View Full Version : Anybody watching the debates?
Watching it. Interesting reactions and statements. Most are treating the constitution as something they can pick and chose their favorites and ignore the things they don't like. Pawlently is Tina to Bachman's Ike. Newt is out in left field. Cain is honest about what he doesn't know. Santorum is throwing a fit. Ron Paul is my favorite.
Watching it. Interesting reactions and statements. Most are treating the constitution as something they can pick and chose their favorites and ignore the things they don't like. Pawlently is Tina to Bachman's Ike. Newt is out in left field. Cain is honest about what he doesn't know. Santorum is throwing a fit. Ron Paul is my favorite.
I agree. I like Paul with Cain close behind
Belmont31R
08-11-11, 22:12
They all suck.
Cain and Paul are good domestically but lack foreign policy. I don't want to be isolationist but only send people overseas for our own security or to prevent genocide or help in large natural disasters. We don't need to get involved in every internal issue and we also are not alone in the world.
Santorum sounds like he wants his personal religious beliefs to be the law. Seems unstable and a hothead.
Bachman is similar in her own views on whats ok should be the law and only things she personally approves should be ok. I can't stand her voice.
Pawlenty is meh....sounds like nothing but memorized talking points and a pro politician.
Newt needs to take a chill pill.
In essence maybe half of them could stand a chance against Obama and I don't really like any of them enough to stick a sign out front.
Hopefully the field widens up.
They all suck.
Cain and Paul are good domestically but lack foreign policy. I don't want to be isolationist but only send people overseas for our own security or to prevent genocide or help in large natural disasters. We don't need to get involved in every internal issue and we also are not alone in the world.
Santorum sounds like he wants his personal religious beliefs to be the law. Seems unstable and a hothead.
Bachman is similar in her own views on whats ok should be the law and only things she personally approves should be ok. I can't stand her voice.
Pawlenty is meh....sounds like nothing but memorized talking points and a pro politician.
Newt needs to take a chill pill.
In essence maybe half of them could stand a chance against Obama and I don't really like any of them enough to stick a sign out front.
Hopefully the field widens up.
They are the two that i liked the most. Which is not the same as my dream candidate. I agree on the foreign policy on Paul but Cain I don't think is an isolationist. I do like Paul on the Fed Res. Funny , just had this discussion with my brother in law and I told him we cannot put our head in the sand. He said "why not if someone messes with us we destroy them and go home". I had to explain to him the reason we are as effective as we are and can move as fast as we can is because we already have assets in place. We also have to pay attention to the world around us. Having said that I do think we could take a finger or two out of the pie.
I missed it, I refuse to pay for cable, but I'll be looking for it tomorrow on the net to watch the replay. Fox has Ron Paul smoking the competition in their poll: http://www.topix.com/issue/fox/gop-debate-aug11
montanadave
08-11-11, 22:54
The current slate of GOP candidates is the nastiest looking dog's breakfast I've seen in my lifetime. The truly depressing thing is one of these mooks is probably going to have a real shot at the White House given that Obama, ostensibly the "most liberal president in our nation's history," has lost the support of his base by morphing into "Bush Lite."
This country needs some real presidential leadership and there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to step up to the plate.
I sincerely hope the eventual GOP candidate is waiting in the wings (and I don't mean Rick Perry) and I hope a Democratic candidate emerges to challenge Obama in the primaries.
Unfortunately, I think I'm engaging in wishful thinking. And I don't know how long this country can survive with the kind of feckless leadership being forced upon us.
The current slate of GOP candidates is the nastiest looking dog's breakfast I've seen in my lifetime. The truly depressing thing is one of these mooks is probably going to have a real shot at the White House given that Obama, ostensibly the "most liberal president in our nation's history," has lost the support of his base by morphing into "Bush Lite."
This country needs some real presidential leadership and there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to step up to the plate.
I sincerely hope the eventual GOP candidate is waiting in the wings (and I don't mean Rick Perry) and I hope a Democratic candidate emerges to challenge Obama in the primaries.
Unfortunately, I think I'm engaging in wishful thinking. And I don't know how long this country can survive with the kind of feckless leadership being forced upon us.Bush lite, really what are you smoking? Between the two it is Bush who is the lite. Both of them have (or had in Bushes case) our country on the same road. Bush was driving us down the road in a pickup, Obama has us in a Corvette and he is taking us through gears as fast as he can.
The current slate of GOP candidates is the nastiest looking dog's breakfast I've seen in my lifetime. The truly depressing thing is one of these mooks is probably going to have a real shot at the White House given that Obama, ostensibly the "most liberal president in our nation's history," has lost the support of his base by morphing into "Bush Lite."
This country needs some real presidential leadership and there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to step up to the plate.
I sincerely hope the eventual GOP candidate is waiting in the wings (and I don't mean Rick Perry) and I hope a Democratic candidate emerges to challenge Obama in the primaries.
Unfortunately, I think I'm engaging in wishful thinking. And I don't know how long this country can survive with the kind of feckless leadership being forced upon us.
And who would your ideal candidate be?
variablebinary
08-12-11, 01:50
And who would your ideal candidate be?
Ideally...
-get the federal reserve under control
-get the budget under control
-get entitlements under control
-Tell the bankers to go to hell and don't give them a damn dime of tax payer money.
-tax the living shit out of globalists corporations that make their living by destroying the American economy, and ensure real American companies stay competitive against slave communist labor.
-Ensure our military is the world's true super power for another 100 years.
-No Trilateral Commission, No Council on Foreign Relations, No Masons, No Skull and Bones, No Bilderbergers in the administration.
Sadly this candidate doesn't exist.
The government needs to tax importers of slave labor goods for the taxes and wages that weren't collected here.
Trump was the only big-name potential candidate that even gave any lip service to this.
Pawlenty easily wins biggest tool of the evening award. Just roll over and die.
Herman Cain is a real captain of industry, if results count and if results equal intelligence, then he has created the most jobs, the most enduring wealth and is the smartest guy on stage. One thing I've noticed about him is that if someone doesn't understand or agree with something he's said, he will try to put his answer another way to help the other person better understand where he is coming from. Definitely a man from a world where results mattered and you had to fight to get them.
Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, Romney, Perry = 3rd Bush term in one way or another (and yes, at this point I would take a 3rd Bush term)
Romney thinks he can control the best if he gets the reins, teach it to fetch, sit down, drink tea, be civilized. A bit of nixonian naivete. That being said... from some personal dealings my family has had with Romney, he conducts business above honorably, watches out for the interests of others and is a man of his word. These are extremely scarce qualities in a man of his stature.
