Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • I Wear Pants
    pmoney25;1016689 wrote: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
    +1
  • Cleveland Buck
    I Wear Pants;1016718 wrote:I watched like the last 40 minutes of that bullshit and they didn't talk to Ron Paul once.
    They got Ron fired up by having Bachmann screeching at him about needing war in Iran and wiping out the brown people and what not. Once they got Ron's response against war in Iran they stayed away from him hoping he would lose some support with the more bloodthirsty voters.
  • believer
    Cleveland Buck;1016719 wrote: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.
    Lay off the hyperbole just a little.

    C'mon....I admit the Republican field sucks and is an embarrassment ( including your hero Dr. Paul), but any of these morons would be better than what we have now.
  • fish82
    Cleveland Buck;1016724 wrote:They got Ron fired up by having Bachmann screeching at him about needing war in Iran and wiping out the brown people and what not. Once they got Ron's response against war in Iran they stayed away from him hoping he would lose some support with the more bloodthirsty voters.
    If by "fired up," you mean "babbling incessantly," then yeah. That exchange on Iran was precisely why some people have heartburn over him.
  • WebFire
    fish82;1016928 wrote:If by "fired up," you mean "babbling incessantly," then yeah. That exchange on Iran was precisely why some people have heartburn over him.
    Too bad people can't use their brain and have to elect someone who can read perfectly from a teleprompter. Change we can believe in.
  • Cleveland Buck
    For those who are calling for the blood of more U.S. troops and Iranian children, Russia and China buy their oil from Iran and have already stated that they will back Iran in an armed conflict with us. Is World War 3 necessary to keep the Iranians from a weapon they may not ever get and would never use if they did?
  • fish82
    Cleveland Buck;1017043 wrote:For those who are calling for the blood of more U.S. troops and Iranian children, Russia and China buy their oil from Iran and have already stated that they will back Iran in an armed conflict with us. Is World War 3 necessary to keep the Iranians from a weapon they may not ever get and would never use if they did?
    WW3? Seriously?

    Be honest. You were a drama major, am I right? :rolleyes:
  • Cleveland Buck
    What would you call a war with us, Iran, Russia, and China?
  • sleeper
    Cleveland Buck;1017101 wrote:What would you call a war with us, Iran, Russia, and China?
    Business as usual.
  • Skyhook79
    sleeper;1016711 wrote:
    With that said, I'm already all in on Ron Paul.
    Thats enough reason for me to not vote for Ron Paul. The only thing missing is free Ipads to everyone if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination.
  • sleeper
    Skyhook79;1017144 wrote:Thats enough reason for me to not vote for Ron Paul. The only thing missing is free Ipads to everyone if Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination.
    Cool. Not voting for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama, enjoy!
  • Footwedge
    Cleveland Buck;1017043 wrote:For those who are calling for the blood of more U.S. troops and Iranian children, Russia and China buy their oil from Iran and have already stated that they will back Iran in an armed conflict with us. Is World War 3 necessary to keep the Iranians from a weapon they may not ever get and would never use if they did?
    Come on Buck...don't you know? It's an all "volunteer" army. They enlist for free...never expect any entitlements either (free college education).

    So what if we lose another 4500 of these volunteers...and have another 35,000 or so maimed for life...of which you and I will have to pay for.

    To quote Emerson, Lake and Palmer..."ooooh what a lucky man he was"....

    ".....He went to fight wars
    For his country and his king
    Of his honor and his glory
    The people would sing

    Ooooh, what a lucky man he was
    Ooooh, what a lucky man he was

    A bullet had found him
    His blood ran as he cried
    No money could save him
    So he laid down and he died...."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x6uQ6yZsOY

    The prosthetic arms and legs business is booming. Time to invest in them.

    Time to show your patriotism....chant USA...USA...and wave your flag as we start another needless war in an area half way across the globe.

    Chickenhawks like Newt, Sanitarium, that dainty lady Shelly Bachman, and the entire staff at the National Review and Weekley Standard...all approve this message.
  • fish82
    Cleveland Buck;1017101 wrote:What would you call a war with us, Iran, Russia, and China?
    ...a figment of your drama-addled imagination.
  • jhay78
    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.
    Great point. You can disagree with Ron Paul and still agree with pulling back our military presence in the world somewhat. Some people act like military spending takes up 60% of the budget and is the sole cause of our yearly $1 trillion + deficits.

    And several posters on here need to watch how they use the term "war" when they should be using the phrase "nation building". The dreary decade of spending, lives lost, and frustration is from trying to rebuild Western democratic values into an ungrateful foreign population whose underlying ideology automatically springs forth totalitarianism. That's no excuse to ignore real threats to our national security now, which is the point I think Santorum was trying to make.
    BGFalcons82;1016386 wrote: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.
    I pretty much agree there, although Israel absorbed a whole lot of terrorism before 1967.
    fish82;1016928 wrote:If by "fired up," you mean "babbling incessantly," then yeah. That exchange on Iran was precisely why some people have heartburn over him.
    Does Dr. Paul know who the biggest state-supporter of terrorism is? Would he answer Iran, or the United States?

