Republican candidates for 2012

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Republican candidates for 2012
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 17, 2012 10:26 AM
Newt called the Constitution "legal mumbo jumbo". The guy is a piece of shit. I would vote for Obama over him.
Jan 17, 2012 10:26am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 17, 2012 12:55 PM
Ugh ...

I just caught the recap of the debate (date night last night, so I missed it).

Can Romney answer a question actually asked of him? I can't stand Santorum, but I found myself cheering for him when he was pushing him near the beginning.

I have never heard someone say so much to not answer a question as when Mitt talks.
Jan 17, 2012 12:55pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 17, 2012 1:15 PM
Also, I'm floored at the crowd's reaction to the idea that we should treat other countries the same way they should treat us.

Just as well, Gingrich's denunciation of the "Chinese dissident" analogy couldn't have come from a more blatant example of ethnocentrism. We don't see Bin Laden as a dissident. He committed one of the most heinous crimes from an American standpoint. However, if a "refugee" to America had committed 3,100 violations of the national religion in a country where obedience to said religion is valued over life, we would probably still object to the offended country plowing a military path through our nation. Hell, even if there was no disagreement on the gravity of the crime, I'm pretty sure Americans would STILL object to foreign military teams acting like they can come and go as they please within our borders.

But no, the ends, if they seem good to our ethnocentric sensibilities, justify the means apparently ...
Jan 17, 2012 1:15pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 17, 2012 1:33 PM
Yea for such a supposed christian evangelical base that south carolina is, amazing that they would boo the golden rule.

Pauls detractors dont actually listen to what he says. He is not anti war. I want to remind people we are not electing a King of the United States. If King Newt gets elected we might as well prepare for another 10 years of war
Jan 17, 2012 1:33pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 17, 2012 1:39 PM
Fox selected the most despicable, bloodthirsty crowd they could find, and Bret Baier hammering Ron just got them whipped up into a frenzy. It happens at every Fox debate, and it has yet to hurt Ron in the polls, so I'm not worried about it.
Jan 17, 2012 1:39pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 17, 2012 2:03 PM
That same Fox selected, despicable, blood thirsty crowd cheered Paul many times as well.
Jan 17, 2012 2:03pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 2:05 PM
Cleveland Buck;1055796 wrote:Fox selected the most despicable, bloodthirsty crowd they could find, and Bret Baier hammering Ron just got them whipped up into a frenzy. It happens at every Fox debate, and it has yet to hurt Ron in the polls, so I'm not worried about it.
The best part regarding the debate last night was the insistence of using Twitter to monitor candidates performance. Of course, we all know Ron Paul owns Twitter and his followers were being absolutely relentless last night and you could just see all the talking heads squirm and try to discredit Twitter as being a useful source of information. The one comment that I heard from the 3 old guys given post-debate analysis is they asked the question "Can a Republican win without the support of Ron Paul?" and they all said "No.". #truestory
Jan 17, 2012 2:05pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 17, 2012 3:20 PM
majorspark;1055839 wrote:That same Fox selected, despicable, blood thirsty crowd cheered Paul many times as well.
I think they just picked the crowd that had an intense "AMERICAAAAAA ... F*** YEAH!!!" outlook on politics. As such, you could spout complete nonsense, but if you incorporated a statement about America being great and doing whatever it wants, they'd cheer.

The thing about Paul's foreign policy is that he seems to consider the perspective of foreign nations in regard to our actions.

Newty-Patootie has such thick red, white, and blue shades on that he doesn't seem to get that other countries don't consider his views on foreign policy, being rooted in ethnocentrism, as the most reasonable.
Jan 17, 2012 3:20pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 17, 2012 4:59 PM
I didn't see it last night as I had bowling league. Did any of the punditry ask Dr. Paul what his "non-interventionist" doctrine would prescribe for the current situation in the Straits of Hormuz? Based on what his followers preach, I get the distinct impression that he'd leave it be and let those people decide what's in their best interests. Further, the U.S. would not have a naval presence in the area and Iran could conceivably drive the price of oil to unfathomable heights just because Paul doesn't care to be the world's policeman. I understand Iran doesn't have any refining capabilities, but they sure have an ocean of oil and a geographic pinch-point, now don't they?