Ron Paul needs to end his foreign policy speeches on Iran/etc with "...and if they still want a fight, I'll make sure their (insert degenerate foreign pidgin language) is spoken only in hell." Most likely the worst potential occupier of the White House (from a bureaucratic standpoint) since the British sacked Washington DC in 1814. Burn baby burn. Rather than being a fringe candidate, I think Paul would come across as a man who'd genuinely fight for a wide spectrum of issues both the left and right agree with.
Newt Gingrich, unfortunate name, brilliant man, would eviscerate Obama, plus he just did for lamestream journalism what Patton did for unslapped soldiers.
Needed more Sarah Palin. The eloquence and clarity of Ronald Reagan, without the eloquence and clarity. Fortunately these days being plain spoken isn't all that bad, and at least she fights back like a rogue honey badger.
montanadave
08-12-11, 05:24
And who would your ideal candidate be?
To challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries? Realistically, I think there is only one potential candidate with the name recognition and political gravitas to mount a serious challenge and that's Hillary Clinton. And if she were serious about getting in the game, I think she would have showed her hand by now. But given Obama's performance to date, you can bet there are some heavy-hitters urging her to get in the game.
There already appears to be so much big money committed to Obama that it's hard to imagine anyone being eager to get in a real primary dogfight with an incumbent president with the kind of campaign cash Obama is going to have at his disposal.
But you asked about my "ideal candidate" and that's certainly not Clinton. Frankly, I don't see one out there, in either party. Like variablebinary, I could put down a laundry list of policy positions, personal attributes, and experience that I would like to see in the next president, but, sadly, I don't think that person exists. And even if they did, they'd be too smart to submit themselves to the indignities that have become part and parcel of a presidential campaign.
I can't recall who said it, but the adage "Anyone who really wants to be President probably isn't fit for the job" has become a truism.
And, given the urgent need for real leadership in this country, that ain't good.
My ideal candidate would be a cross between Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt, neither of which would stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected today. The entire Republican field is more of the same. My ideal candidate wouldn't even mention Obama or the Democratic party. All they would focus on is how to get the country out of the hole we've dug ourselves. There's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties anymore. They just pander to a different set of voters/users. No one truly focuses on the health of the country itself. :mad:
Belmont31R
08-12-11, 11:58
Allen West is the only person Ive seen who I would really like to see run.
All these goons we have now suck.
And last thing...why in the blue **** are they asking questions about things like abortion, religion, and gay marriage? Those are really the pressing questions of today?
How about what should the federal budget be in a dollar amount?
How would you tackle the debt and deficit?
What taxes would you cut and by how much?
How should we fix things like entitlement spending?
How would you have handled things like the Arab Spring, Libya, ect?
How would you handle the SW border and illegal aliens?
Instead they ask some real low class questions like Bachman getting asked a question about something she said along the lines of being subservient to her husband, and they had the crowd booing her for a good 10-15 seconds. They kept asking questions about abortion and gay marriage.
And last thing...why in the blue **** are they asking questions about things like abortion, religion, and gay marriage? Those are really the pressing questions of today?
Boy you nailed it on their questions
Personally speaking I don't think the gov should have ANYTHING to do with marriage. While I know everyone brings up the tax issue, we should have the Fair Tax then that would not be an issue. I dont think income taxes are right. As for abortion why do we always have to hear about that from the pres:rolleyes: I don't agree with abortion, but it should be dealt with by the states I don't give a **** what the president thinks about it, the federal government should be dealing with other issues.
I don't agree with abortion, but it should be dealt with by the states I don't give a **** what the president thinks about it, the federal government should be dealing with other issues.
Absolutely! The only person I've seen with this position is RP.
Currently watching the debates...
ForTehNguyen
08-12-11, 12:13
Full debate here on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDSs_XFmacc&feature=feedu
Allen West is the only person Ive seen who I would really like to see run.
All these goons we have now suck.
And last thing...why in the blue **** are they asking questions about things like abortion, religion, and gay marriage? Those are really the pressing questions of today?
How about what should the federal budget be in a dollar amount?
How would you tackle the debt and deficit?
What taxes would you cut and by how much?
How should we fix things like entitlement spending?
How would you have handled things like the Arab Spring, Libya, ect?
How would you handle the SW border and illegal aliens?
Instead they ask some real low class questions like Bachman getting asked a question about something she said along the lines of being subservient to her husband, and they had the crowd booing her for a good 10-15 seconds. They kept asking questions about abortion and gay marriage.
Allen West is my Congressman:) I really dislike Rick Santorum. I watched the first debate and he kept speaking about his social conservatism, I really dont care what he thinks, what does the Constitution say? I firmly believe that the only reason why Wilbur is the front runner is because the MSM has been telling the populous that since early 2009.
Belmont31R
08-12-11, 13:09
Allen West is my Congressman:) I really dislike Rick Santorum. I watched the first debate and he kept speaking about his social conservatism, I really dont care what he thinks, what does the Constitution say? I firmly believe that the only reason why Wilbur is the front runner is because the MSM has been telling the populous that since early 2009.
Fox has been slobbing on his knob for a long time.
He also confirmed what Ive said on here a few times before...is that he thinks whats wrong with Obama Care isn't what the law is just that only the states should do it not the Feds. Instead of FIXING the problem of people getting health care without paying for he just mandated every have insurance....:rolleyes: I want to start a business, and have a law that says just for being a breathing human being people have to buy my product....:cool: I get that states should have quite a bit of leeway in their internal affairs but just the fact he thinks its ok for ANY government body (be it local, state, federal) to mandate people buy specific goods and services says a lot about him.
He is also very much against our style of guns.
His only redeeming factor is he understand business and money. So do a lot of other people, though.
montanadave
08-12-11, 13:20
And last thing...why in the blue **** are they asking questions about things like abortion, religion, and gay marriage? Those are really the pressing questions of today?
It's not often that we find common political ground but on this particular point I can only say "Amen, brother!"
If the Republican party would shit can all the "family values" rhetoric and let their positions with respect to people's private lives reflect the same minimalist government intervention attitude they display towards the business community they would find a lot of voters drifting back their direction.
Alas, the "Moral Majority" crowd got their hooks in the GOP thirty years ago and the GOP isn't likely to throw them under the bus now.
It's not often that we find common political ground but on this particular point I can only say "Amen, brother!"
If the Republican party would shit can all the "family values" rhetoric and let their positions with respect to people's private lives reflect the same minimalist government intervention attitude they display towards the business community they would find a lot of voters drifting back their direction.
