BGFalcons82;1016231 wrote:Ugh...sometimes I wonder, Pants...

The point is that we have been their ally since DAY ONE. Dr. Paul believes we can no longer afford to be their ally, so he would tell them to have a nice day and good luck with Syria, Egypt, Libya, Iran, and countless other Muslim countries that want to eradicate Judaism from the planet. Yourself, ClevelandBuck, O Trap, and all of the other Ronulans believe this leads to a safer planet and we would be able to watch the probability of nuclear destruction without raising a finger. This is ridiculous and the question needs put to Dr. Paul and followed up until he says that Israel has the right to self determine their future. Argue with me all you want, but Americans are not ready to turn our backs on Israel, as much as it would please y'all. Thusly, he won't be getting elected anytime soon.

Israel has about 200 nukes...bought and paid for partially by the American taxpayer. She can fend for herself. If the Israeli people are askeered of their government's historically bellicose 'tude, then they should pack up and move to Ohio or something.

sleeper;1016360 wrote:Yes. WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. There isn't anything else to debate, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. Do I need to say it again? It's so simple, but people like to pretend America just has endless amounts of money to police the world.

Really? I thought we were running budget surpluses.

I heard this morning, during a discussion about this very topic, that the Defense budget is only 17% of total federal spending. Yet, entitlement outlays are close to 60%. Why is it everyone thinks the money to cut is Defense first, aid to foreign countries second, everyone elses ox third, and then finally, when no other solutions present themselves, entitlement spending. Going back a few posts, Cleveland Buck correctly points out that spending money to defend the US of A is entirely worthy Constitutionally. However, social experimenting, social engineering, income redistribution and invented healthcare mandates, which aren't enumerated anywhere, are off limits. The defenders of these call them part of America's 3rd rail of politics....touch them and you get burned.

But here several of you are, wanting to gut the military, pull back, ignore the world, and save a couple hundred billion yearly. Hooray for the fiscal hawks, and the Taliban...and the Al Quedas....and the People's Republic of China....and Kim Jong Il...and King Hassad....and Hammas....and Hesbollah...and any other anti-American group. The real targets for spending cuts aren't even on the table and here we are arguing whether or not we'd even have a country by castrating our ability to defend it.

There's one other spending item that will soon become the top spending item...servicing our debt. With the national debt to total over $20,000,000,000,000 after y'all get done re-electing Obama, the debt service will quickly approach $1,000,000,000,000 with a 5% interest rate to entice bond buyers. At that point, we can completely quit paying one dime for the military and still have insurmountable debt. Keep sawing that log though, eventually we'll be taken over by force or by our bond holders.

jhay78;1016365 wrote:Not sure I agree with that part. In 1967, we left Israel to handle their own business, because LBJ was too busy in Vietnam, and they tripled their territory in 6 days. They set back Egypt, Jordan, and Syria's militaries about a decade or so in the process.

You have swerved into actually making my point. Left to their own will to survive, look what they did. Their actions, to this day, are the source of much of the terrorism they absorb and war they perpetuate. Getting out of their way again, what do you think will happen? Will they shrivel and acquiesce to Muslim demands or will they fight harder, knowing that we won't be around to stop their aggression? The past is an excellent predictor of the future I would opine.

BGFalcons82;1016380 wrote:Really? I thought we were running budget surpluses.

I heard this morning, during a discussion about this very topic, that the Defense budget is only 17% of total federal spending. Yet, entitlement outlays are close to 60%. Why is it everyone thinks the money to cut is Defense first, aid to foreign countries second, everyone elses ox third, and then finally, when no other solutions present themselves, entitlement spending. Going back a few posts, Cleveland Buck correctly points out that spending money to defend the US of A is entirely worthy Constitutionally. However, social experimenting, social engineering, income redistribution and invented healthcare mandates, which aren't enumerated anywhere, are off limits. The defenders of these call them part of America's 3rd rail of politics....touch them and you get burned.

But here several of you are, wanting to gut the military, pull back, ignore the world, and save a couple hundred billion yearly. Hooray for the fiscal hawks, and the Taliban...and the Al Quedas....and the People's Republic of China....and Kim Jong Il...and King Hassad....and Hammas....and Hesbollah...and any other anti-American group. The real targets for spending cuts aren't even on the table and here we are arguing whether or not we'd even have a country by castrating our ability to defend it.

There's one other spending item that will soon become the top spending item...servicing our debt. With the national debt to total over $20,000,000,000,000 after y'all get done re-electing Obama, the debt service will quickly approach $1,000,000,000,000 with a 5% interest rate to entice bond buyers. At that point, we can completely quit paying one dime for the military and still have insurmountable debt. Keep sawing that log though, eventually we'll be taken over by force or by our bond holders.