Before y'all call me a warmongering chickenhawking dipshit, think about this: What would happen to our economy if a barrel of oil went to say...$150...or even $250? What would happen if a penny-enny dictator controlled the price of the world's main energy source? Should we let them have their way and hope for change? Piety has a price methinks.
Jan 17, 2012 4:59pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:03 PM
BGFalcons82;1056072 wrote:I didn't see it last night as I had bowling league. Did any of the punditry ask Dr. Paul what his "non-interventionist" doctrine would prescribe for the current situation in the Straits of Hormuz? Based on what his followers preach, I get the distinct impression that he'd leave it be and let those people decide what's in their best interests. Further the U.S. would not have a naval presence in the area and Iran could conceivably drive the price of oil to unfathomable heights just because he's not the world's policeman. I understand Iran doesn't have any refining capabilities, but they sure have an ocean of oil, now don't they?

Before y'all call me a warmongering chickenhawking dip****, think about this: What would happen to our economy if a barrel of oil went to say...$150...or $250? What would happen if a penny-enny dictator controlled the price of the world's main energy source? Should we let them have their way and hope for change? Piety has a price methinks.
Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries have already come out and said they will cover any barrels lost from Iran blocking the straight. If Oil goes to $150 or $250 a barrel, this will hurt no doubt in the short term. However in the long term, this will quicken the diffusion of alternative energies and this is something OPEC and other oil producing countries DO NOT WANT.

This is just plain fear mongering. It's completely baseless.
Jan 17, 2012 5:03pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:25 PM
sleeper;1056079 wrote:Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries have already come out and said they will cover any barrels lost from Iran blocking the straight. If Oil goes to $150 or $250 a barrel, this will hurt no doubt in the short term. However in the long term, this will quicken the diffusion of alternative energies and this is something OPEC and other oil producing countries DO NOT WANT.

This is just plain fear mongering. It's completely baseless.
OPEC may not want it but how soon we forget the oil embargo of 1973. Do you really trust OPEC to play hardball with Iran? I have some doubts about that one.
Jan 17, 2012 5:25pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:29 PM
believer;1056113 wrote:OPEC may not want it but how soon we forget the oil embargo of 1973. Do you really trust OPEC to play hardball with Iran? I have some doubts about that one.
Those countries have to finance their entire government with oil. They don't have taxes, they have oil exports. If we no longer can afford their oil, or if the incentive for alternatives reaches an extreme, OPEC will become bankrupt and worthless. They definitely will want to "play hardball" if Iran tries to act up.
Jan 17, 2012 5:29pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:31 PM
believer;1056113 wrote:OPEC may not want it but how soon we forget the oil embargo of 1973. Do you really trust OPEC to play hardball with Iran? I have some doubts about that one.
That is laughable...OPEC sanctioning Iran. Thanks, believer :D I would also like to add it is in the Saudi's and other OPEC nations to drive the price of oil HIGHER. Isn't that why they even exist in the first place??? See...greed isn't just an American idea.
Jan 17, 2012 5:31pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:38 PM
sleeper;1056117 wrote:Those countries have to finance their entire government with oil. They don't have taxes, they have oil exports. If we no longer can afford their oil, or if the incentive for alternatives reaches an extreme, OPEC will become bankrupt and worthless. They definitely will want to "play hardball" if Iran tries to act up.
Were you even alive in 1973? While it's true that oil exports are indeed their lifeline, OPEC countries have so much built-up wealth they can easily shutoff the pipeline for awhile not only to appease the Iranians who - strangely enough - are also OPEC members, but also to drive up oil prices.