Alas, the "Moral Majority" crowd got their hooks in the GOP thirty years ago and the GOP isn't likely to throw them under the bus now.
And they're all too stupid to realize that that very rhetoric is what turns off a big part of America, and keeps them out of power where they could actually have a chance to impact anything. I wouldn't want to see anyone skirt the issue or be dishonest, and then go hog wild after elected, but they'll never even be a real part of the debate if they're sitting at home because they couldn't get elected.
Short-sighted morons.
What are the problems you see with Ron Paul's foreign policy?
parishioner
08-12-11, 14:08
If the Republican party would shit can all the "family values" rhetoric and let their positions with respect to people's private lives reflect the same minimalist government intervention attitude they display towards the business community they would find a lot of voters drifting back their direction.
Couldn't agree more. The Sunday school regurgitations are a major turn off for me. Tired of that schtick.
RancidSumo
08-12-11, 14:33
Ron Paul is the only one of the bunch that I care for at all. He will have my vote.
-No Trilateral Commission, No Council on Foreign Relations, No Masons, No Skull and Bones, No Bilderbergers in the administration.
:rolleyes:
Belmont31R
08-12-11, 14:40
What are the problems you see with Ron Paul's foreign policy?
I don't really have a problem with most of his views...I just question what his response would be if we were attacked. Would he throw up his hands and say its our fault?
We have had some good military operations in the past, and isolationism isn't always the best course. However you have to get the diplomatic part right, though, and we've stuck our noses where it doesn't belong then did the wrong things.
I think Bush did a good job with the former Bloc countries, and Reagan did good in South America.
That doesn't mean we have to go stampeding around the world getting into wars. Reagan never had a major shooting war under his watch yet prevented a good chunk of South America from turning commie.
I agree with Paul that we need the military along the SW border. That is the "primary objective" of the US military...to protect the homeland.
Same ol' B.S. and canned answers.
Paul gets my vote.
I don't really have a problem with most of his views...I just question what his response would be if we were attacked. Would he throw up his hands and say its our fault?
Not at all. He's said on many occasions that he would use our military to defend the United States at all costs. This is from his 2012 website but I think it has some valuable information regarding his foreign policy.
In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.
Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.
Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.
Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.
Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.
Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.
That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:
* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.
* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.
* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.
* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.
* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.
* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.
* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.
* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.
* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.
* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.
As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.
Basing the whole of US military power in CONUS is srategically ignorant, and eliminates our capability to project power and react rapidy.
On this issue, Paul is woefully wrong.
Basing the whole of US military power in CONUS is srategically ignorant, and eliminates our capability to project power and react rapidy.
On this issue, Paul is woefully wrong.
Is his policy to only have military personnel inside CONUS? Having military bases in over 100 countries in the world is wrong fiscally, I believe the total's somewhere around 800 bases. What type of power are you looking to project? What do we need to react rapidly to?
Take a look at our deficit and tell me if we can afford this? These wars are bankrupting our country and are providing no positive results for the American people by and large. The only people profiting and seeing positive results are the military industrial complex.
Belmont31R
08-12-11, 15:12
Basing the whole of US military power in CONUS is srategically ignorant, and eliminates our capability to project power and react rapidy.
On this issue, Paul is woefully wrong.
At least for the Army the two rapid reacting divisions are based in the US anyways. I was 1AD in Germany, and it would take us weeks to mobilize. We were not anywhere near a port, and the AF could never have the capacity to get all our equipment where it needed to be. All our stuff had to go on trains to a port, then on a boat. Besides the two US Army divisions based in the US we have Marines on boats, air craft carriers, ect. Theres ZERO need to base US heavy divisions overseas.
I think bases like Ramstein AFB are fine but garisoning heavy division troops overseas is stupid, and a waste of money. They are WW2 and Cold War era relics.
-Pull out of our bases overseas
-Double or quadruple the size of the navy
-Transfer the army to the national guard and marine corps
-Do the same with the air force
-Make other countries pay for their liberation
It would be better from an economic standpoint to have troops on new or reactivated bases here, spending their money here.
The current President (and many congressional Democrats before that) campaigned on immediate downsizing and prompt withdrawal from Iraq/Afghanistan with the tried-and-true "blame Bush" banter... And nearly three years later, he still has us heavily involved in both countries with large numbers of troops still being deployed.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what Ron Paul might do OCONUS.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what Ron Paul might do OCONUS.
Then you have absolutely no clue about Ron Paul, his stance on the issues or his voting record. There's a reason his nickname in Congress is "Dr. No".
Lot of guys regurgitating the chicken-hawk neo-con foreign policy. Sorry, 22 years of service here and I have NO idea what it is we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan. And who is running that war anyway? The DoD? The State Dept? The CIA? Who? Who is really ****ing in charge and just what is the mission? Really.
Left to it's own devices, Israel can more than handle the Iran problem. Truly, it is time to pull out of Europe. And, if we are going to keep troops in South East Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan need to start paying for the service. Hell, they have most of our jobs.
Here is the actual Constitutional Jeffersonian policy we should have:
Pull our troops out of the some 144 countries they are currently in.
Half the size of the Active Army.
Double the size of the National Guard.
Go back to a 600 ship Navy - and use it!
The Air Force will focus on nuclear deterrence, strategic mobility, and drones. Cut the fighter fleet and double the drone fleet - and use it!
Sorry Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex but the cold war is OVER!
Belmont31R
08-12-11, 18:55
Lot of guys regurgitating the chicken-hawk neo-con foreign policy. Sorry, 22 years of service here and I have NO idea what it is we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't either. At first Iraq was to remove Saddam and get WMD's. Didn't find WMD's like there was SUPPOSED to be but we got Saddam. Then it turned into lets rebuild the country but first we have to fight a bunch of dudes who weren't the ones who attacked us.
Afghanistan was supposed to be to get AQ, and from everything I have read most of them were in a relatively small area next to the mountains and close to Pakistan. As soon as we showed up they were on the way out, and its been the Taliban we've been fighting not AQ. The Taliban are not the ones who attacked us, and rebuilding Afghanistan is not going to lessen the terrorist threat since the people who did that are ALL OVER THE WORLD and not even in AFG anymore. Playing billy goat with the Taliban in no way makes the US a safer place.
The vast majority of the ones who are a threat are already in the US or Europe.
The current slate of GOP candidates is the nastiest looking dog's breakfast I've seen in my lifetime. The truly depressing thing is one of these mooks is probably going to have a real shot at the White House given that Obama, ostensibly the "most liberal president in our nation's history," has lost the support of his base by morphing into "Bush Lite."
