As for Ron Paul, he is proving once again that he's nothing more than a dumbed-down version of Ross Perot without the charts. Not going anywhere. My money says this whole contest is over by Sunday morning.

Skyhook79;1055275 wrote:Kind of like promising Hope and Change?:rolleyes: How is closing Gitmo going anyway and those shovel ready jobs?:laugh:

Your comment is duly noted, but these are the best and brightest of YOUR party. Nothing more than carnival hucksters pandering to their audience.

ccrunner609;1055265 wrote:Paul just lost any chance he had trying to answer a foreign policy question on whether he thought killing Bin Laden was justified.

This where he gets nailed. He was booed very harshly at times. He gets off track trying to make points that no one will get. Skip those you are not going to teach at debates.

stlouiedipalma;1055285 wrote:Your comment is duly noted, but these are the best and brightest of YOUR party. Nothing more than carnival hucksters pandering to their audience.

You just described both parties.

I see 5 people who are better than what we have. It's s shame that the things they are promising "can never happen", because they are just asking to un fuck the country.

Paul just got booed for endorsing the golden rule. Sometimes Americans make me sick.

This is the second debate I've watched but I really like Perry tonight.

turkey, syria, iran, pakistan, afghanistan, iraq. Kill them all. America is becoming a disgusting place. Wars, patriot act, ndaa.

Amazing that we have the ability to study history yet we still dont get it.

Agree

ccrunner609;1055301 wrote:Newt just had a 50 point slam dunk on the social security question

Santorum disagrees though

pmoney25;1055298 wrote:turkey, syria, iran, pakistan, afghanistan, iraq. Kill them all. America is becoming a disgusting place. Wars, patriot act, ndaa.

Amazing that we have the ability to study history yet we still dont get it.

+1

I really hope that someone with sanity prevents us from going to war with Iran. That would be a long bloody war that would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. Iran has an an extremely strong Military, they won't roll over like Iraq or Afghanistan. I could see that war costing 50,000 American lives per year + trillions of dollars when all is said and done. There's no doubt we "win" that war, but overall we lose because our country won't have any money to fund anything.

ccrunner609;1055265 wrote:Paul just lost any chance he had trying to answer a foreign policy question on whether he thought killing Bin Laden was justified.

Naturally, many seem to think the ends justify the means (I'm not saying you do).

Following 9/11, Paul voted to enter Afghanistan in order to take out Bin Laden and the Al-Quida. Hardly seems like he just wanted to leave him alone.

Paul's biggest downfall is that he sees the complexity of issues, and he would rather see the American public grasp that complexity when engaging the issue than just spout a 30-second sound byte, which is what debates like these require.

stlouiedipalma;1055278 wrote:As for Ron Paul, he is proving once again that he's nothing more than a dumbed-down version of Ross Perot without the charts. Not going anywhere. My money says this whole contest is over by Sunday morning.

Trying to explain the facts and intricacies of the issues is hardly "dumbing down."

Also, Ross Perot was a business man running for president on his own dime and pandering to disgruntled voters. Paul has been a Senator for quite some time, and has stood on principal, which in many ways has PREVENTED him from vying for the office sooner.

It's apples to space shuttles difference. Please tell me you were trying to be funny.

majorspark;1055287 wrote:This where he gets nailed. He was booed very harshly at times. He gets off track trying to make points that no one will get. Skip those you are not going to teach at debates.

Agreed. Despite the fact that his overall view is EASILY the most holistically congruent, it can be his downfall when one topic leads so fluidly into another.

sleeper;1055293 wrote:Paul just got booed for endorsing the golden rule. Sometimes Americans make me sick.

Do unto others as you would have them ... AMERICA! F*** YEAH!

ccrunner609;1055306 wrote:what sucks is that at any time in history these guys were on our side at some point. We need Russia to come back.

Yeah, we see them as allies. We equip them. Then, when we do something they don't like, we're surprised that they use their resources to defy us.

That kind of stuff wouldn't happen if we used our military resources more for defensive purposes ... which is what the Central government is responsible to do.

ccrunner609;1055316 wrote:Romney just said "tax free".............what a liar.

He lies well. It makes him a GREAT stereotypical politician ...