    One reason among many. I sympathize with the Paul supporters about the attention he gets at the debates, albeit for different reasons. I can't stand the moderators picking the front-runners for everyone, and ignoring certain people on the stage. But people need to hear how this guy really feels about the causes of hatred toward America.
  • Footwedge
    Federal spending is 23% of the budget...whereby welfare, medicare and medicaid are about 18% of the budget. I have no idea where the 60% and the 17% numbers came from....but obviously came from somebody who has a drinking problem.
  • pmoney25
    What country do some of you live in? What do you think is the cause of hatred towards America? Our Freedom? Our Values?

    All Ron Paul is saying is exactly what Osama Bin Laden and The CIA said were the reasons behind 9/11. He is not blaming Americans for what happened. He is blaming Politicians for stupid foreign policy views that have put us in these situations. If I came over to your house and started tearing up your yard, busting out your windows, destroying your property, Would you be mad at me for that or because I am a pretty nice guy with a nice house and good job?

    Saying that does not mean that the terrorists are justified or right for doing what they did. All it means is that when making Foreign Policy decisions, we should try to examine what the consequences could be for our actions. That is what a rational, logical person does. An arrogant, uneducated person goes crazy and wants to destroy everything then wonders why people hate them.


    This whole notion that you have to love every decision America makes or you support terrorism is ridiculous. When in all reality, the ones who want to go to war whenever for whatever reason are about as anti American as it gets.

    And last, Ron Paul is not Anti-War. He believes in a just war. A war that is declared by Congress, A war that ends quick and when you win, you get out. He believes what the Founders believed and what the constitution believes.
  • believer
    pmoney25;1017488 wrote:And last, Ron Paul is not Anti-War. He believes in a just war. A war that is declared by Congress, A war that ends quick and when you win, you get out. He believes what the Founders believed and what the constitution believes.
    Paul may believe and run on these ideals, but the moment he would occupy the WH, he'd behave just like everyone else.

    While I generally agree with Ron Paul, the undying loyalty of the Purist Paulists amazes me.
  • I Wear Pants
    believer;1017498 wrote:Paul may believe and run on these ideals, but the moment he would occupy the WH, he'd behave just like everyone else.

    While I generally agree with Ron Paul, the undying loyalty of the Purist Paulists amazes me.
    What makes you believe that he wouldn't do what he's said?
  • majorspark
    pmoney25;1017488 wrote:And last, Ron Paul is not Anti-War. He believes in a just war. A war that is declared by Congress, A war that ends quick and when you win, you get out. He believes what the Founders believed and what the constitution believes.
    I agree with Paul that an official declaration of war by congress is best. A declaration authorizing the president to use military force against a specific entity or nation is a declaration of war that allows the president to commence war when he sees fit against the declared enemy. The declaration is weaker but constitutional.

    When it comes to offically declared wars some have been far more costly (especially in lives lost) than recent wars. A declared war has not guaranteed we win quickly and get out. The American southwest is ours today because of a declared war. Our military still has not got out of Germany and Japan. We were out of Vietnam and Iraq a lot quicker.

    The wars we consider the most assuradly just have been the most costly in lives. Especially when you factor in the US population at the time of the wars. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and WWII.
  • majorspark
    believer;1017498 wrote:Paul may believe and run on these ideals, but the moment he would occupy the WH, he'd behave just like everyone else.
    I do not think he would behave like everyone else. He would however given the intellegence that Paul is not currently privy to, act more aggressively on the world's playground than he lets on.
  • WebFire
    Must watch.

    [video=youtube;I8NhRPo0WAo][/video]
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;1017671 wrote:I agree with Paul that an official declaration of war by congress is best. A declaration authorizing the president to use military force against a specific entity or nation is a declaration of war that allows the president to commence war when he sees fit against the declared enemy. The declaration is weaker but constitutional.

    When it comes to offically declared wars some have been far more costly (especially in lives lost) than recent wars. A declared war has not guaranteed we win quickly and get out. The American southwest is ours today because of a declared war. Our military still has not got out of Germany and Japan. We were out of Vietnam and Iraq a lot quicker.

    The wars we consider the most assuradly just have been the most costly in lives. Especially when you factor in the US population at the time of the wars. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and WWII.
    Ron Paul and others would have us get out of Germany and Japan. And we aren't out of Iraq. A billion dollar embassy is not "out".
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;1017676 wrote:I do not think he would behave like everyone else. He would however given the intellegence that Paul is not currently privy to, act more aggressively on the world's playground than he lets on.
    And you're privy to this to know that there is secret intelligence that makes so much damn sense to be aggressive and get Americans killed, our money wasted, and countless non-Americans killed as well?
  • rydawg5
    Breaking news. I've decided to vote for Ron Paul.
  • I Wear Pants
    Much better choice than the other GOP candidates and I believe a better choice than Obama.