View Full Version : Presidential Debate Thread
Joseywales
09-05-07, 22:42
OK guys. So how many of you watched the debates? I have to admit that I missed them. I am just wondering what your opinion is. So here are my questions:
Who sounded smooth ("Presidential") when they spoke?
Who has the best ideas?
Who sounded like they are a democrat?
Who came across as a wussy?
Who do you like for tax policy?
Who do you like for border policy?
Who do you like for GWOT policy?
Who do you like for pro-gun policy?
Who do you like for abortion-courts policy?
Who do you like for budgetary policy?
Who do you like for health care policy?
Who do you like for Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare policy?
Would you vote for Newt Gingritch instead of any of these Candidates?
Let the opinions fly!:)
As always, IMHO, Ron Paul was the most "conservative" and consistent with Constitutional principles.
Bulldog1967
09-06-07, 16:46
As always, IMHO, Ron Paul was the most "conservative" and consistent with Constitutional principles.
Tha same Ron Paul that said the Iranians AREN'T killing our troops in Iraq?
Coalition forces grab high-value IRGC-QF affiliate (www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13773&Itemid=128)
Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:
Voodoochild
09-06-07, 18:50
I honestly haven't watched them much. I guess the question would be who spewed the least amount of BS while debating. These candidates are always going to tell you what you want to hear and then bend you over when they get in the office.
I want to see Fred get on TV and debate but as of now none of them are really making me take notice. Shame on Bulldog for not getting a VAHTF meeting with Fred. Your on notice Bulldog;)
Joseywales
09-06-07, 20:20
Tha same Ron Paul that said the Iranians AREN'T killing our troops in Iraq?
Coalition forces grab high-value IRGC-QF affiliate (www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13773&Itemid=128)
Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:
+1 Ron Paul may say the believes in the constitution. But how can you defend it if you can't recognize reality from fantasy. I would vote for Hillary before him, so at least I know for certain who will be stabbing me in the back.
All Ron Paul advocates is strict adherence to the Constitution. We've had over 100 years of practice accepting politicians' giving lip service the the Constitution only to the extent that they feel they HAVE to. This goes for democrats as well as republicans.
Whatever your feelings are about the "war on terror" and/or the invasion/occupation of Iraq, you have to admit that invasion/occupation is patently unconstitutional. It may or may not have been the "right" thing to do, but technically it was and is illegal. If I'm wrong, cite for me where the Constitution gives the government the legal authority to go to war with and/or invade and/or militarily occupy other countries without Congress formally declaring war.
Our personal feelings about individual issues (war, "gun-control", homosexual "marriage", abortion, etc) should not be allowed to undermine the rock on which this country is based - the Constitution. In fact, that is exactly what has happened... and we're beginning to pay the price right now with the dollar losing it's value (lost 50% of it's value against gold and lost over 30% of its value against the Euro in less than 10 years), lost individual rights, unchecked illegal immigration, moral decay of society as a whole, terrorism, etc. Based on past history, the price is going to get a lot more expensive the farther we get from our Constitutional underpinnings. I think Ron Paul is just trying to reverse that trend. Unfortunately, I think we're too far gone to turn it around.
I personally don't give a damn about Iraq, Iraqis or any military action not in the defense of America. Bring our boys home, stop intervention both here and abroad, and adhere to the Constitution. Period. That's all I want, and that's what Paul is offering.
I would have like to have seen Tancredo get some more air time.
the1911fan
09-07-07, 10:37
The reality is that Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the (R) nomination... so lets deal with candidates that have a realistic chance of being the nominee
I imagine when the choice comes down to Hillary V. whomever most of you will vote for whomever over that bitch
The reality is that Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the (R) nomination... so lets deal with candidates that have a realistic chance of being the nominee
I imagine when the choice comes down to Hillary V. whomever most of you will vote for whomever over that bitch
Lesser of the evils.... again. :(
Last time there was a Presidential candidate that I was actually excited about, I wasn't old enough to vote! That was 1984.
The reality is that Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of getting the (R) nomination... so lets deal with candidates that have a realistic chance of being the nominee
I imagine when the choice comes down to Hillary V. whomever most of you will vote for whomever over that bitch
And that's how it has been before and still is.
Lesser of the evils.... again. :(
Last time there was a Presidential candidate that I was actually excited about, I wasn't old enough to vote! That was 1984.
Well don't feel bad, Mondale went on to do other things ;)
Well don't feel bad, Mondale went on to do other things ;)
Oh HELL NO! I was talking about the Gipper!!!
