the GOP faithful are there in force, and ready to continue fan vetting our presidential hopefuls.
You left before it really filled up, Pat. At one point I counted 88 people present, guessing more than 100 attended. The Minnehaha County Republicans would like to thank the Augustana Republicans for hosting us. The walking tacos were great! Also had dessert. Some legislators, 4 county party chairs, Several Precinct Commttee people and a National Committeeman from Minnesota attended. Awesome event!
Augie Republicans will release a straw poll of those present for who won the debate on their Facebook page.
I wish I could have stayed! Too much to do, and too little time in a day anymore.
BTW I am looking for about an extra week Let me know if you find one.
Hoped all of you enjoyed the circus,Did any one pick a fantasy football league.
Why was the elephant Hillary there?
My reaction:
Carson: Halo is even brighter. Humility, brains, and confidence is hard to balance and he did it again.
Trump: Needed to reduce his negatives/unfavorables and did it.
Rubio: Hit every pitch hard, all either landed on grass or went over the fence.
Fiorina: Addressed the likability issue with out sacrificing command. That is leadership.
Cruz: Had the best debate but the worst close. Hopefully, he won’t be remembered for striking out in the 9th inning but for the hits he had before.
Christie: Now in the top six. The big guy was moving around the bases.
Bush/Kasich: If you have anything to say, better say it soon because slumps that go on forever result in a trip to the minors.
Paul/Huckabee: Because you make contact and don’t strike out, your position at the bottom of the order is secure. I see US Senator and Secretary of HHS in your future.
Trump: Pres
Carson: Vice
Cruz: Attorney General
If that’s the case we are in deep doodoo. Cruz would make Ashcroft seem pragmatic. That guy needs to sell books open a religion and get out of dc
More proof the liberals post here just to run anyone GOP down without saying anything substantive—remember the party of inclusion and diversity of ideas ( as long as they are liberal ideas!)
Cruz is an honorable man and would make a great AG but would also be a great president. Why the hatred for someone of faith?
If we get anyone on the Democrat side as president the country is screwed including those one welfare and living off those contributing in this country.
The moderators and their network tried to ambush the GOP candidates, and it backfired big time. The candidates looked stronger and better with each attack by the moderators. As one of the candidates said, any one of those GOP candidates on stage would be a better President than Hillary. And of course, any one of them would be better than the current occupant of the White House by 100%.
Springer,
Probably the easiest call is the biggest loser last night wasn’t Bush but the moderators. Bush is lucky as it doesn’t make him the lead story. But neither is Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina. The biggest risk to the GOP right now is to say another word about the moderators.
1). It will make them sound whiny.
2). I don’t think the moderators helped them because when your opposition is weak, you don’t get show your best stuff.
3). It will feel like kicking someone when they are down. We don’t need to have the media become martyrs.
They lost an opportunity to talk to the American people about serious issues. That means we lost.
“That means we lost.”
Speak for yourself.
You are not “we'” by any stretch of the imagination.
Fair enough. I meant “we” as in people like Springer and I who wanted the focus to be on issues and not distracting school yard “Nyah, Nyah, Nyah” stuff.
And, I think all of “we,” including Cruz, would rather the debate remembered for substantive issue statements like “Growth is the answer. And as Reagan demonstrated, if we cut taxes, we can bring back growth.” As good and appropriate as Cruz’s really good response to the moderator foolishness, it isn’t going to be as lasting in the hearts of primary voters as this line on growth accompanied by his explanation of his tax plan would have been but it will be lost with all the moderator talk. If one didn’t watch the debate, one won’t even know there was a pretty good compare and contrast on multiple growth plans (which supposedly was to be the primary subject of the debate).
Yes, all of the GOP activists hate the way the media treats Republicans. Yes, it makes us feel good to grumble about it. But, for those who are in the middle and who don’t pay attention as much, it doesn’t resonate. I think the tax plan of Cruz and the others would resonate stronger and longer with those he and the GOP need to reach.
Many of us want the focus to be on issues, but neither the media nor the voters really want to same much time on actually talking about issues. Its too much work for most folks. And the candidates conform their messages to that reality.
Thus elections are by sound bite.
Thus we got Barrack Obama.
Too many political consumers like myself (maybe other folks on DWC) spend a good amount of time looking into these candidates and their positions and plans, and talking amongst ourselves about them.