... which is apparently what America wants.

sleeper;1055324 wrote:+1

I really hope that someone with sanity prevents us from going to war with Iran. That would be a long bloody war that would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. Iran has an an extremely strong Military, they won't roll over like Iraq or Afghanistan. I could see that war costing 50,000 American lives per year + trillions of dollars when all is said and done. There's no doubt we "win" that war, but overall we lose because our country won't have any money to fund anything.

Eh, Iran doesn't have the resources to sustain a long war, but it would indeed carry on, because it would end up similarly to Iraq, most likely.

Anyone that argues partisan politics make me LAUGH OUT FUCKING LOUD.

Eh, Iran doesn't have the resources to sustain a long war, but it would indeed carry on, because it would end up similarly to Iraq, most likely.

People said the same about Iraq and we were over there for 10+ years. Iran is way bigger(6 times bigger than Iraq), way stronger than Iraq. The initial surge will cost us way more money and way more lives just to get control of the country.

Ron isn't slick like the others. He answered the question about Bin Laden correctly, it just didn't sound good and the warmongers got impatient waiting to hear about how many bombs we are going to drop on Pakistani children.

His answer was essentially, "I voted for the authority to go after Bin Laden. I got upset when we stopped going after him so that we could nation build and go into Iraq. It wouldn't have taken 10 years to get him if I was president. Since we waited 10 years, we might as well have tried to work with the Pakistani government we prop up with tens of billions of ill gotten dollars instead of just raining bombs on them and causing the people of a nuclear armed nation to despise us."

He just couldn't word it that way, which is unfortunate.

sleeper;1055352 wrote:People said the same about Iraq and we were over there for 10+ years. Iran is way bigger(6 times bigger than Iraq), way stronger than Iraq. The initial surge will cost us way more money and way more lives just to get control of the country.

Iran is a huge country and has a lot of mountains. Also, while their military is weak, they do have formidable defense fortifications. We would lose tens of thousands of lives invading Iran and would without a doubt either default on our debt or hyperinflate ourselves into oblivion if we did it.

sleeper;1055324 wrote:I really hope that someone with sanity prevents us from going to war with Iran.

We are already fighting a limited covert war with Iran. Accidents at nuclear facilities that take out around half a dozen buildings not all in close proximity, nuclear scientist blowing up in the streets, cyber attacks etc. Its not just Israel.

sleeper;1055324 wrote:That would be a long bloody war that would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. Iran has an an extremely strong Military, they won't roll over like Iraq or Afghanistan. I could see that war costing 50,000 American lives per year + trillions of dollars when all is said and done.

We have invested heavily in our military might. We have the military assets to defeat them if a true need arises. If the people and the full force of government were behind it we would do so without that high of an American causualty rate. That said I am currently not in favor of it. Nor are the American people. Creeping into it or limiting ourselves in such an engagement is utter folly. In that case your assessment may not be far off.

sleeper;1055324 wrote:There's no doubt we "win" that war, but overall we lose because our country won't have any money to fund anything.

Our invested military assets we hold today likely would bring us the "win". But we are not like historical victors of times past who took the spoils of war. Loser pays in layman's terms. The American people are not ruthless enough to maintain such an empire.

Cleveland Buck;1055360 wrote:Ron isn't slick like the others. He answered the question about Bin Laden correctly, it just didn't sound good and the warmongers got impatient waiting to hear about how many bombs we are going to drop on Pakistani children.

His answer was essentially, "I voted for the authority to go after Bin Laden. I got upset when we stopped going after him so that we could nation build and go into Iraq. It wouldn't have taken 10 years to get him if I was president. Since we waited 10 years, we might as well have tried to work with the Pakistani government we prop up with tens of billions of ill gotten dollars instead of just raining bombs on them and causing the people of a nuclear armed nation to despise us."

He just couldn't word it that way, which is unfortunate.

So many were confused as to what he was getting at. The mistake was made nearly ten years ago. Had we fought the war in Afghanistan like it should have been fought Bin Laden would have been dead. Like what Paul and other thought they were voting for.

I thought we should have went a step further and officially declared war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Put the world on notice that we are not fucking around and the full force and political will of the US govenment is behind the war. The Taliban would have been utterly defeated. And Pakistan would piss down their legs to harbor one of them. A declared enemy offically at war with the US. To do so would be an act of war against the US. Our weakness brought us to this point. Not our strength which is the point Paul needed to bring out.

majorspark;1055395 wrote: Our weakness brought us to this point. Not our strength which is the point Paul needed to bring out.