C'mon really? :rolleyes:
Jan 17, 2012 5:38pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:41 PM
sleeper;1056079 wrote:This is just plain fear mongering. It's completely baseless.
What choo talkin bout, Willis? It's completely baseless to expect trouble in the Middle East? Huh? Oh, I forgot...now that the Islamic fundamentalists are in charge of Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran life will be so much less chaotic over there. :rolleyes:

I know this drives the Ronulans to their keyboards, but we aren't in the Middle East in order to prop-up dictators. And even if we were....aks yourself why would the USA do such a thing? Are we that egotistical that we want to spread our way of life around the world? Is the USA on a Mormon-like mission to "spread the word of freedom"? Y'all know the answers. We're over there to protect our country's economic interests (as believer noted in 1973, we found out what it's like to play puppet to OPEC). If that involves taking an active role in their government's activities, so be it. Or, I suppose, our Dear Leader could unleash hell on underground and offshore oil reserves wherein we could tell the Middle Eastern tin horns to pound their pudd. But that's not in the environmentalist playbook, now is it?
Jan 17, 2012 5:41pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 17, 2012 5:45 PM
sleeper;1056117 wrote:Those countries have to finance their entire government with oil. They don't have taxes, they have oil exports. If we no longer can afford their oil, or if the incentive for alternatives reaches an extreme, OPEC will become bankrupt and worthless. They definitely will want to "play hardball" if Iran tries to act up.
Back to my original question....and it is an extremely fair question to aks Dr. Paul...how would President Paul react to economic threats in the Straits or in the Suez?
Jan 17, 2012 5:45pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jan 17, 2012 6:30 PM
We're over there to protect our country's economic interests (as believer noted in 1973, we found out what it's like to play puppet to OPEC).
This.

Oil is, and will continue to be the driving force behind our foreign policy for years to come. Nothing affects our economy like the price of oil. Even the threat of high priices and speculation on oil prices affects our economy even when there is no basis to support it. Any foreign policy that does not include an active role in the middle east is a crock of horseshit. To Ron Paul's credit, he argues for using all available fuels..including coal and nuclear...and keeping government meddling out of the energy market. But trying to meld this into foreign policy, is where his world view breaks down in the reality of geopolitics. As Dr. Paul (medical doctor)should know even a healthy body can be killed by strangulation in a very short time. America needs oil, like a body needs oxygen...and you just can't count on free market solutiions to bring enough oil/energy online fast enough to throw out current policies and implement a "non interventionist" approach.
Moreover, if elected, Ron Paul will be bound by the same constitution he trumpets. How long do you think it will take to reverse everything so that free market energy solutions will be immediately available? He will not be "King" ...he cannot deliver decrees that will be carried out on his whim and demand...he will not be able to run roughshod over the evironmentalists and their supporters.
Ron Paul delivers a lot of great points and ideas...but they cannot, should not, and would not be able to be implemented even if he were elected. Whose kidding who?
Jan 17, 2012 6:30pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jan 17, 2012 6:42 PM
ugh....Rick Perry.

I noted some people thought he did well last nite. Nothing could be farther than the truth. His was a gaffe that dwarfed Michelle Bachman's.
It's pretty bad when the state department has to go into damage control over an irresponsible statement from a presidential contender ...a statement that he says he stands behind.SMH


http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/turkey-reacts-rick-perrys-terrorist-accusation-15377507
Jan 17, 2012 6:42pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jan 17, 2012 6:52 PM
If we no longer can afford their oil, or if the incentive for alternatives reaches an extreme, OPEC will become bankrupt and worthless.
Oil is by far, the most cost efficient fuel source. There will always be a market for it and we are not the only ones who use it.

Somewhat curious that a country that is "swimming in an ocean of oil" doesn't just build a refinery or two rather than risk military confrontation and the ire and sanctions, of the world community by developing nuclear power( a power to dangerous for us to use in the U.S!) for 'energy' purposes. LOL
Jan 17, 2012 6:52pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 7:05 PM
BGFalcons82;1056122 wrote:That is laughable...OPEC sanctioning Iran. Thanks, believer :D I would also like to add it is in the Saudi's and other OPEC nations to drive the price of oil HIGHER. Isn't that why they even exist in the first place??? See...greed isn't just an American idea.
Where did I say OPEC would sanction Iran? Saudi Arabia came out and said they and OPEC would offset any decrease in the supply of oil caused by the closing of the straight. This is fact. Enjoy!
Jan 17, 2012 7:05pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 7:10 PM
believer;1056131 wrote:Were you even alive in 1973? While it's true that oil exports are indeed their lifeline, OPEC countries have so much built-up wealth they can easily shutoff the pipeline for awhile not only to appease the Iranians who - strangely enough - are also OPEC members, but also to drive up oil prices.