Your high expectations about candidates and tax plans and winners/losers after a 2 hour debate are largely ignored by the folks who matter: voters. In fact, debate talk about tax plans and so on probably turn most voters off.
Largely, they don’t care.
Therefore, when you write:
“They lost an opportunity to talk to the American people about serious issues. That means we lost.”
Presidential candidates talking about “serious issues” is a losing strategy.
It was lost a long time ago. As a group, the American people don’t care. You & I may care, but not the American people–their votes outnumber ours by the tens of millions.
I enjoy talking about debates (as apparently you do too), but lets not extrapolate our interests and analysis to the general electorate.
Leno (and other late night hosts) used to do “man on the street” interviews about politics, among other things. It was shockingly numbing, but I believe it was representative.
They don’t care.
P.S. The field needs to reject Carson’s campaign managers idea of the candidate taking over format and moderator selection. It will give a perception they need to stack the deck. They are strong enough to take whatever comes and it will diminish them. We don’t need a debate that looks like the Democrat debate- softball questions.
Moderators, give them your best shot. The jokers last night were unprepared and it showed. The saddest line of the night was Quick responding to Trump, “I don’t know where I got that information.” It was an admission she didn’t write the question or even fact check its premise. I kinda felt sorry for her.
I don’t think Carson suggested anything like taking over the format or the selection of the moderator.
Where did you get that information?
I would have liked more substantive questions on issues and the candidates’ responses to those questions. But with CNBC moderating it was never going to happen. The network’s whole purpose was to make the candidates look weak, make them attack each other and thus weaken their candidacies, and thus strengthen their candidate’s (Hillary) position in the race. Given this, I think the candidates on the forum handled themselves remarkably well for the most part. I think one of the worst responses was Bush’s to Rubio about how Rubio should either drop out or go back to the Senate; it made Bush look petty and actually kinda dumb because there are and have been many sitting senators and governors in presidential races for years. I have to say it was the most entertaining of the debates so far, and no, that isn’t the purpose of them, but we have to take our enjoyment where we can get it.
Who is hosting the next debate?
Nov. 10, 2015
Republican debate – Fox Business/Wall Street Journal
Time – Main segment: 9 p.m. ET. Secondary: 6 p.m.
Location – Milwaukee Theater, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Moderators – Gerard Baker, Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo
Who’s in – Main segment: All candidates averaging at least 2.5 percent in four most recent national polls by Nov. 4. Secondary: Remaining candidates averaging at least 1 percent in one of the four most recent polls.
Thanks for the information.
I wish we’d have a higher threshold for making the main debate. Is 5% really to high at this stage? 2.5% seems to be set to keep the same top 10.
P.S. If they used that criteria today, only Lindsey Graham will be debating in the secondary debate.
The Minnehaha GOP is working on a venue for the next debate party now. Save the date.
Chris Christie did a good job last night but he had to assert himself or his campaign was basically over. Wish he had more time to speak. I’m impressed he has been able to get as much as he could get done with New Jersey being a blue state with a long history of corruption.
With Obama letting out all these repeat offenders early from federal prison we really need a law and order president who is smart about our criminal justice system. After looking at the rap sheets that the Obama administration is releasing it’s just a matter of time and many will be returning to prison after inflicting more damage upon society, more victims and expense to taxpayers.
Rubio and Cruz had really good performances.
Jeb Bush should drop out of the 2016 Presidential Race and run for NFL Commissioner. He would probably do a great job doing that and really enjoy himself.
Anonymous 11:44:
I think this is a mistake.
In an interview shortly after the debate, Barry Bennett, manager of the Ben Carson campaign, . . . said he will call Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski Thursday to propose a unified call for change. “Corey and I talk regularly, so I will talk to him,” Bennett said. “I will call Frank Sadler (Carly Fiorina’s campaign manager), I will call those guys and say listen, we can choose our own network and our own format. We don’t need to be led around like prize steers. I think at this point, if five or six of us get together, who generate the largest portion of the audience, we can force change,” Bennett said.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2575209
Where’s the statement from Carson or Bennett about choosing debate moderators?
Good for him. That is exactly the way to assert yourselves. The RNC’s leverage is weakened with the networks because they really can’t speak for all the campaigns. The campaigns themselves have all the leverage if they are of the same mind.