Yeah, because Paul only wants to cut military spending. :rolleyes:

BGFalcons82;1016287 wrote: On another subject, nobody's candidate reflects all of their views on all subjects. It's a virtual mathematical improbability. Therefore, can you name 3 policies/proposals of Dr. Paul's in which you DISAGREE with him?

Well, Paul wants to close down all overseas bases where I wouldn't be opposed to keeping a few around the world with a few thousand troops just to maintain a presence. Paul wants to do that with the Navy though, which is fine too. Not really a huge disagreement there.

He also likes tax credits for a lot of things like private schools and health care and what not, where I believe targeted tax credits can create similar distortions in the market that direct government involvement does. I would rather tax rates get slashed and there are no credits for anything. Again though, not a big deal since he is great on everything else, and tax credits aren't the end of the world.

I'm sure I could find some other trivial things to disagree with him on, but why? I agree with him on the major issues and he is the only one that understands what is coming and how to stop it.

(CNN) - Ron Paul issued a new hit on Newt Gingrich Thursday, suggesting his rival was incautious by taking a hawkish stance on U.S. defense while having deferred military service himself.

"He's probably as aggressive with the military as anybody," Paul said on Fox News. "He supports all the wars in the Middle East a thousand times more than I would. But you know in the nineteen-sixties when I was drafted in the military, he got several deferments. He chose not to go. Now he'll send our kids to war."

Paul, who has seen a recent jump in Iowa polls, served as a surgeon for the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s after graduating from medical school.

Gingrich was an active student during the 1960s, earning a bachelors degree from Emory University in 1965 and a masters from Tulane in 1968. He later earned a Ph.D from Tulane.

In his criticism of Gingrich Thursday, Paul noted an explanation the former speaker has given about his deferments.

"At that time he said that one person wouldn't make a difference," Paul said. "He didn't see how he could make a difference. So I see that as important information. People should know that. It reflects on him."

Thursday's comments aren't the first time Paul has gone after Gingrich. The Texas congressman released a round of negative television ads last week, painting Gingrich as inconsistent and not sufficiently conservative. The ads ran in Iowa and New Hampshire.

A spokesman for Gingrich did not reply to a request for reaction to Paul's comments.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...aft-deferment/

That's what Footwedge likes to call a chickenhawk.

What I like most about this is that was his answer when the blonde whore on Fox was asking him if he was being too mean to Newt in his ads. LOL.

I just hope he is ready for the smears that are coming tonight from Fox. Their parent company makes a lot of money from the endless wars and cronyism. They are going to do everything they can to bring him down.

Watching the debate tonight, and Fox has a Twitter feature designed to rate the candidates. Guess who's winning, all the time?

Ron Paul.

[video=youtube;sJ_9xc2GKog][/video]

Cleveland Buck;1016428 wrote:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...aft-deferment/

That's what Footwedge likes to call a chickenhawk.

What I like most about this is that was his answer when the blonde whore on Fox was asking him if he was being too mean to Newt in his ads. LOL.

I just hope he is ready for the smears that are coming tonight from Fox. Their parent company makes a lot of money from the endless wars and cronyism. They are going to do everything they can to bring him down.

Does the tinfoil ever chafe?

Oh, and it's a silly term when Footwedge uses it...I'd resist hitching my wagon to that horse.

Outside of Ron Paul, I wouldn't vote for any of these morons.

Bachman: She's a liar and an idiot. I'd let her blow me though and bust in her eye.

Newt: A fucking snake. This guy is slimier than Rich Rodriguez.

Perry: Does this guy know what is going on or where he is at? Looks like he is confused all the time.

Romney: This guy claims to be a R?

Santorum: He lost any inkling of credibility when he said, "Iran doesn't hate us because of our policies or our actions, they hate us because of who we are." Huh? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as a screendoor on a submarine.

Huntsman: Who?

dwccrew;1016624 wrote:Outside of Ron Paul, I wouldn't vote for any of these morons.

Bachman: She's a liar and an idiot. I'd let her blow me though and bust in her eye.

Newt: A fucking snake. This guy is slimier than Rich Rodriguez.

Perry: Does this guy know what is going on or where he is at? Looks like he is confused all the time.

Romney: This guy claims to be a R?

Santorum: He lost any inkling of credibility when he said, "Iran doesn't hate us because of our policies or our actions, they hate us because of who we are." Huh? Yeah, that makes about as much sense as a screendoor on a submarine.

Huntsman: Who?

At least we can agree on this!

I say lets just go to war with Iran. Another 10 years, trillions of dollars, Another 10,000 american soldiers dead. America FUCK YEA!!!!