Joseywales
09-07-07, 18:18
Whatever your feelings are about the "war on terror" and/or the invasion/occupation of Iraq, you have to admit that invasion/occupation is patently unconstitutional. It may or may not have been the "right" thing to do, but technically it was and is illegal. If I'm wrong, cite for me where the Constitution gives the government the legal authority to go to war with and/or invade and/or militarily occupy other countries without Congress formally declaring war.
US Constitution, Section 8, Powers of the Senate
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
First of all, there is NO WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION which describes that actual procedure for a declaration of war nor makes any requirement of what is contained in the supposed declaration. A simple appropriation of funds is the same thing as a declaration. After 9-11, the legislation passed funded the Office of the President to carry on military operations against any terrorist entity in the world. The funding of the Iraq war is also considered a declaration of war by constitutional scholars. There is also NO WORDS IN THE CONSTITUTION that say we cannot occupy lands or territories.
Do you not remember that Thomas Jefferson declared war on Tripoli? William Eaton devised a covert plan with Jefferson and Commodore Barron to overthrow and conquer the government of Yusuf Qaramanli. It was the first of many lands to be occupied by US forces. It was not until the treaty of 1806 that the land was given back.
From the history books:
"In late May 1801, Jefferson, using his executive powers, sent a squadron under Commodore Richard Dale to deal with Tripoli’s ruler, Pasha Yusuf Qara*manli. Attempts to pacify him with money and bribes had already failed. Indeed, unbeknownst to the Administration, a couple of weeks earlier Qara*manli had beaten Jefferson to the punch. On Thurs*day, May 14, 1801, Qaramanli sent word to the American consulate that he was sending men over to chop down the American flagpole—the traditional method of declaring war in Tripoli.
Congress didn’t respond to Qaramanli’s actions until February 1802, when it empowered Jefferson to use the Navy in any way he deemed fit to protect “the commerce and seamen of the United States against Tripolitan cruisers.” Jefferson’s instructions to naval officers were explicit: “subdue, seize and make prizes of all vessels, goods and effects belong*ing to the Dey of Tripoli” and proceed with whatev*er measures “the state of war will justify.” Note, however, that war had not been officially declared."
Once again, public school education fails America...:rolleyes:
Tha same Ron Paul that said the Iranians AREN'T killing our troops in Iraq?
Coalition forces grab high-value IRGC-QF affiliate (www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13773&Itemid=128)
Yeah, ok. :rolleyes:
I may be mistaken but I believe he said that there was no proof. Of course, I would be leary of any proof coming from the same group that made the claim of weapons of mass destruction.
How would we react if Russia or China invaded Mexico or Canada?
I may be mistaken but I believe he said that there was no proof. Of course, I would be leary of any proof coming from the same group that made the claim of weapons of mass destruction.
How would we react if Russia or China invaded Mexico or Canada?
Theres just no comparing of Iraq to Canada or Mexico...
Bulldog1967
09-07-07, 20:55
I may be mistaken but I believe he said that there was no proof. Of course, I would be leary of any proof coming from the same group that made the claim of weapons of mass destruction.
How would we react if Russia or China invaded Mexico or Canada?
What if monkeys could fly? When you want to talk about REALITY and not "what ifs" let me know.
Iranians are actively involved in killing American troops in a war zone. Period.
I think we lost more freedoms in this last 7 years under Bush than we have lost in many years and from many presidents before us. We put our guard down, thinking we were in good shape because we got the Republicans in. The ones that are supposed to be in favor of less government. I wont vote Democrat next year, but I probably won't vote Republican either.
the1911fan
09-07-07, 22:01
. I wont vote Democrat next year, but I probably won't vote Republican either.
That's called voter nulification..way to go
Joseywales
09-07-07, 23:59
I think we lost more freedoms in this last 7 years under Bush than we have lost in many years and from many presidents before us. We put our guard down, thinking we were in good shape because we got the Republicans in. The ones that are supposed to be in favor of less government. I wont vote Democrat next year, but I probably won't vote Republican either.
Interesting, can you name one instance where your rights were personally violated?:confused:
Joseywales
09-08-07, 00:00
Interesting, can you name one instance where your rights were personally violated?:confused:
Also, do you know anyone who's rights were violated?
How much or your rights would be violated if Billery were President?
>Who sounded smooth ("Presidential") when they spoke?
Is this important to anyone? I'd vote for someone with Tourette's Syndrome and a stutter if he has honor and is committed to liberty.
>Who has the best ideas?
Ron Paul. He does was the Founders would do, and that's good enough for me.