I agree.
I see no down side to the campaigns changing the formats. The format can only be improved.
Choosing moderators maybe, but I haven’t see anything that the candidates or campaigns want to choose moderators, in spite of assertions to the contrary made here.
Sidenote: The betting odds moved since the debate:
Rubio- 37% (up 7%)
Trump- 17% (flat)
Bush- 10% (down 10%)
Carson: 10% (flat)
Cruz: 7% (up 1%)
Cristie: 5% (I didn’t even note his prior numbers)
Fiorina: 3% (down 3%)
FYI: I like to watch this vs. polls at this stage because betters are giving information on what they predict will happen vs. what they want to happen.
–I like to watch this vs. polls at this stage because betters are giving information on what they predict will happen vs. what they want to happen.
How can you tell the difference?
Where is the statement on picking moderators? If they have the power to pick the network, they are going to be able pick the moderators. In fact, it is likely the primary leverage over the network.
Reason betters give different information than polls:
Pollsters ask who do you prefer. Betters predict who is going to win. Example: There are a lot of Minnesota Vikings fans here in South Dakota. They want the Vikings to win the Super Bowl and will talk optimistically about the team. Ask them to bet on them winning the Super Bowl and they will pass. Asking people to put their money where is is different than where their heart/preferences lie.
But, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think betters have an infallible crystal ball. But, they do provide different information than polls. That is my only point.
–picking moderators: up to this point, no campaign has been able to pick the moderator based on picking the network. That’s simply speculation, and would be without a precedent. I think you should retract/delete your speculation that Carson’s campaign wants to “take over format and moderator selection.” That’s not what they said.
–making bets v. offering an opinion: These bettors don’t actually place money on the outcome, do they?
Oops: “Asking people to put their money ON WHAT THEY THINK WILL HAPPEN is different than where their heart/preferences lie.”
P.S. Proof polls different give different information:
Order in the polls: Trump, Carson, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Fiorina, Christie
Order in the parlors: Rubio, Trump, Bush/Carson, Cruz, Christie, Fiorina
Carson just said on Fox: The campaigns are going to have a conference call specifically to pick the moderators.
Ted Cruz (unfortunately) had the best moment of the night when he slammed the moderators for trying to start a food fight instead of debating the issues. Can’t really blame them though, can we? Reality-show-star Trump has set the tone and style for these GOP debates. Troy, if you’re saying that your guys need a lot fewer people on stage, I agree. I have no idea at this point what your party has in mind for the future of our nation.
p.s. another point Troy and I agree about is that it would be a mistake for the GOP candidates to substitute “the media” for their real opponent in the upcoming election. I’m trying to remember if I’ve ever seen anyone get elected by running against the 4th Estate. Can’t recall it ever happening.
The 4th estate was sold and broken up a long time ago.
Candidates have always run against bogey men every year.
2012: Dems ran against Romney’s files of women and 47%
2008: Obama ran on hope & change, and agianst all those racist Republicans
2004: Kerry ran on being a war hero
2000: Gore ran on the memories of all his dead relatives
1996: Clinton ran against scandal mongerers
1948; Truman ran against the do-nothing congress
and on and on
Running against “the media” is just another bogey man. Its been successfull before in different incarnations.
Anonymous 1:47 p.m.: Carson this morning talking about the conference call between the campaigns he has directed his campaign to organize: “The first thing we’re looking for is moderators who are actually interested in getting the facts, and not just gotcha questions.” If that isn’t an effort “to pick the moderator,” what is it?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/29/ben-carson-calls-on-rival-campaigns-to-help-him-end-gotcha-debate-questions/
Bettors bet on who they think will win. They place money behind their bet.
betting:
In which state are these bettors placing their money on candidates?
— Carson this morning talking about the conference call between the campaigns he has directed his campaign to organize:
1. the WaPo story was posted after noon today–that’s not “this morning”.
2. Are you suggesting that you based your comment about moderators at 8:40 am on a WaPo story posted after noon?
Why are you doing this? Sure, your speculation may have turned out to be true, but when you made your comment about Carsons campaign and moderators this morning, you were simply blowing smoke, right?
–what is it?
It is a statement by a candidate speaking for most people who have been watching these debates.
