Perry is sinking in polls already

Ty Webb;894956 wrote:Perry is sinking in polls already

I still plan on voting for Romney despite his poor performance in the debates, but anyone is better than the guy in office. "Pass This Bill!", yeah the religious rhetoric worked in '08, we won't be fooled again.

Cleveland Buck;894409 wrote:I heard him explain why Bin Laden and the Muslims hate us. If you heard him blame 9/11 on America then you heard what you wanted to.

There are reasons why the Japanese attacked us too. We were economically aiding their adversaries. We were interfering with their supply of oil/steel/credit. I suppose if we would not have done so the Japanese would not have attacked us. But making that point while arguing an anti-interventionist foreign policy during the 1948 presidential election would be fatal.

I know what Ron Paul is trying to say. We definitely need to scale back some of our activities on the world stage. But this is where Ron Paul's train comes off the tracks. The world is governed by the aggressive use of force (military and economic). This idea that not using our power and not getting in the fight is somehow going to be seen as some noble gesture is ludicrous. In fact it will be seen as a weakness and we will pay. History bares this out.

Paul makes a good point when he asks the question "what would we do in their situation". Well we would fight. We have been in a similar situation. The world empire of the day had troops stationed on our lands against our will. The British empire was the most powerful on earth at the time. We had no navy. No heavy weapons. Little military training. Did we pack commercial naval vessels hauling innocent civilians with gun powder and sail them into the port of London and detonate them? No. We sent the King a letter and told him to GTFO. When he sent his army to come get us large numbers of regular individuals grabbed their personal arms and took on what was at the time the most powerful and professional army of the time.

Paul really fucks himself when he allows the equation to be made with individuals throwing off their oppressors with 9/11.

Ty Webb;894902 wrote:Only two I would ever vote for are Hermain Cain and Jon Huntsman

You posted once how Herman Cain was a shitbag that could not run a business. What changed your mind.

Ty Webb;894902 wrote:Only two I would ever vote for are Hermain Cain and Jon Huntsman

I get why you would vote for Huntsman but why Cain?

Herman Cain has my support and my vote. Of all the republican candidates he is the only I will vote for. If anyone else gets the nomination, it will only be a vote against Obama.

majorspark;894983 wrote:You posted once how Herman Cain was a shitbag that could not run a business. What changed your mind.

bigdaddy2003;895072 wrote:I get why you would vote for Huntsman but why Cain?

Major....I still stand by my statement that Cain isn't a sound business man....but I don't ever think I called him a shitbag. If I'm wrong...please post and I will gladly take it back.

bigdaddy....Huntsman and Cain are the only ones who don't appear to have the "this is all about me attitude". While I don't agree with Huntsman and Cain on very many issues,atleast they have ideas and can explain them in a calm rational manner,unlike the other canidates. I call these two the "Mike Huckabees" of 2012. I call them that because while they have sound,rational ideas....they just aren't exciting enough to win the Republican nomination. I like both of them,and if I don't like the Democratic field in 2016....I could see myself supporting Amb.Hunstman(or Gov.Christie)

BGFalcons82;894467 wrote:Nope, I don't think he's blaming America first, but there was a hint of it last night and on his website that Santorum referenced.

We don't need another damn apologist as President. We don't need our leader blaming the USA for the world's ills. We don't need another President downgrading American Exceptionalism. We've got that now and we don't need Obama Lite.

I agree we need to close some bases, GTFO of Afghanistan, and trim military spending on wars we've been fighting and the new one in Libya. Having written that, we don't need to shut down our operations around the globe, tell Israel to F-off, wish Kim Jong Il the best of luck, let Achmedinejad do whatever he pleases since he's not directly threatening us, and forget about our place in the world as Reagan's shining city on the hill. Mr. Paul would bring a brand new style of danger to America's foreign policy and for that reason alone, he can't be elected to be leader of the free world. I know you and others like him, but his is not the way to a safer planet.

Yes, because the Policy of Nation building has made the world so much safer for Americans. I don't really understand how hard of a concept it is that once a nation starts to spread itself too thin trying to create a world empire, devalues its currency and starts to loosen up on its morals that that empire will crumble like all other empires before it. You cannot possibly think for a moment that the fact we are in their countries, trying to tell them what to do and how to live doesn't have the biggest impact on creating terrorist. Hell we became a Nation mainly because we didn't want some guy from across the ocean telling us what to do. I am 100% behind having a strong national DEFENSE. Defense being the operative word.

As for 9-11. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have stated on numerous occassions the reason for the attack was largely due to our involvement in Saudi Arabia, Sanctions against Iraq and support of Israel. It really had nothing to do with American Exceptionalism or their envy of our freedom.

He also stated in 2004 that his goal was for America to bankrupt itself by engaging in these wars. The strength of any nation lies in it's ability to create a strong economy not in blowing shit up. In all honesty there are only two options, win or go home. 10 years is way too long for this to go on.

But I guess if we are going to go out, we might as well go out in a blaze of glory so lets elect another politician who will continue to expand our empire and bleed us dry, another politician who will practice Corporate Welfare as well as keep the entitlement programs going and at the end of the day can really make a great speech.


And you bring up Ronald Reagan Shining city on a hill reference. I agree America should be seen as beacon of hope for those in the world without freedom but he wanted to encourage and convince people to seek freedom not have a form of governance forced upon them.

I would love it if Herman Cain had a chance. A Cain/Rubio ticket would be great.

majorspark;894978 wrote:There are reasons why the Japanese attacked us too. We were economically aiding their adversaries. We were interfering with their supply of oil/steel/credit. I suppose if we would not have done so the Japanese would not have attacked us. But making that point while arguing an anti-interventionist foreign policy during the 1948 presidential election would be fatal.