C'mon really? :rolleyes:
Why do I need to be alive in 1973? There are plenty of history books out there that I can read. OPEC countries do NOT have much built up wealth as 80% of their GDP is derived from the oil market. How do you expect a country who's main source of income is oil to survive if no one is buying oil? They want high oil prices, but not too high that the price point allows for other alternatives to become viable and kill their future earnings. This stuff isn't complicated, its more than likely the result of you not understanding basic economics.
Jan 17, 2012 7:10pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 7:13 PM
BGFalcons82;1056135 wrote:What choo talkin bout, Willis? It's completely baseless to expect trouble in the Middle East? Huh? Oh, I forgot...now that the Islamic fundamentalists are in charge of Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iran life will be so much less chaotic over there. :rolleyes:

I know this drives the Ronulans to their keyboards, but we aren't in the Middle East in order to prop-up dictators. And even if we were....aks yourself why would the USA do such a thing? Are we that egotistical that we want to spread our way of life around the world? Is the USA on a Mormon-like mission to "spread the word of freedom"? Y'all know the answers. We're over there to protect our country's economic interests (as believer noted in 1973, we found out what it's like to play puppet to OPEC). If that involves taking an active role in their government's activities, so be it. Or, I suppose, our Dear Leader could unleash hell on underground and offshore oil reserves wherein we could tell the Middle Eastern tin horns to pound their pudd. But that's not in the environmentalist playbook, now is it?
I have no idea why we are in the Middle East. Our economic interests are protective because they have every incentive to sell us their oil. If they shut off their oil to our market, they will suffer just as much as we will considering that their greatest source of revenue is oil. All us being over there does is drive speculation and waste precious billions of dollars trying to police the world. I'm more worried about Americans defaulting on the debt or experiencing massive amounts of hyperinflation trying to pay it off.

We cannot continue to police the world and remain solvent. You can't have it both ways. I say let the Iranians play games, they will end up hurting themselves more than they will end up hurting us.
Jan 17, 2012 7:13pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 7:14 PM
BGFalcons82;1056140 wrote:Back to my original question....and it is an extremely fair question to aks Dr. Paul...how would President Paul react to economic threats in the Straits or in the Suez?
He would do nothing. Iran isn't going to close off the straight, they are just posturing. They have an economic incentive to keep it open. The international community can keep Iran in check, we don't have to do it alone.
Jan 17, 2012 7:14pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 7:16 PM
HitsRus;1056177 wrote: Moreover, if elected, Ron Paul will be bound by the same constitution he trumpets. How long do you think it will take to reverse everything so that free market energy solutions will be immediately available? He will not be "King" ...he cannot deliver decrees that will be carried out on his whim and demand...he will not be able to run roughshod over the evironmentalists and their supporters.
Ron Paul delivers a lot of great points and ideas...but they cannot, should not, and would not be able to be implemented even if he were elected. Whose kidding who?
It's called Veto power. Given Ron Paul's consistent manner in which he has conducted himself over the years, I have no doubts if someone sends him a bill he doesn't like, he will veto it. Simple.
Jan 17, 2012 7:16pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 17, 2012 7:18 PM
HitsRus;1056196 wrote:Oil is by far, the most cost efficient fuel source. There will always be a market for it and we are not the only ones who use it.

Somewhat curious that a country that is "swimming in an ocean of oil" doesn't just build a refinery or two rather than risk military confrontation and the ire and sanctions, of the world community by developing nuclear power( a power to dangerous for us to use in the U.S!) for 'energy' purposes. LOL
There won't always be a market for oil, we are going to run out eventually. Nice try though. There eventually will be a time when oil is too expensive and we have to rely on the market to come up with a solution to the problem. I'm one of those people that prefers to solve a problem now rather than push it off into the future for my children to deal with.
Jan 17, 2012 7:18pm