Picking moderators who will be professional is not, as you have insinuated, “stacking the deck”. Its selecting a fair deck for all players, and I think most folks would conclude the same thing based on what they’ve seen & heard.
I just find your worries about perceptions about Carsons statements on debate formats & moderators to be really goofy.
After the Republican Budget Deal giving the Democrats all they wanted. I was down and depressed. Especially after the Iran Nuclear Deal was passed. But the Boulder, CO “CNBC debate” was GREAT. Republican candidates won the debate with the mainstream media. The mainstream media are cheerleaders for Obama and Clinton.
Anonymous 3:15:
My first comment at 8:40 a.m. is in reaction to his campaign managers comment that I heard on the news this morning. The article didn’t have his entire comment which was said in reference to a problem with the moderators. The article I referenced was an abbreviated quotation but the implication was clear it was going to be a call about moderators.
Then, because you were asserting there was no such effort to picking moderators and you called me to delete/retract, because I have Fox News running in the background while at the office and I heard it directly out of Carson’s mouth, I posted at 1:24 Carson said it personally.
The only speculation I got right is I knew you’d assert I was “blowing smoke” so I waited until I could attach an actual article or video for you to review.
Regarding betting, the betting is all over-seas. There are numerous websites you can reference. The one I monitor is betfair.com which I think is based in the UK (don’t remember).
I am greatly impressed with Carson on all fronts but think the Trump/Carson effort to restrict the length of the CNBC and now influence moderators is bad strategy for one reason: It is a common tactic in politics for the poll leaders to attempt to suppress opportunity for those behind to get out their message. I get it and in most cases it makes sense. But I oppose it for three reasons:
1) Trump and Carson are asserting they are a different type of candidate and doing this compromises that assertion of being different.
2) We have a very strong field of candidates (top to bottom) and the debates are getting record viewership and likely being watched by more than just GOP primary voters. I don’t want to give up the long-term benefit to whoever our nominee is to engender especially Independent support (necessary to win the election).
3) Our openness with regard to debate format and quantity of debates is in great contrast to the Clinton/DNC/Wasserman-Schultz effort to contain debates in length and quantity.
So you cited an illegal off-shore betting site?
wow. That’s great insight.
4) I think the strength of our candidates actually show their depth and capability best with tough questions and the Democrats getting softball questions doesn’t prepare them for the general election. It is only making the GOP nominee better prepared for the general election.
P.S. I don’t think that they would “stack the deck” but I don’t want the viewers (especially the undecided viewers) to discount the debate because of a perception of stacking the deck. In politics, perception can become reality.
I have absolutely no fear our slate of candidates can handle the moderators and any question thrown at them. Do you have a fear your preferred candidate can’t handle them? Who is your preferred candidate as it might tell me who is the weakest candidate. I want our nominee to be the strongest and not the weakest.
One of the problems with last night’s debate was that the candidates weren’t asked substantive questions on their proposed policies, but were asked instead mostly gotcha questions. We voters deserve debates on the issues so we can hear how the candidates would govern should they be elected; this is one way the voters who care can make an informed decision. Last night showed many of the candidates’ strengths in pushing back against a liberal bias, but they didn’t offer a lot of new information on how these candidates would address the actual issues facing our country.
–P.S. I don’t think that they would “stack the deck” but I don’t want the viewers (especially the undecided viewers) to discount the debate because of a perception of stacking the deck. In politics, perception can become reality.
You have no idea what viewers perceive. The only person who fears “stacking the deck” is you apparently. Stop over dramatizing your perceptions into some general fear as if you have some special insights into what other viewers and viewers are perceiving. Its like you are speaking for one group or another when you are just speaking for yourself.
Its really goofy.
I’ve not read or seen or hear anyone else suggesting that Carsons efforts to professionalize the format or moderators might create some “perception” of stacking the deck. I’ve not seen anything about undecided viewers discount debates because of perceptions of stacking the deck.
Can you offer some other source for these fears of yours?
Anonymous 5:55 p.m.
Vegas doesn’t make odds on elections. I think it is illegal in the US but could be wrong. If you want to disregard it as meaningful, I don’t really care.
I say repetitively I don’t think the horse race polling is the best predictive information on who will be the nominee and all predictions don’t factor in events/gaffes/situations that haven’ yet occurred.