This country needs some real presidential leadership and there doesn't seem to be anyone willing to step up to the plate.
I sincerely hope the eventual GOP candidate is waiting in the wings (and I don't mean Rick Perry) and I hope a Democratic candidate emerges to challenge Obama in the primaries.
Unfortunately, I think I'm engaging in wishful thinking. And I don't know how long this country can survive with the kind of feckless leadership being forced upon us.
my concern about a progressive challenge to Barry is that it very may well be even further left than him. take it for what it is worth, but the few articles I have read on politico have shown that the progressive groups who have supported and are now hoping for a more progressive/socialist challenge. And I wouldnt be surprised if that individual would win! Hell, look at the commies who got airtime and support in Wisconsin.
Then you have absolutely no clue about Ron Paul, his stance on the issues or his voting record. There's a reason his nickname in Congress is "Dr. No".
No claim to fame, here.
I'll gladly eat crow if Ron Paul wins and returns the United States to some kind of WWI-era isolation from the rest of the world. But I just don't see it happening... Not saying Ron Paul can't or won't make changes, even significant ones, but the current crop of congress-critters and government bureaucrats are too beholden to the 'defense' industry and need to be flushed from the system (or put in fear for their jobs) for a guy like him to effectively see his vision to fruition.
To challenge Obama in the Democratic primaries? Realistically, I think there is only one potential candidate with the name recognition and political gravitas to mount a serious challenge and that's Hillary Clinton. And if she were serious about getting in the game, I think she would have showed her hand by now. But given Obama's performance to date, you can bet there are some heavy-hitters urging her to get in the game.
There already appears to be so much big money committed to Obama that it's hard to imagine anyone being eager to get in a real primary dogfight with an incumbent president with the kind of campaign cash Obama is going to have at his disposal.
But you asked about my "ideal candidate" and that's certainly not Clinton. Frankly, I don't see one out there, in either party. Like variablebinary, I could put down a laundry list of policy positions, personal attributes, and experience that I would like to see in the next president, but, sadly, I don't think that person exists. And even if they did, they'd be too smart to submit themselves to the indignities that have become part and parcel of a presidential campaign.
I can't recall who said it, but the adage "Anyone who really wants to be President probably isn't fit for the job" has become a truism.
And, given the urgent need for real leadership in this country, that ain't good.
I probably should have phrased it as, "who would be the ideal Democratic candidate that you prefer to become the president?" You already answered that in the second part of your answer....no one.
I don't see anyone that really reflects my views as much as I would like. I'm a conservative that leans libertarian on some issues and I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, but he is a bit too far libertarian for my tastes. Romney has some good business experience, but I don't trust him on the second amendment or on health care. Cain is an accomplished businessman as well, but is weak on foreign policy. No one else interests me at this point.
Anyone that is worth voting for, who will have the guts to get the job done, will never have the monetary backing from enough of the special interest big money seeking to suck this country dry.
I probably should have phrased it as, "who would be the ideal Democratic candidate that you prefer to become the president?" You already answered that in the second part of your answer....no one.
I don't see anyone that really reflects my views as much as I would like. I'm a conservative that leans libertarian on some issues and I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say, but he is a bit too far libertarian for my tastes. Romney has some good business experience, but I don't trust him on the second amendment or on health care. Cain is an accomplished businessman as well, but is weak on foreign policy. No one else interests me at this point.
Anyone that is worth voting for, who will have the guts to get the job done, will never have the monetary backing from enough of the special interest big money seeking to suck this country dry.
i voted for Ron in the GOP primaries right before I bought my black rifle in '08. I donated small amounts of money and while I dont drink anyones kool aid, I did read "End the Fed". I dont agree with everything he says, but he is direct, honest, and will stand up for his convictions. Any man who says he get his marching orders from the Constitution is good enough for me.
Basing the whole of US military power in CONUS is srategically ignorant, and eliminates our capability to project power and react rapidy.
On this issue, Paul is woefully wrong.
You have to ask yourself, what power are you looking to project? There isn't a Cold War. Very few countries are equipped with a Navy powerful enough to contend with even one of our carrier groups. An invasion of the U.S. by a foreign country is very unlikely....so why the hell are we maintaining bases all over the world? We shouldn't get involved in other country's civil wars. History has taught us that almost every time this has happened, eventually we ended up on the wrong side.
I believe in American exceptionalism, but I also believe that no one likes a loud, disrespectful, nosy neighbor. Ron Paul was right when he said that we just can't mind our own business.
The U.S. really isn't and shouldn't be the world's policeman. Too often we get suckered into the bullshit of bringing freedom and democracy to some poor country only to interfere and become the persona non grata. Let's face it, some people aren't ready for freedom or democracy.
Regardless of all the good we do in the world, the world doesn't appreciate us, and in many instances downright despises us.
Lastly, our military shouldn't be spread around the world in hundreds of bases protect the borders and sovereignty of other countries. As many others have already said, a stronger navy would maintain our ability project the power
An invasion of the U.S. by a foreign country is very unlikely.
Actually we have already been invaded. What else do you call 30+ million illegals?
VooDoo6Actual
08-13-11, 07:54
Is his policy to only have military personnel inside CONUS? Having military bases in over 100 countries in the world is wrong fiscally, I believe the total's somewhere around 800 bases. What type of power are you looking to project? What do we need to react rapidly to?
Take a look at our deficit and tell me if we can afford this? These wars are bankrupting our country and are providing no positive results for the American people by and large. The only people profiting and seeing positive results are the military industrial complex.
This is spot on & this below has equal merit imo. I can see both points of view. Needs to be clarified imo.
Originally Posted by 11B101ABN
"Basing the whole of US military power in CONUS is srategically ignorant, and eliminates our capability to project power and react rapidy.
On this issue, Paul is woefully wrong."
I would like to get a clearer definition "Basing the Whole US military power CONUS" in this regard from Mr. Paul. He clearly is the least corrupted/conflicted of the candidates by the system no doubt.
We are diversified all over the planet for what ? Democracy ?
Guess what we are not. I've been around the block a time or two & contrary to what the media currently says which is tough to swallow sometimes these days it simply is not true. The gig is up & this military global prescence is bankrupting the US, fracturing families, relationships, leaving VETS returning to no work when they come back w/ limited programs for training them/re-educating them etc.
Riddle me this, the US's Constitution is being ursurped from within w/o our consent & our country's children's future being plundered how Democratic is that ?