I have obviously stated my support for Dr. Paul but at least Huntsman gets it that we HAVE to fix our economy first and fix America. Our Economy is what has made America the worlds superpower. Our freedom is what makes us who we are. But so many of you are willing to throw our freedoms out the window and throw our economy down the toilet for maybes and what ifs. You cannot fight all these wars we want if you do not have the money to support it.

You guys act like Ron Paul's only way to cut spending is to slash the defense budget when that is not true. He is the ONLY candidate who wants to make real cuts. Cut 1 trillion in a year, balance the budget by the 3rd year. Not in 2020 or 2050. Start to cut back on the Saftey Nets so many of you are complaining about. He believes in a strong military defense when America's security is at risk.

After that debacle of a debate, I am ashamed to have called myself a republican over the years. If Paul doesn't win, I will not vote for any of these clowns. At least Huntsman uses logic and rational thought when speaking but he has no shot at winning anything.

WebFire;1016638 wrote:At least we can agree on this!

LOL, I take my politics much more seriously than my sports. Sports are just fun to banter about. No hard feelings ever about sports.

One thing that I believe either Romney or Newt said was that a strong America is the best chance peace has, or something along those lines. Really? Ever since America became the world's power (roughly around WW1) we have done nothing but be involved in war and conflict. Dunces.

The unfortunate thing is these "conservatives" think that supporting war equals patriotism and that if you are against unjust wars, you are a unpatriotic and that the fact you actually want young american soldiers to live and be functioning members of society as opposed to be sent in to die for no reason means

ABC is running some special looking at different things from 2011. They just did a bit about the Republic candidates, and Ron Paul was the only one to not even have his name mentioned. :rolleyes:

They make too much money off these wars to speak out against them. They know that these wars are wrong, but why would they say that and lose money?

And I can't believe how they discussed getting the drone back from Iran. Let Iran have it. It is outdated already. Do people truly believe we don't have something more sophisticated than that drone now that is just waiting to be used? Also, I don't think they can reverse engineer the technology anyways.

WebFire;1016691 wrote:ABC is running some special looking at different things from 2011. They just did a bit about the Republic candidates, and Ron Paul was the only one to not even have his name mentioned. :rolleyes:

Both the far right and the far left are afraid of Dr. Paul. This is why I support him. If these two radical factions are intimidated and threatened by one old man, his ideas and beliefs must be right and true.

dwccrew;1016693 wrote:They make too much money off these wars to speak out against them. They know that these wars are wrong, but why would they say that and lose money?

And I can't believe how they discussed getting the drone back from Iran. Let Iran have it. It is outdated already. Do people truly believe we don't have something more sophisticated than that drone now that is just waiting to be used? Also, I don't think they can reverse engineer the technology anyways.

Why are we flying drones over a sovereign country anyway?

This whole Iran debate is ridiculous anyway. There are two possible outcomes. They get a nuclear weapon and we learn to deal with it or we invade and occupy Iran indefinitely. There are no other options. Now someone tell me which of those is even the least bit feasible.

And this is why the powers that be have such a good plan. They have whipped up enough blood lust in the public and divided people into parties that we act like are family. They will push for us to colonize Iran, then Syria, then Egypt. Our enemies will multiply exponentially, so there will always be more countries we need to invade so they don't get a nuclear weapon. We will be bankrupt and in civil disorder here long before it gets to that, but that is the plan.

We are spread thin all over the globe and on the verge of economic collapse. We are weaker than we have ever been precisely because of the liberal foreign policy and liberal domestic policy and reckless monetary policy. Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands this and the only one that will fix it.

Cleveland Buck;1016703 wrote:Why are we flying drones over a sovereign country anyway?

Exactly. If we ignored that entire region, instead of uniting against us as a common enemy, they'd fight each other and we wouldn't have to worry about them attacking us.

pmoney25;1016671 wrote: After that debacle of a debate, I am ashamed to have called myself a republican over the years. If Paul doesn't win, I will not vote for any of these clowns. At least Huntsman uses logic and rational thought when speaking but he has no shot at winning anything.

I like Huntsman. I wouldn't mind him if he got the nomination, and least he doesn't come off as a complete douche.

With that said, I'm already all in on Ron Paul.

Huntsman isn't as bloodthirsty, but he wants just as much intervention overseas and is way too big government liberal domestically for my liking.

I watched like the last 40 minutes of that bullshit and they didn't talk to Ron Paul once.

This was some scary shit tonight. Santorum wants war in South America and the whole Middle East, Gingrich never met a war he didn't like, Romney doesn't care he just wants to print money and line the pockets of his banker buddies, and Bachmann is insane. I would be scared to death to have her at the control of our nuclear arsenal.