That said, underlying poll data such as Net Favorable/Unfavorable, combination of 1st Choice and 2nd Choice and betting information does give valuable information. If you don’t think it is useful, disregard it. Do you have better or additional information to review?
Anonymous 6:05:
You think the campaigns should pick moderators for reasons you haven’t articulated so I don’t know the merit of your opinion or why I should consider changing my opinion.
I told you my rationale for allowing the networks to put up whoever they want and let our candidates shine by taking the best they throw at them. And, as one who has Carson on my short list of preferred candidates, I don’t think this effort will improve his standing/chances.
This is my opinion. I don’t make my opinion waiting for somebody to give their opinion and grasp it. I give my opinion on how I see things. You can give your opinion as well or just stalk my opinion and denigrate it without any countering information except to say it is goofy.
We disagree. Disagreement on an opinion doesn’t bother me. Disagreeing with someone who doesn’t use their name or a pseudonym really doesn’t bother me. It seems to bother you.
I’m all for folks having their opinions and this is great place to offer them.
But you miss my point. When you express many of your opinions, you drape them in this air of general authority–thats the goofy part.
I’ve not denigrated any of your opinions, only that you need to clearly articulate them as yours and yours alone.
For example, you express this fear that other viewers and undecideds might perceive Carson efforts as modifying the debate format and moderators as “stacking the deck”. Instead of calling it your fear, you attempt to elevate your opinion as the fear that other viewers and undecided may have.
You have no clue on the fears that other viewers and undecideds may have regarding Carsons efforts.
Another example was what Carsons campaign said last night or this morning about choosing networks and moderators. You’ve now described it as such: the implication was clear it was going to be a call about moderators. No, it was your opinion is that the implication was clear. I certainly did not arrive at that implication and you’ve not offered any other source that the implication was as clear to them as your described it.
Offer your opinions. I’ll offer mine.
But your opinions are your opinions. Their not any more mainstream or substantive than that.
When I heard the campaign manager speaking this morning, it was clear the effort was about picking moderators. This morning Carson confirmed it.
If I”m an idiot, even an idiot obviously could discern what the campaign manager was talking about. If I’m not an idiot, I’m lucky, a genius, or prescient. 🙂
Most everything I post is my opinion and my rationale. If I’m restating someone else’s opinion, I attribute it. I don’t apologize for it and I’m not going to preface everything with “this is my opinion” and I’m certainly not going to take serious an anonymous person who gave his opinion all day long without such a preface telling me to do so.
If you want to disregard what I say, it is no skin off my back.
–moderators
It was clear to you. Period.
Secondly, one campaign manager cannot pick a moderator. The others would not have it.
Thirdly, a professional journalist who agreed to be a moderator after being “vetted” by the campaigns would not “stack the deck”. The only “viewer” who thought that was you. Your apparent concern about the perceptions of others was goofy.
–not taking seriously
Obviously you did based on your lengthy engagement. This is a typical strategy of one who recognizes the substance of the criticism, refuses to address that substance (as I posed several questions regarding the sources of your general statements about perceptions; you ), and thus tried to avoid the substance by dismissing the critic using an ad hominem attack.
Take the criticism to heart. Its okay if you don’t; express yourself perfectly. Try to do better in the future. Lighten up.
Springer,
You are exactly right. It was a debacle for the Democrats (the GOP showed unity and reminded everyone that each other are opponents, not enemies) and CNBC (how would you like to be those moderators getting pilloried universally?). But, as I said early, we, the voters, lost.
A person who I know who is a senior Human Resources person told me yesterday the very first question made her cringe. An interviewer who asks a person to tell their weakness cares less about the answer than showing their superiority. Its a blatant power play.
But, our field turned it on them. 🙂
“But, as I said early, we, the voters, lost.”
There you go again.
No “we” voters did not lose anything from the debate the other night.. I certainly did not lose anything as a voter and I doubt that there’s a poll that provides any basis to your claim that voters believed that they lost. In fact, I thought that the republican candidates won a great deal by the debate and thus, attracted voters to the cause. The debate generated high viewership for CNBC as did the after debate buzz because of the dustups, so thats a winner for the GOP; and portends higher ratings for the next debate. All of these are positives for the candidates and the voters in my view.
Or as Troy would say, we, the voters, won!
You and springer may feel that you lost, but you are only speaking for yourself, maybe springer.