We now are creating another Astan in Libya w/ another reason for the extremists/muslofacists to hate us. In effect you are creating another "Libyan Mujahideen" (part duex) Now, it's going to be a long haul, training, more $ we don't have, people suffering here etc. w/ no tangigble real end in sight, under the guise of a NATO Peacekeeping farce, bombing more innocents in the collateral damage making more enemies in the Middle East for the crazed politicians at the wheel. "Arab Banking Corp., is now majority owned by the Central Bank of Libya. At the time, the Libyan dictatorship owned almost a third of the company."
26 billion was loaned to Arab Banking which is at least 1/3 owned by Central Bank of Libya.
So if I'm tracking this right we (the FED) loaned Three-fourths of the 12 largest recipients of Fed's largest that day were foreign companies — one of which, "Arab Banking Corp., is at least 1/3 owned by the Central Bank of Libya. At the time, the Libyan dictatorship owned almost a third of the company." So in effect if you do the math (& I don't believe the numbers they distill) more than <$8.6 billion at least went directly to Kadahfi. A guy like him can buy a lot of hardware for that kind of $, not like he does not have the connections either.
Here's the link to the loan
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2011/04/04/bailout-revelation-fed-lent-billions-to-save-lybian-bank/
here's another:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets-mainmenu-45/6946-documents-fed-showered-money-on-foreign-banks
Keep in mind we had already had a policy in place & had been loaning Libya from the Fed Reserve to the Libyian Banks under Kadahfi's reign.
Doh ! say it aint so....
Brilliant ! Bravura !
We loan the dictator's country (Arab Banking Corp.) $26 BILLION for him to have at his disposal & build a "War Chest", then we are going to use NATO and Taxpayer money to fund the next Libyan Mujahideen at our expense for their screwup in addition to making more muslim enemies there while we suffer here, can't employ returning soldiers to jobs here and profile white males of being potential domestic terrorists. Prudent, Sound, brillant strategy ! Wish I would have thought of that one. I'm envious of that kind of leadership !. Anybody got a Hammer ?
You can't make this stuff up !
You can't have it both ways. The US needs to be either codified as a Modified Isolationist of sorts (I'm not for isolationist BUT I'm not for Global Domination either) or it's all out PSUEDO Global Domination and prescence using NATO as a TOOL.
My buddy just took a Contractor gig in Iraq for $180.00 a day or 65K a year .... In a active combat zone for 180.00 a day ? Why, things are that bad here... NO work for him. How desperate is that ?
Now the white male christian is being profiled as the new terrorist threat to the US ? WTF ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpDufhNSRIs&feature=share
Out of chaos comes order ? Not hardly in a democracy.
one thing's for sure, I want my country fixed first.
FUBAR
Actually we have already been invaded. What else do you call 30+ million illegals?
I stand corrected. All the more reason to bring our troops back from foreign bases and restore order to our southern border.
This is spot on & this below has equal merit imo. I can see both points of view. Needs to be clarified imo.
Originally Posted by 11B101ABN
"Basing the whole of US military power in CONUS is srategically ignorant, and eliminates our capability to project power and react rapidy.
On this issue, Paul is woefully wrong."
I would like to get a clearer definition "Basing the Whole US military power CONUS" in this regard from Mr. Paul. He clearly is the least corrupted/conflicted by the system no doubt.
We are diversified all over the planet for what ? Democracy ?
Guess what we are not. I've been around the block a time or two & contrary to what the media currently says which is tough to swallow sometimes these days it simply is not true. The gig is up & this military global prescence is bankrupting the US, fracturing families, relationships, leaving VETS returning to no work when they come back w/ limited programs for training them/re-educating them etc.
Riddle me this, the US's Constitution is being ursurped from within w/o our consent & our country's children's future being plundered how Democratic is that ?
We now are creating another Astan in Libya w/ another reason for the extremists/muslofacists to hate us. In effect you are creating another "Libyan Mujaheen" Now, it's going to be a long haul, training, more $ we don't have, people suffering here etc. w/ no tangigble real end in sight, under the guise of a NATO Peacekeeping farce, bombing more innocents in the collateral damage making more enemies in the Middle East for the crazed politicians at the wheel.
Keep in mind this is after we already sent $ from the Fed Reserve to the Libyian Banks under Kadahfi's reign.
Doh ! say it aint so....
You can't have it both ways. The US needs to be either codified as a Modified Isolationist of sorts (I'm not for isolationist BUT I'm not for Global Domination either) or it's all out Global Domination and prescence.
My buddy just took a Contractor gig in Irag for $180.00 a day or 65K a year .... In a active combat zone for 180.00 a day ? Why, things are that bad here... NO work for him. How desperate is that ?
Now the white male christian is being profiled as the new terrorist threat to the US ? WTF ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpDufhNSRIs&feature=share
Out of chaos comes order ? Not hardly in a democracy.
one thing's for sure, I want my country fixed first.
FUBAR
Damn, Hoploethos, why do you have to make so much sense? Maybe we should elect you!
Lots of people in D.C. in need of face shooting. :D
ForTehNguyen
08-13-11, 09:25
No claim to fame, here.
I'll gladly eat crow if Ron Paul wins and returns the United States to some kind of WWI-era isolation from the rest of the world.
Ron Pauls foreign policy is not isolationism, it is a non interventionalist policy. We would still freely trade and freely travel to all countries. Shutting the borders, imposing high tariffs and trade sanctions is isolationism
All the more reason to bring our troops back from foreign bases and restore order to our southern border.
Yep. I just am not sure about ALL bases overseas, but most for sure.
Yep. I just am not sure about ALL bases overseas, but most for sure.
That's my line of thinking as well. I'm not totally opposed to a limited amount of forward operating bases around the world. However, they should be limited in scope and have the host country's permission without bribing them with tax dollars.
Some people also lose sight of the fact that none of this would happen in a day and would be a very long process. It's not like we'd just pull out tomorrow and bring everyone home with a bunch of deserted bases and destroyed host country economies. You do realize how much money we pump into other countries from just our military embibing in the local libations don't you? :D
Yep. I just am not sure about ALL bases overseas, but most for sure.
Right. I completely agree that we need SOME bases, but (quoting Irish) 800 bases in 140 countries?
I had no idea the number was that high...
That amount of military presence eventually becomes a huge negative in the way the world perceives us. The term American Imperialism comes to mind. I'm no American apologist like our POTUS, but sometimes we do have to take a step back and examine our actions.
Right. I completely agree that we need SOME bases, but (quoting Irish) 800 bases in 140 countries?