>Who sounded like they are a democrat?
Juliani.
>Who came across as a wussy?
Sean Hannity.
>Who do you like for tax policy?
Ron Paul.
>Who do you like for border policy?
Not Fred.
>Who do you like for GWOT policy?
Ron Paul, not because he'd pull out of Iraq, but because he wouldn't use terrorism as an excuse to expand government power.
>Who do you like for pro-gun policy?
Ron Paul. Then Huckabee.
>Who do you like for abortion-courts policy?
Ron Paul. He recognizes it's not a Federal issue.
>Who do you like for budgetary policy?
If by "budget" you mean not spending more than you bring in, Ron Paul. If you mean won't spend money on unconstitutional programs, Ron Paul.
>Who do you like for health care policy?
Ron Paul. He recognizes it's not a Federal issue.
>Who do you like for Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Welfare policy?
Ron Paul. He recognizes it's not a Federal issue.
>Would you vote for Newt Gingritch instead of any of these Candidates?
He's better than some of them, but I think you can guess who I'd vote for.
Interesting, can you name one instance where your rights were personally violated?:confused:
Patriot Act.
Bush has been a sad excuse as a conservative. Not a real surprise though based of his fathers history. Neither has been nearly conservative enough for me.
US Constitution, Section 8, Powers of the Senate...
...Once again, public school education fails America...:rolleyes:
"SECTION 8. The Congress shall have the power..."
As I read the Constitution, there is no authorization for the govt to maintain a standing Army in the first place. Navy, and by extension Marine Corps, yes. Army no. The founders viewed armies as tools of tyrants, which is why the 2-year limitation on funding them. The Navy and Militia were supposed to serve the purpose of defense (rather than offense). Of course the Civil War "fixed" that limitation in practice, though it did not change the intended meaning of the words.
Anyway, I stand corrected (maybe). If both houses of Congress did in fact vote to authorize the Pres. to go to "war" with Iraq and continue to appropriate funds specifically for the purpose of continuing that war/occupation, then it would appear to be constitutional. A formal "Declaration of War" by Congress appears to be unnecessary, when a mere "authorization" will suffice.
Interesting, can you name one instance where your rights were personally violated?:confused:
Oh boy, this one is too ripe. These are all not Bush's fault, per se, other than the fact that they are ongoing violations of individual Rights. I'm just brainstorming here, and I may get tired of typing before I run out of violations so this list is not going to be all-inclusive or have a lot of explanation...
1st Amendment: "free speech zones". 501(c)3 designation of churches. IRS's lack of response to various petitions asking that they point out which law makes an individual human being liable to pay "income tax" on their wages...
2nd Amendment: GCA, NFA, CHL requirement to "legally" pack iron every day...
4th Amendment: Patriot Act, War on Drugs, "sobriety checkpoints", etc...
5th Amendment: How many times have you heard about somebody being tried in State court and then later being tried in Fed court "for the same offence"?
6th Amendment: Secret witnesses and secret informants are becoming more and more common. I would think gag orders issued by judges would sort of fall into this category. Ramos & Campeon... Gilbert Hernandez...
9th Amendment: Where has this one NOT been violated?
10th Amendment: Ditto what I said re the 9th... ex: Any and all Fed taxes, licenses, permits, etc required of individual human beings that are not directly (truthfully) related to interstate or foreign commerce, or related to corporate income.
Anybody who thinks the Constitutional rights of all Americans are not violated on a daily basis is living in a fantasy land. In practice these Rights are violated all the time. Just the fact that we have become accustomed to it doesn't mean that the words in the Constitution don't mean the same thing today as they meant 150 years ago.
Edited to add this: Don't get me wrong, I'm not a tinfoil hat kinda guy. I've learned to live within the reality I see around me - I pay taxes every day without whining any more than most people, I follow every law/rule/reg that I am aware of, and I think people who do otherwise are nuts... In many cases, they might be "right", but they are still nuts. Refusing to pay federal income tax is an example: there actually appears to be no law that requires individuals to pay a direct tax on their wages... However, to stop paying is to beg for prison, asset seizure, or worse. Refusing to pay is simply ignoring reality - it's crazy.
Reality is that we do not have the kind of almost utopian society we would have if the govt operated within the bounds of the Constitution as it is actually written. The reality is that the govt has probably NEVER operated within the bounds of the Constitution. Human nature being what it is, the founders wrote the Constitution in an attempt to guaranty certain God-given Rights to the people, while limiting the inevitable encroachments on those Rights that they knew govt would seek. The amazing thing about all this is that they KNEW what would happen and attempted to slant the rules of the game in the favor of the people.