I spoke with a psychologist about this habit of yours and included some quotes of yours. She indicated that it may be an indicator of arrogance or hubris. Without a personal interview of course, no diagnosis can be made.
You don’t speak for “we”. Enough.
The voters both won and lost in this last debate. We won because we got to see the strengths, and lack thereof, of the candidates. We lost because we did not get to hear the plans and thoughts of the candidates on the economy and get to compare them, which was supposed to have been the theme of this debate.
Anonymous,
Thanks for giving a psychologist quotes of mine and asking for a psychological diagnosis. You concern for my well-being is appreciated. I wish you would use your name so I could express my gratitude to your face.
LOL, ‘Per Curiam’s’ psychology friend was probably just reminding him to take his meds. BTW, Troy, I’ve been sharing his comments with one of my psychiatrist friends and he said, ‘Bill why do you bother reading bullshit like that? I thought you were a Democrat?’ I was just about to answer when he told me my time was up and that we’d have to remember to talk about it next time. 😬
No problem.
We all (see how easy it is) appreciated your unattributed psychological diagnosis as well.
–A person who I know who is a senior Human Resources person told me yesterday the very first question made her cringe. An interviewer who asks a person to tell their weakness cares less about the answer than showing their superiority. Its a blatant power play.
Surely if you can use (invent?) some anonymous senior HR person to buffer your view, we all (!) can too. We wish you would provide her name so we (!) could express our gratitude to her face.
Your defensiveness is very odd.
Then Goliath said:
“What is it, like a French work week? You get, like, three days where you have to show up? You can campaign, or just resign and let someone else take the job.”
I only attended this event so I could laugh at the ridiculousness that spews out of some of the men’s (and woman’s) mouth. I was not disappointed; many laughs were had.
Rubio continues to project an aura of ability that is hard to deny, though.
All in all, I would rate it an 8/10.
Ridiculousness? pshaw!!!! No way !!!! It was a modern political debate after all.
We voters were not disappointed.
Your 8/10 is just about right..
Anonymous,
I didn’t question your conversation with a psychologist but you question my conversation? Further, I didn’t ask for the name of your psychologist but I will give you the name of the HR person if you will give me the name of your psychologist.
–question your conversation?
No I did not. No one who read my post could have come to that conclusion.
Since your all for openness, what was her name?
Bill Fleming,
You are correct the anonymous in this thread is Per Curiam. I didn’t identify him as I understood why he would prefer anonymity, not even use a pseudonym? I especially enjoyed his characterization of my comments as goofy. Some attempts at insult is a great compliment. I just feel for his psychologist who must wonder if this is one of those clients that is beyond help.
— I just feel for his psychologist who must wonder if this is one of those clients that is beyond help.
Thats not very Christian of you.
Is the biblical prohibition against bearing false witness a commandment or just an option for you?
Are you a Christian or not?
— I especially enjoyed his characterization of my comments as goofy. Some attempts at insult is a great compliment.
So, you took my characterization of your comments as a characterization of you personally (an insult)?
Thats a lot of insecurity! Thats what arrogant people do–they take criticism and questioning of ideas and comments as personal insults. They lash out.
We can all see that I have questioned your writing style (endless we’s) by requesting sources of these we-type statements. Instead of providing those bases or modifying your pronouns, you engage in personal attacks.
Not very intellectual nor Christian.
Sad.
Time to move on.
Bill Lucy from the Peanuts gang will offer psychotherapy for a nickel.
A Christian bearing false witness.
Not very Christian Troy.
We can all see what you are.
Is it acceptable for a Christian to bear false witness as long as you feel “insulted”?
We would like to know more about the theology or the biblical references behind that exception to the commandment.
Please educate us.
As a practicing Christian, I forgive you Troy. As real Christians, forgiveness is not conditioned on you revealing anything or admitting anything. That’s fine. You took my questioning to be a personal insult. It wasn’t but that’s what happened. You lashed out in anger and with a lie. Fine. We Christians don’t expect or need you to do anything. Its yours. Its no longer mine.
moving on…
I understand why he might be so ashamed of himself he has to hide, Troy. Even from a fake name. I just don’t understand why he can’t/won’t. (OCD maybe?)
Hint: PC if you don’t want us to know who you are, stop typing. 🙂
We would like to know Troy about the theology behind bearing false witness as long as you do it out of a sense of spite?