Just to be clear, I'm guilty of "averaging" that number from the numerous reports I've read and many quote over 1000 bases, so bear in mind it's a guesstimate but I'd wager pretty close to the actual number. I tried Googling and getting solid numbers but couldn't find anything concrete after spending a bit of time.
montanadave
08-13-11, 10:47
I find it fascinating that no one ever pulls back the curtain on defense spending and reveals it for what it really is-- a massive financial stimulus program.
Every Republican who sees a microphone can't wait to regurgitate the GOP talking point about how the Obama stimulus package has been a complete failure and demonstrates conclusively the folly of Keynesian economics (funny how they omit the fact that almost half of the stimulus package consisted of tax cuts and holidays on payroll deductions which would also seem to repudiate the stimulative effect of tax cuts, but let's save that argument for another day).
The reality is Republicans have long had their own federal stimulus package called defense spending. Trillions of dollars funneled into maintaining a massive military force and, more importantly, a massive military-industrial complex that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens while also producing one of our nation's largest exports, military hardware sold to foreign nations.
And maintaining a military force with hundreds of thousands of service personnel (and their subsidized dependents) at hundreds of military bases both at home and overseas ensures these folks stay out of the general workforce. Closing overseas military bases would result in thousands of service personnel and their dependents being shipped back home and joining the swollen ranks of unemployed right here in the US of A. As a massive federal jobs program, federal defense spending ensures that hundreds of thousands of military employees and defense contractor employees are getting a paycheck and paying their taxes, even though taxes are what's providing the paycheck.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hack on military personnel or imply that all defense spending is a boondoggle. We need a strong military and well-trained, well-equipped service personnel to maintain force readiness.
But the hypocrisy of those who deride one form of federal financial stimulus while actively defending another wears on my nerves. At the end of the day, it's federal spending derived from tax revenues being used to create jobs and fuel the economy, whether the guy getting the paycheck is wearing a helmet or a hardhat, humping a pack or packing a hod of mortar, engaged in "nation building" or building a highway bridge.
Frankly, if we're going to spend trillions of dollars "nation building," I'd just as soon be building this nation and letting the folks doing the work go home at night safe to their families.
It's one thing to protect America against foreign aggression, it's another matter entirely when we elect to serve as "Team America--World Police" defending the economic interests of multi-national corporations that lay off their workers and board up their factories here at home and operate under the protective umbrella of the American military overseas.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 12:13
Except that the military is written into the Constitution specifically. Obama Stimulus is not.
And for as long as we have been a nation the military has been used to protect commerce and shipping lanes. Ever heard of the Barbary Pirates or The Shores of Tripoli?
Im not sure why closing bases overseas = unemployed (former) soldiers? Theres a big job to do on the SW border.
I wouldn't actually mind things being done like Switzerland IF we were a small nation not of great economic importance. Id love to see the militia brought back up, and I can't tell you how awesome I think it is they issue people guns. I think its a great idea for national defense.
But we have over 300 million, who knows how many illegals, and you'd end up arming millions of criminal thugs here...:(
I find it fascinating that no one ever pulls back the curtain on defense spending and reveals it for what it really is-- a massive financial stimulus program.
Yep.
Funny how the Flag Waving Yellow Ribboned Chicken-Hawk Neo-Conmen jump up and down over 'stimulus' spending but think that every dollar the DoD gets goes to a good cause. Sorry, hate to burst your bubble, but we could halve the 'Defense' Budget and only improve actual defense. I have been at this game for 22 years and have seen LOTS of money WASTED on a routine and continuing basis. The DoD actually has NO incentive to spend it's money wisely nor to have a well thought out strategic spending plan. The State Dept and DHS are plagued by a similar spendthrift culture.
Oh, but Ron Paul is a kook. Yep, don't look at the man behind the curtain!
I find it fascinating that no one ever pulls back the curtain on defense spending and reveals it for what it really is-- a massive financial stimulus program.
Except for the fact the military actually does serve a purpose unlike Barry's stimulus.
Cagemonkey
08-13-11, 18:41
Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw pole with 29% of the vote. Ron Paul gets a close second with 28% of the vote. Theirs a long way to go, but its good to see the establishment Rinos, Romney and Perry end up being non factors thus far.
Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw pole with 29% of the vote. Ron Paul gets a close second with 28% of the vote. Theirs a long way to go, but its good to see the establishment Rinos, Romney and Perry end up being non factors thus far.
Yeah, I heard it was something like a 157 vote spread. Pretty close
I like most of RP's domestic agenda, but I think that his foreign policy as manifest by his Iran nuclear arms answer is where he misses me and most mainstream Republicans. Many of us believe that a nuclear Iran poses a clear danger to the US and our allies given their stated desire to destroy Israel and the Great Satan (i.e. US). Islamist leaders whose stated desire is to establish a worldwide Calefate and burn the infidels scare the piss out of me. Given the small but real chance that an American or Israeli city ends in a mushroom cloud with a nuclear Iran, I cannot support RP's candidacy.
However, most mainstream Republicans like some of RP's positions. We are looking for something between the Bush Doctrine (strong international presence to preemptively strike perceived threats while spreading the seeds of democracy throughout the Middle East) and the near isolationist Ron Paul strategy.
For example, I'd like to see us significantly scale back our presence abroad and stop trying to build governments in Islamist countries. On the other hand, I'd like to maintain the ability strike clear threats such as terrorist training camps in A-stan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. I'm not convinced that this can be done without some small international footprint. I also think that a nuclear Iran poses a clear danger to the US and our allies given the stated desire to destroy Israel and the Great Satan (i.e. US). As much as I hate to say it, Clinton did a fair job of walking this tightrope with selective intervention in Yugoslavia (granted, he failed in Somalia and with the emergence of Al Qaeda).
Hopefully, the next round of debates will better delineate the foreign policy of the candidates. I look forward to hearing more before I decide on a candidate.
4x4twenty6
08-13-11, 21:24
You gotta respect him for having the balls to say it outright in front of the world to see. Unlike the other assholes who flip flop and give unclear answers.
He did bring up a good point though about the cold war and our continued talks with russia.
If we could stimulate big businesses to stay in America and free up restrictions on small businesses to hire then we could bring a lot of our troops back and get them jobs.
We could put a lot of soldiers to work for domestic security at the borders.
Also, i read the other day that we are gonna be having a shortage of doctors in coming years. The Obamacare situation is only going to make that worse. It will cause doctors salaries to go down and medical school is not cheap. In fact it goes up fairly often.