I know what Ron Paul is trying to say. We definitely need to scale back some of our activities on the world stage. But this is where Ron Paul's train comes off the tracks. The world is governed by the aggressive use of force (military and economic). This idea that not using our power and not getting in the fight is somehow going to be seen as some noble gesture is ludicrous. In fact it will be seen as a weakness and we will pay. History bares this out.

Paul makes a good point when he asks the question "what would we do in their situation". Well we would fight. We have been in a similar situation. The world empire of the day had troops stationed on our lands against our will. The British empire was the most powerful on earth at the time. We had no navy. No heavy weapons. Little military training. Did we pack commercial naval vessels hauling innocent civilians with gun powder and sail them into the port of London and detonate them? No. We sent the King a letter and told him to GTFO. When he sent his army to come get us large numbers of regular individuals grabbed their personal arms and took on what was at the time the most powerful and professional army of the time.

Paul really fucks himself when he allows the equation to be made with individuals throwing off their oppressors with 9/11.

You are absolutely right about Japan. We could have avoided being attacked by them, but the fact of the matter is they attacked us and we responded. When we were attacked on 9/11 Ron Paul voted to respond there too. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Invading countries that haven't attacked us and picking the dictators that these people live under in the Middle East doesn't make us any safer and we can't afford it. We can't afford to have our troops in Germany and Japan and everywhere else protecting them so they can fund their welfare states. Ron Paul isn't advocating that we are weak against real threats. He is advocating we stay out of the internal affairs of sovereign nations. He has even said that we will be there to help our allies if they were attacked. I don't necessarily want to close every overseas base and bring every troop home, I think having maybe 25-50 bases around the world in places where they want us would be a good thing, but Ron Paul's position is definitely closer to mine in that regard than the warmongers who want to invade Iran and Syria and start nation building in Libya. It is really a ridiculous idea that we should be dictating to sovereign countries who should be in charge and what their people should have, and we expect them to be happy about it? Not to mention, we are bankrupt and can not afford it anymore, at all.

Ty Webb;895263 wrote:Major....I still stand by my statement that Cain isn't a sound business man....but I don't ever think I called him a ****bag. If I'm wrong...please post and I will gladly take it back.

bigdaddy....Huntsman and Cain are the only ones who don't appear to have the "this is all about me attitude". While I don't agree with Huntsman and Cain on very many issues,atleast they have ideas and can explain them in a calm rational manner,unlike the other canidates. I call these two the "Mike Huckabees" of 2012. I call them that because while they have sound,rational ideas....they just aren't exciting enough to win the Republican nomination. I like both of them,and if I don't like the Democratic field in 2016....I could see myself supporting Amb.Hunstman(or Gov.Christie)

Yet you voted for Obama, who is the quintessential "all about me" politician? SMH

pmoney - not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth or not, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll take them as your opinions and certainly not mine.

Down to brass tacks with Mr. Paul: His desire to leave Israel to defend for itself, to leave the Achmedinejads/Kim Jong Il's/Muslim Brotherhoods to grow and prosper, and essentially become an isolationist country (how'd that work for us in the 30's by the way?) will lead us to a war we don't want to fight. His vision, while duly noted for cost-savings, brings further terror, further conflict, and likely some form of nuclear component into the world that he will have to deal with sooner or later...or possibly his successor. I don't agree with the nation-building that you attempt to link to me, but we must maintain a world presence and stand behind Israel moreso than ever before as they have renewed enemies in Egypt and Libya.

Writerbuckeye;895757 wrote:Yet you voted for Obama, who is the quintessential "all about me" politician? SMH

You're kidding me right?

Ty Webb;895829 wrote:You're kidding me right?

I wouldn't guess writer is joking considering that it is correct.

Umm...no it really isnt

Obama is the most narcissistic, ego maniacal persons to sit in the Oval Office -- perhaps in history. He's extremely thin skinned about any criticism, and believes people should just automatically do what he says because he's the one saying it.

Ty Webb;895838 wrote:Umm...no it really isnt

Oh come on, you have to take the blinders off if you don't think Obama hasn't been a "look at me" politician from his short stint in the Senate through the race for the Presidency and even now.

Writerbuckeye;895963 wrote:Obama is the most narcissistic, ego maniacal persons to sit in the Oval Office -- perhaps in history. He's extremely thin skinned about any criticism, and believes people should just automatically do what he says because he's the one saying it.

Kinda like how Chaney believed?

Ty Webb;895974 wrote:Kinda like how Chaney believed?

Cheney's gone. Try to keep up. We're talking about Obama now.

Doesn't matter....you bring up the comment about Obama,the exact same thing applied to Cheney.

Cheney pretty much told Bush what to do,and expected everyone else in the administration to follow suit. At least Colin Powell had the balls to tell him to fuck off.

Make no mistake about it,President Obama run his administration. He doesn't play second-fiddle to his VP.

Ty Webb;895838 wrote:Umm...no it really isnt

The most narcisstic POTUS since LBJ isn't the quintessential "all about me politicial"?

Riiiiight.

You folks can't discuss the weaknesses of Obama, even though it's so obvious a child could see it -- yet you have no problem diving back into the blame Bush mantra when we're basically 4 years removed from it.

Pathetically sad.

You guys crack me up...really you do

Writerbuckeye;895992 wrote:You folks can't discuss the weaknesses of Obama, even though it's so obvious a child could see it -- yet you have no problem diving back into the blame Bush mantra when we're basically 4 years removed from it.

Pathetically sad.

It's a comparison...and it's a comparison that is highly accurate

It's a dodge and not particularly well done.