Are you not a Christian?
Simple question.
We await your response.
The only commenter here who consulting his psychologist/psychiatrist was Bill.
Claiming others have is bearing false witness.
And we forgive you for continiung the lie
Are you a Christian Troy?.
We have done some interesting internet research on Troy Jones and Bill Fleming.
When copying and posting their longer comments into turnitin.com, one gets a probability of 85.76% that their written by the same author.
Its interesting considering this little tag team here.
Noone really cares though.
Per Curiam,
If you didn’t question my conversation, would you explain the following, in particular the why you put in the word “invent?”
“Surely if you can use (invent?) some anonymous senior HR person to buffer your view, we all (!) can too.”
Regarding this HR person’s name, here in front of all here at the DWC I promise to give you this persons name if you FIRST give us the name of your psychologist since you FIRST brought in “experts.” It is only fair.
Per Curiam,
As we close this conversation, I just want make sure there is no confusion:
1) You won’t disclose the name of your psychologist despite my promise to give you the name of my HR person.
2) You won’t explain why you used the word “invent” when I mentioned I had a conversation with a HR person.
3) You forgive me for an infraction of which its specifics I’m unaware of out of the generosity of you Christian heart.
And I thank you for your concern for my well-being by taking my quotes to your psychologist and getting the potential diagnosis of being “insecure, arrogant, goofy,” etc.
Per Curiam,
First, who is “we?” Who else are you talking for? Didn’t you criticize me for using the word “we?” Was that one of the critiques your psychologist referenced in her diagnosis of me? You do know that I can see that all these comment is coming from the same person and can see all your prior comments under various “names” don’t you?
Second, make up your mind. I thought you forgave me for my infraction and said you as a “real Christian” did so “not conditioned on you revealing anything or admitting anything.”
Third, I don’t know what was the particular infraction regarding bearing false witness against one trying to be anonymous.
Fourth, make up your mind. I thought our conversation was over so I just wanted to make sure it was closed by typing a summary all I asked was confirmation on the terms of the closure.
Fifth, I have no anger toward you. Presuming your psychologist correctly diagnosed me, frankly I must admit you are unable to engender anger in me. I only have pity (a feeling of sympathy of your misfortune) and hope your sessions with your psychology produce fruit.
Sixth, bearing false witness is an Offense against the Truth and grave matter.
Seventh, and finally, if you’d go back to using a pseudonym, I’ll be able to avoid getting into a dialogue with you in the future. I hope out of your generous Christian heart you will use a pseudonym.
For what it is worth:
On this date in 2011, the standing in the GOP primary was: Cain (25%), Romney (24%), Perry (10%), Gingrich & Paul (9%), Bachman (4%).
A month later it was: Gingrich (24%), Romney (21%), Cain (15%), Perry & Paul (8%), Bachman (5%).
At end of the year, it was: Gingrich (27%), Romney (25%), Paul 12%, Perry (6%), Cain & Bachman were gone.
Carsons mgr on Friday:
“Censoring the press couldn’t be further from our minds,” Watt said. “Dictating the questioners or the questions couldn’t be further from our minds. We suggest that they be more substance-based and not gotcha-based, not trick questions, but policy- and issue-based. That’s the only thing from our perspective and I believe the other campaigns’.”
There’s never been any intent to chose moderators or create any fear or perception or implication of stacking the deck.
No one should or could come to any other conclusion.
Per Curiam,
Carson’s Campaign manager: ““Dictating the questioners or the questions couldn’t be further from our minds.”
Ben Carson: “The first thing we’re looking for is moderators who are actually interested in getting the facts, and not just gotcha questions.”
Per Curiam tells a lie: “There’s never been any intent to chose moderators”
There’s never been any intent to chose moderators or create any fear or perception or implication OF STACKING THE DECK..
For whatever purpose(s), a failure to include the complete sentence is another instance of bearing false witness.
At least atheists don’t spout off about adhering to any biblical commandments, and then repeatedly fail to do so.
What do we call those types of people?
Troy,
How do you know this is Per Curiam who is really the troll Andrew Shear? He is infamous for bearing false witness here and at a Crazyville Times. Don’t get baited by him. He is a master troll like crazy Larry.
Who is Andrew shear?