But we can give out all these incentives to foreigners to come in and study and have states likes california with the Dream Act making it possible for people in this country illegally to apply for state and federal scholarships! WTF!
4x4twenty6
08-13-11, 21:27
Gotta ask yourself this too...
Would Ron Paul be worse to have as a POTUS or another 4 years of Obama.
Obviously Ron Paul has my vote at this time. Still early though.
variablebinary
08-13-11, 21:46
I like most of RP's domestic agenda, but I think that his foreign policy as manifest by his Iran nuclear arms answer is where he misses me and most mainstream Republicans. .
What exactly do you propose then?
If Israel has a problem with Iran, they should handle their business. As it turns out, they don't have the balls, which doesn't mean this becomes our problem by default.
Furthermore, unless you are willing to have an armor column roll out of Iraq into Iran and have a full on ground war with Iran, there is abolsutely no way to stop Iran from building a nuke.
Anyone that thinks the USA can just launch off a carrier and bomb nations that haven't engaged in any agression against us is 100% wrong.
Ron Paul is absolutely right. This world police gig has to end, and end sooner rather than later. Take those troops, and deploy them on the border if you need them to do something.
Take those troops, and deploy them on the border if you need them to do something.Not if, they need to be there.
Belmont31R
08-13-11, 22:07
Im a lot more worried about China having nukes than Iran. Iran would take more than lifetime to build an ICBM capable of hitting the US.
Our FP is so jacked up we do hundreds of billions worth of trade with China with a TERRIBLE human rights record, they regularly attack our information systems (both gov and private), they have ambitions to invade Taiwan one day, they are developing a military designed to counter ours (albeit very far behind), and much much more. They send us poisoned food, toys, took over Nepal...
They have a WAY worse track record than Iran and our president goes over there, bows to the ****ers, and promises we'll keep sending our wealth there in return for poisoned goods.
A war with Iran would be worse than Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
The DANKs have nukes and no one is worried about them.
I find it fascinating that no one ever pulls back the curtain on defense spending and reveals it for what it really is-- a massive financial stimulus program.
Every Republican who sees a microphone can't wait to regurgitate the GOP talking point about how the Obama stimulus package has been a complete failure and demonstrates conclusively the folly of Keynesian economics (funny how they omit the fact that almost half of the stimulus package consisted of tax cuts and holidays on payroll deductions which would also seem to repudiate the stimulative effect of tax cuts, but let's save that argument for another day).
The reality is Republicans have long had their own federal stimulus package called defense spending. Trillions of dollars funneled into maintaining a massive military force and, more importantly, a massive military-industrial complex that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs for American citizens while also producing one of our nation's largest exports, military hardware sold to foreign nations.
And maintaining a military force with hundreds of thousands of service personnel (and their subsidized dependents) at hundreds of military bases both at home and overseas ensures these folks stay out of the general workforce. Closing overseas military bases would result in thousands of service personnel and their dependents being shipped back home and joining the swollen ranks of unemployed right here in the US of A. As a massive federal jobs program, federal defense spending ensures that hundreds of thousands of military employees and defense contractor employees are getting a paycheck and paying their taxes, even though taxes are what's providing the paycheck.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hack on military personnel or imply that all defense spending is a boondoggle. We need a strong military and well-trained, well-equipped service personnel to maintain force readiness.
But the hypocrisy of those who deride one form of federal financial stimulus while actively defending another wears on my nerves. At the end of the day, it's federal spending derived from tax revenues being used to create jobs and fuel the economy, whether the guy getting the paycheck is wearing a helmet or a hardhat, humping a pack or packing a hod of mortar, engaged in "nation building" or building a highway bridge.
Frankly, if we're going to spend trillions of dollars "nation building," I'd just as soon be building this nation and letting the folks doing the work go home at night safe to their families.
It's one thing to protect America against foreign aggression, it's another matter entirely when we elect to serve as "Team America--World Police" defending the economic interests of multi-national corporations that lay off their workers and board up their factories here at home and operate under the protective umbrella of the American military overseas.
Dave, you make some sound points, and both parties have their pet projects that they can't seem to stop funding.
For example, I find it "fascinating" (not really) that liberals get a hard on trying to cut defense spending, yet have no problem with the excessive amounts of waste and fraud in the entitlement programs. This doesn't even take into account the damage done to the psyche/ spirit/ morale of the people that eventually lose all their independence. Most Democratic talking points revolve around raising taxes on the rich and cutting defense. Not once do they ever come down on the useless pieces of shit that sit at home collecting welfare and continue to pump out babies (both the men and women).
At least in wasteful defense spending, which I am not in favor of, someone is actually doing something other than behaving like your average welfare recipient. Again, I'm generalizing, as I'm sure there are plenty of cases of wasteful defense spending revolving around DOD/ .mil/ .gov people.
What exactly do you propose then?
If Israel has a problem with Iran, they should handle their business. As it turns out, they don't have the balls, which doesn't mean this becomes our problem by default.
Furthermore, unless you are willing to have an armor column roll out of Iraq into Iran and have a full on ground war with Iran, there is abolsutely no way to stop Iran from building a nuke.
Anyone that thinks the USA can just launch off a carrier and bomb nations that haven't engaged in any agression against us is 100% wrong.
Ron Paul is absolutely right. This world police gig has to end, and end sooner rather than later. Take those troops, and deploy them on the border if you need them to do something.
I disagree that Iran has not shown aggression toward the US. They directly support at least 2 of the ME's largest terrorists organizations that have targeted and killed Americans. They also have their hands all over the enhanced IEDs that were designed to defeat our MRAPs in Iraq and A-Stan. Finally, the Iranian Premier has said that a good day is to destroy Israel and the Great Satan (image the global outrage if Bush had said those words about any Muslim country after 9/11). The lessions that I've taken from recent history is to believe Islamists when they say that they want to destroy your country. Thus, I consider Iran to be the biggest immediate threat to our security (China the biggest longterm threat) - not the non-aggressors that you describe.
Keep in mind that Israel is a nuclear power and would respond in kind to Tel Aviv reaching 10,000 degrees F. Such an exchange would be a disaster for the world and dramatically decrease the standard of living for Americans. This is why many of us do not trust RP's position that our national defense/interests begin at our borders.
I'm sure that Israel will take direct action within the next 2 years similar to their strikes against Iraq. All of the statements from the Isralie PM indicates that a nuclear Iran is no go. The fact that it has not yet happened is not due to a lack of balls, but has more to do with a very shrewed country buying it's time given the instability across the ME and the difficulties dealing with Obama.