That's his whole point with the undeclared wars. Not only are they illegal, but they aren't winnable because aren't fully behind them with funding for the troops and the stomach for collateral damage and what not. Instead we try to pussyfoot around and troops aren't properly armed and it is always a disaster. It is too bad Ron isn't the speaker some of these others are, but that is part of his appeal too. People see him and know he is telling them the truth and isn't trying to spin some shit on them.

sleeper;1055352 wrote:People said the same about Iraq and we were over there for 10+ years. Iran is way bigger(6 times bigger than Iraq), way stronger than Iraq. The initial surge will cost us way more money and way more lives just to get control of the country.

They, as a nation, aren't even able to process their own oil, meaning a lot of what military they have is pretty stifled.

They're not Palestinians or anything (they have more than rocks and sticks), and even more than Iraq, but that's not saying much. They WOULD, however, resort to hiding in their mountainous terrain and taking out ground troops whenever possible (or air, if the opportunity presents itself). We'd also inevitably resort to rebuilding Iran.

So, basically, like Iraq.

Cleveland Buck;1055363 wrote:Iran is a huge country and has a lot of mountains. Also, while their military is weak, they do have formidable defense fortifications. We would lose tens of thousands of lives invading Iran and would without a doubt either default on our debt or hyperinflate ourselves into oblivion if we did it.

More succinctly, what I was saying.

majorspark;1055383 wrote:We are already fighting a limited covert war with Iran. Accidents at nuclear facilities that take out around half a dozen buildings not all in close proximity, nuclear scientist blowing up in the streets, cyber attacks etc. Its not just Israel.

True. Three Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed in the last two years. That's not happenstance.

majorspark;1055383 wrote: We have invested heavily in our military might. We have the military assets to defeat them if a true need arises. If the people and the full force of government were behind it we would do so without that high of an American causualty rate. That said I am currently not in favor of it. Nor are the American people. Creeping into it or limiting ourselves in such an engagement is utter folly. In that case your assessment may not be far off.

We agree. We are the #1 military country in the world (with how much we are in debt because of it, we'd better be). Why do we act like we're not ... like if little Iran, without its refined oil, attempted an attack, our military would be overcome?

That seems asinine to me.

majorspark;1055383 wrote: Our invested military assets we hold today likely would bring us the "win". But we are not like historical victors of times past who took the spoils of war. Loser pays in layman's terms. The American people are not ruthless enough to maintain such an empire.

Which is why it would ultimately be better off to leave other nations alone, unless absolutely necessary. That way, we don't have to plunder like barbarians, but neither do we have to rebuild what we ourselves destroy.

majorspark;1055395 wrote:So many were confused as to what he was getting at. The mistake was made nearly ten years ago. Had we fought the war in Afghanistan like it should have been fought Bin Laden would have been dead. Like what Paul and other thought they were voting for.

Bingo, and that's all he's saying, which is pretty obvious to anyone listening.

majorspark;1055395 wrote: I thought we should have went a step further and officially declared war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Put the world on notice that we are not fucking around and the full force and political will of the US govenment is behind the war. The Taliban would have been utterly defeated. And Pakistan would piss down their legs to harbor one of them. A declared enemy offically at war with the US. To do so would be an act of war against the US. Our weakness brought us to this point. Not our strength which is the point Paul needed to bring out.

The Taliban would have at least been a definitive, declared enemy (ie. not a war on "terror").

The statement about "our weakness" is rather telling, and I think you're dead on in saying so, unfortunately. Well-stated.

Cleveland Buck;1055414 wrote:That's his whole point with the undeclared wars. Not only are they illegal, but they aren't winnable because aren't fully behind them with funding for the troops and the stomach for collateral damage and what not. Instead we try to pussyfoot around and troops aren't properly armed and it is always a disaster. It is too bad Ron isn't the speaker some of these others are, but that is part of his appeal too. People see him and know he is telling them the truth and isn't trying to spin some shit on them.

Unfortunately, too many still want a show during dinner. Tap-dancing politicians, while disingenuous, are more palatable than one who is frank about the facts.

[LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT]Paul needs to go on offense with this issue. He always appears to be on the defense. He should say if he were president on 9/11, once it was certain that Bin Laden was responsible and he was being harbored by the nation state of Afghanistan governed by the Taliban regime. He would publically petition the sovereign state of Afghanistan to immediately and unconditionally surrender Bin Laden to US authorities.