Ron Paul is the only (R) candidate in my lifetime that has even said he wants to try to give us back what should be our birthright - a truly Constitutional government. THAT is all that really matters to me in ANY election. Everything else is secondary. What validity does a debate about "the War on Terror" really have in the long run if we've already lost our Constitutional system for all intents and purposes, and NONE of the mainstream candidates that I can remember in my lifetime have ever advocated giving it back to us? Ronald Reagan would be the one possible exception to that, but even he was wishy-washy in a a lot of ways.
Do we live in the best country on earth? Hell yes! Could it be a LOT better? Hell yes! It's still the best place on earth in spite of politicians' unending efforts to "save us", not because of it.
Joseywales
09-10-07, 19:04
"SECTION 8. The Congress shall have the power..."
As I read the Constitution, there is no authorization for the govt to maintain a standing Army in the first place. Navy, and by extension Marine Corps, yes. Army no. The founders viewed armies as tools of tyrants, which is why the 2-year limitation on funding them. The Navy and Militia were supposed to serve the purpose of defense (rather than offense). Of course the Civil War "fixed" that limitation in practice, though it did not change the intended meaning of the words.
Anyway, I stand corrected (maybe). If both houses of Congress did in fact vote to authorize the Pres. to go to "war" with Iraq and continue to appropriate funds specifically for the purpose of continuing that war/occupation, then it would appear to be constitutional. A formal "Declaration of War" by Congress appears to be unnecessary, when a mere "authorization" will suffice.
You and I agree with both of your paragraphs. Although a standing Army seems necessary in today's day and age, we should have changed the Constitution to authorize it in the commonly understood limited role.
You see...I knew deep down that some how we would end up agreeing with each other. ;)
Joseywales
09-10-07, 19:09
Oh boy, this one is too ripe. ......
Do we live in the best country on earth? Hell yes! Could it be a LOT better? Hell yes! It's still the best place on earth in spite of politicians' unending efforts to "save us", not because of it.
I agree with most of what you said. I just think Ron Paul's position and words on Iraq are way off base. That is mostly where he lost me. The other part I don't like is his views on abortion. From my point of view, abortion is murder. Murder should be a capital offense nation wide. So from my point of view...
But you and I see lots of stuff the same. Tax policy being one of them. Same with Socialist Security!
Paul is opposed to abortion. He just says it shouldn't be a Federal crime. If he had his way, I'm pretty sure that whatever state he lived in would have a state law against it.
Murder, while illegal in all states, is NOT a Federal crime. Just because a thing is bad and is illegal in all states doesn't mean it should be a Federal crime. Federal crimes were intended to be limited to crimes directly related to Federal things.
As for Iraq, as much as the current situation (and what's to come) truly sucks for the people of Iraq, it isn't the most pressing issue for Americans. More important and urgent for us are illegal immigration and a government that increasingly makes us less free. Fix those things, then worry about Iraq.
As for Iraq, as much as the current situation (and what's to come) truly sucks for the people of Iraq, it isn't the most pressing issue for Americans. More important and urgent for us are illegal immigration and a government that increasingly makes us less free. Fix those things, then worry about Iraq.
Roger that, sproc!
Joseywales,
On a moral and emotional level I am really torn about Iraq. I don't think we EVER had a valid reason to go into that country... But at the same time, hunting and killing Evil men is always a Good and noble thing to do! I truly believe there are plenty of Evil men in Iraq that need killing, but at the same time, there are plenty of Evil men in Sudan/Liberia/India/Mexico/wherever that we might have a stronger moral and/or strategic reason to go hunting for.
On a strategic level, bottom line for me is that the U.S. is spreading itself too thin militarily, morally, economically and needs to pull back in and regroup/reassess as a matter of survival. If we spend ourselves trying to "fix" Iraq, we may lose America. From where I sit in S-Central Texas, that is almost a done deal already. I think Ron Paul may in fact be the last glimmer of hope for my children to have anything remotely resembling the America I grew up in. I fear that if we don't drastically reevaluate our priorities, we are more likely to go the way of the E.U. at best, with a large 3rd World population of "workers" in our midst that drag us into poverty, socialism... and ultimately into a Yugoslav type collapse at worst.
paulosantos
09-11-07, 07:44
I think I would rather watch 10 hours of Barney then to watch a bunch of liars on TV make promises that they never intend to keep. Nothing but a bunch of scumbags.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.