As for our role in Iran, I'd continue with tough sanctions while encouraging civil unrest through clandestine means. I'd also share technology with Israel to maximize the chance of any direct action that Israel takes.
montanadave
08-13-11, 23:28
Dave, you make some sound points, and both parties have their pet projects that they can't seem to stop funding.
For example, I find it "fascinating" (not really) that liberals get a hard on trying to cut defense spending, yet have no problem with the excessive amounts of waste and fraud in the entitlement programs. This doesn't even take into account the damage done to the psyche/ spirit/ morale of the people that eventually lose all their independence. Most Democratic talking points revolve around raising taxes on the rich and cutting defense. Not once do they ever come down on the useless pieces of shit that sit at home collecting welfare and continue to pump out babies (both the men and women).
At least in wasteful defense spending, which I am not in favor of, someone is actually doing something other than behaving like your average welfare recipient. Again, I'm generalizing, as I'm sure there are plenty of cases of wasteful defense spending revolving around DOD/ .mil/ .gov people.
The sad truth is that there is a ton of fat that can be cut from both military spending AND social welfare programs while still retaining the core services necessary to sustain their intended mission.
Alas, our two-party system has managed to divvy up this surplus spending and the voting constituencies which directly benefit from this federal largesse in such a way as to insure that it is virtually impossible to form a consensus on reasonable fiscal policy and responsible curbs on spending. As noted, Republicans and Democrats zealously defend their respective pet programs (and the votes these programs buy) and, in the immortal words of Henry Stamper, "never give a inch."
A convenient coincidence? Sorry, I don't buy it. Our elected officials use wedge issues to turn the electorate against one another while protecting and expanding the spending machine that sustains their positions of power and privilege.
4x4twenty6
08-13-11, 23:44
I think we should absolutely take a serious stand at our borders and get serious about defense w/ in our borders.
Successful attacks on America have come from terrorists already on our soil.
We have recently stopped attacks from outside of our country but this was never made public.
I think we should absolutely take a serious stand at our borders and get serious about defense w/ in our borders.
Successful attacks on America have come from terrorists already on our soil.
We have recently stopped attacks from outside of our country but this was never made public.
I agree. I'd like to significantly increase our military presence on the border. I'd also want to decrease our global military presence - just not to the degree that RP advocates.
4x4twenty6
08-14-11, 00:26
We also have to consider what he wants to happen and what congress will allow to happen.
I too agree that being a completely isolated country is probably not the best idea. Which is where our democratic system comes in to play. I think if he gets in he will be able to help our economic situation and take a step in the right direction in regards to foreign policy and defense.
Look at Obama, it blows my mind how people bought into this clowns speeches given his lack of experience.
Ron Paul has an impressive resume and stands fast on his beliefs. I have yet to find where he flip flopped on issues. That is part of the reason why I can let his extreme views on defense slide a bit. I don't believe he would put us in any greater danger.
ForTehNguyen
08-14-11, 10:47
Pawlenty just dropped out
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 11:23
We also have to consider what he wants to happen and what congress will allow to happen.
Now you'll come to understand the Super Congress....
Pawlenty just dropped out
Meh, no big loss or surprise
Since people are talking about nukes I think they should watch this short video detailing how easy it was for a reporter to be able to purchase one in Bulgaria. http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/bulgarian-dirty-bombs
BTT.... They seem to be ignoring Anderson Cooper.
SW-Shooter
10-18-11, 20:16
R.I.P. Rick Perry's chances of becoming President. He needs some Electile Dysfunction medicine like enzyte.
R.I.P. Rick Perry's chances of becoming President. He needs some Electile Dysfunction medicine like enzyte.
I am not a supporter of his but, I did like his statement on the UM though. You should throw Bauchman in on that R.I.P., again not a supporter but I think she is OK, but tonight she sounds like a moran. Especially with that comment where she said something to the effect of "Obama got us involved in Libya and now in Africa". Why do so few have any clue when it comes to geography?
4x4twenty6
10-18-11, 21:02
I dislike Anderson "I like it in the pooper" Cooper.
In saying that, the last thing i want to hear is the candidates arguing like those idiots on The View.
I still like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain as my top 3 choices. They rest are either forgettable or establishment republicans and thats the last ****ing thing we need.
I dislike Anderson "I like it in the pooper" Cooper.
In saying that, the last thing i want to hear is the candidates arguing like those idiots on The View.
I still like Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain as my top 3 choices. They rest are either forgettable or establishment republicans and thats the last ****ing thing we need.
+1 I'd love to see a Paul/Gingrich ticket in 2012.
+1 I'd love to see a Paul/Gingrich ticket in 2012.
While I would prefer a Paul/Cain ticket, I would be ok with that.
An Undocumented Worker
10-18-11, 22:25
+1 I'd love to see a Paul/Gingrich ticket in 2012.
Actually I want to see a Cain/Gingrich campaign with Paul appointed to the federal reserve.;)
ForTehNguyen
10-18-11, 22:30
Paul would never choose Gingrich or Cain as a running mate. Gary Johnson would be his best running mate out of the candidates. Too bad like usual GJ wasn't invited. Having two libertarians on stage would make Paul look more legitimate. That is not what the establishment wants.
Belmont31R
10-18-11, 22:51
Id like to see them all boycott the liberal/communist news agencies debates all together. They are there to pit the candidates against each other and make them all look stupid.
Im not against asking tough questions but the way the frame these debates is absurd.
I am not a supporter of his but, I did like his statement on the UM though. You should throw Bauchman in on that R.I.P., again not a supporter but I think she is OK, but tonight she sounds like a moran. Especially with that comment where she said something to the effect of "Obama got us involved in Libya and now in Africa". Why do so few have any clue when it comes to geography?
Because for a lot of people, AFRICA = BLACK and MIDDLE EAST = ARAB/MUSLIM, so even though Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, etc are all in Africa, they get included in the Middle East and not Africa.
Id like to see them all boycott the liberal/communist news agencies debates all together. They are there to pit the candidates against each other and make them all look stupid.
Im not against asking tough questions but the way the frame these debates is absurd.
I agree. I'd prefer the Republican debates to be organized by conservative and libertarian organizations such as Heratige Foundation, Cato, Hillsdale College, etc. The Democrat's can be organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, UC Berkley, the Wall Street Protestors, etc. Having CNN play host to the GOP is a small step above MSNBC...
Turn about is fair play. Let's have the Heritage Foundation/FOX organize and host one of the Democrat debates and CATO/Las Vegas Review-Journal with Vin Suprynowicz as host do another.
I might even watch a debate...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.