He would publically stress to the government of Afghanistan that the evidence that Bin Laden and his militant group had planned and engaged in an act of war against the US was overwhelming. If the government of Afghanistan refused to turn him over they would be complicit in the act of war against the US by affording him the protection of their government.

When the government of Afghanistan refused as they did, he would take his case to congress and ask for an official declaration of war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan for being complicit in the act of war against us.

The war would have two objectives: The complete and unconditional defeat of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The apprehension or death of Bin Laden and his cohorts. A stern warning to other nations or groups that aiding or harboring our declared enemy would constitute an act of war against the US. Then unleash the full force of the United States. This thing could have ended a long time ago.

It’s fully legal ,constitutional, and just. If Paul backed this route (I am assuming he would) he could verbalize it in a minute or two. It would neutralize the so called “warmongers” as it would be a stronger response than Bush took (which I saw as weak). No one is booing this.

Edit: The reason I put warmongers in quotes is not because I do not believe they exist. I just believe the term is loosely used for political purposes. I have been labeled one. Terrorism, warmonger, a couple of the many words butchered in politics. If people can get past their emotions and intellegently think things through its not hard to separate the sheeps from the goats.[/LEFT]



[/LEFT]



[/LEFT]



[/LEFT]

sleeper;1055324 wrote:+1

I really hope that someone with sanity prevents us from going to war with Iran. That would be a long bloody war that would make Vietnam look like a walk in the park. Iran has an an extremely strong Military, they won't roll over like Iraq or Afghanistan. I could see that war costing 50,000 American lives per year + trillions of dollars when all is said and done. There's no doubt we "win" that war, but overall we lose because our country won't have any money to fund anything.

The difference is that if Iran does anything stupid, the international community will step up and perhaps an internal resistance will surface.

majorspark;1055460 wrote:[LEFT][LEFT][LEFT][LEFT]Paul needs to go on offense with this issue. He always appears to be on the defense. He should say if he were president on 9/11, once it was certain that Bin Laden was responsible and he was being harbored by the nation state of Afghanistan governed by the Taliban regime. He would publically petition the sovereign state of Afghanistan to immediately and unconditionally surrender Bin Laden to US authorities.

He would publically stress to the government of Afghanistan that the evidence that Bin Laden and his militant group had planned and engaged in an act of war against the US was overwhelming. If the government of Afghanistan refused to turn him over they would be complicit in the act of war against the US by affording him the protection of their government.

When the government of Afghanistan refused as they did, he would take his case to congress and ask for an official declaration of war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan for being complicit in the act of war against us.

The war would have two objectives: The complete and unconditional defeat of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The apprehension or death of Bin Laden and his cohorts. A stern warning to other nations or groups that aiding or harboring our declared enemy would constitute an act of war against the US. Then unleash the full force of the United States. This thing could have ended a long time ago.

It’s fully legal ,constitutional, and just. If Paul backed this route (I am assuming he would) he could verbalize it in a minute or two. It would neutralize the so called “warmongers” as it would be a stronger response than Bush took (which I saw as weak). No one is booing this.

Edit: The reason I put warmongers in quotes is not because I do not believe they exist. I just believe the term is loosely used for political purposes. I have been labeled one. Terrorism, warmonger, a couple of the many words butchered in politics. If people can get past their emotions and intellegently think things through its not hard to separate the sheeps from the goats.[/LEFT]




[/LEFT]




[/LEFT]




[/LEFT]

Newt thinks this approach is hogwash. Did anyone catch his comment in the after interview? When referencing Paul's desire to have Congress declare wars, he said (and I paraphrase) "You come here and kill 3100 people, and we can't just go after you without a bunch of lawyers getting in the way? That's ridiculous."

The fact that Newt obviously holds Andrew Jackson in such high regard tells you all you need to know about newt.

WebFire;1055519 wrote:Newt thinks this approach is hogwash. Did anyone catch his comment in the after interview? When referencing Paul's desire to have Congress declare wars, he said (and I paraphrase) "You come here and kill 3100 people, and we can't just go after you without a bunch of lawyers getting in the way? That's ridiculous."

Had they taken this approach in 2001, they could have accomplished it (more than likely unanimously) in less than 24 hours. The idea that the constitution is an impediment to doing things correctly is as wrong as a practical matter as it is disgusting for people who actually believe in the principles contained in it.