Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • I Wear Pants
    jhay78;1067115 wrote:Both of those scenarios would involve the unintended killing of scores of civilians, too. Just sayin. Maybe our problem is all that trying to rebuild after the bombing in an effort to make things better for the average civilian.
    But not for a decade or more. The problem was not just being as precise as you can be (and unintended deaths would have still happened but not as many) and then we wouldn't be in the situation where us, the people who had killed these civilians is then telling them how they should set up their government and etc. You can learn to forgive the cop that accidentally kills you loved one in pursuit of a criminal even if it was perhaps recklessly, but that doesn't mean you want him moving in next door.

    As for the debate. Romney still says whatever is expedient, Newt is obsessed with himself, and Santorum is scary. Paul is as usual the only one who doesn't scare me. And I loved how he responded to the question of his health.
  • Footwedge
    majorspark;1067260 wrote: Should we have pursued this policy with Japan prior to WWII. Had we not been meddling I agree we would not have gotten involved. We were economically engaging in cutting off their rescources that sustained their power. Oil, steel, etc.. We got to understand the reason we were attacked.
    WWII again? Really?
  • majorspark
    Footwedge;1067292 wrote:WWII again? Really?
    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or find their hypocracy.
  • Footwedge
    I Wear Pants;1067262 wrote:But not for a decade or more. The problem was not just being as precise as you can be (and unintended deaths would have still happened but not as many) and then we wouldn't be in the situation where us, the people who had killed these civilians is then telling them how they should set up their government and etc. You can learn to forgive the cop that accidentally kills you loved one in pursuit of a criminal even if it was perhaps recklessly, but that doesn't mean you want him moving in next door.

    As for the debate. Romney still says whatever is expedient, Newt is obsessed with himself, and Santorum is scary. Paul is as usual the only one who doesn't scare me. And I loved how he responded to the question of his health.
    Talking about sending politicians to the moon...made me chuckle. I watched the post game show...and no one spoke of Paul...even on CNN.

    The annoying part? Having Newt and Willard talk about the Palestinians. Maybe that Palestinian American who asked the question should become a libertarian.
  • Footwedge
    majorspark;1067296 wrote:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or find their hypocracy.
    When discussing modern day wars, I would not choose to equate WWII with the wars we have been involved with over the past 60 years. They are not in the same time zone. It's as stupid as Bibi claiming Iran is Nazi Germany.
  • majorspark
    Footwedge;1067308 wrote:When discussing modern day wars, I would not choose to equate WWII with the wars we have been involved with over the past 60 years. They are not in the same time zone. It's as stupid as Bibi claiming Iran is Nazi Germany.
    So is there a problem when I make the comparison that we actually declared war during WWII? And following limited wars have well not been so sucessful. History also shows us the great wars of the past century started out as small conflicts between just a few nations. War spreads like manure.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Our actions most certainly provoked the attack that brought us into WWII, and we can debate whether we should have taken those actions. It was definitely a different situation compared to today where we feel the need to be involved in the internal affairs of every third world country.

    I do agree with the point that when a war is declared by Congress, that means the country is behind the effort and will sacrifice in order to pay for it so you don't have stories about troops without armor or ammo. When you have that mandate you know that you can fight the war all out and not worry about offending someone. With these half ass wars we fight now where we don't even have a declared enemy we are trying to do police work with soldiers. No wonder all of these adventures end up being such a mess.
  • I Wear Pants
    To sort of segway I think that's one of the problems with the civilian police in our country as well. We've militarized them so damn much. Soldiers aren't good at being police, they're good at being soldiers.
  • Footwedge
    majorspark;1067318 wrote:So is there a problem when I make the comparison that we actually declared war during WWII? And following limited wars have well not been so sucessful. History also shows us the great wars of the past century started out as small conflicts between just a few nations. War spreads like manure.
    When Al Quaida has the backing of even one single nation, then give me a nudge. Until then, use our military at home to protect our borders and our own country...you know...the way our founding fathers wanted us conservstives to do.
  • pmoney25
    I loved when Ron brought up Newts record on the balanced budget. Newt had no response . I think Newts bubble has burst.
  • fish82
    dwccrew;1067230 wrote:No, I don't. I don't understand how that relates to someone not agreeing with our own government's foreign or domestic policy.
    That's what happens when you jump into a conversation and start spouting off without reading back.

    dwccrew;1067230 wrote:I do agree that there was a reason to invade. I also was just pointing out that they have more than opium and goats. I was pointing out that your post was not accurate. I was not disputing when anything was discovered.
    Thanks. Your accuracy and pettiness is duly noted.
  • sleeper
    pmoney25;1067393 wrote:I loved when Ron brought up Newts record on the balanced budget. Newt had no response . I think Newts bubble has burst.
    I was surprised he did, because Paul rarely attacks other candidates. I'm also glad he did though, if its a choice between Paul and Romney, no sane person would want to pick a RINO like Romney.
  • sleeper
    The other great part about the debate is when Santorum was getting Romney pretty good on his healthcare plan. It sounds exactly like Obamacare, and I'm glad someone was able to call him out on it without the moderators trying to step in.

    Although I do wish that the moderators would stop the pissing match between Romney and Gingrich.
  • sjmvsfscs08
    sleeper;1067602 wrote:The other great part about the debate is when Santorum was getting Romney pretty good on his healthcare plan. It sounds exactly like Obamacare, and I'm glad someone was able to call him out on it without the moderators trying to step in.
  • stlouiedipalma
    sleeper;1067477 wrote:I was surprised he did, because Paul rarely attacks other candidates. I'm also glad he did though, if its a choice between Paul and Romney, no sane person would want to pick a RINO like Romney.

    While in South Carolina during the week of the primary, I had opportunity to see the endless parade of political ads blanketing the airwaves. The single most negative ad I saw was one from Ron Paul blasting away at Rick Santorum. This wasn't a Super PAC ad, either. It was from Paul's campaign, with Ron himself declaring "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad" at its conclusion.

    These candidates may show a different face in debates, but their campaign ads are extremely negative. We just haven't seen any of these yet. When the circus comes to Ohio (provided these four are still in it) I'm sure you'll get a chance to see them at their best/worst.
  • sleeper
    stlouiedipalma;1067719 wrote:While in South Carolina during the week of the primary, I had opportunity to see the endless parade of political ads blanketing the airwaves. The single most negative ad I saw was one from Ron Paul blasting away at Rick Santorum. This wasn't a Super PAC ad, either. It was from Paul's campaign, with Ron himself declaring "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad" at its conclusion.

    These candidates may show a different face in debates, but their campaign ads are extremely negative. We just haven't seen any of these yet. When the circus comes to Ohio (provided these four are still in it) I'm sure you'll get a chance to see them at their best/worst.
    Ron Paul is the best candidate up there. I don't care if he called the others Hitler, I'd still vote for him.
  • QuakerOats
    give it a whirl ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game
  • I Wear Pants
    stlouiedipalma;1067719 wrote:While in South Carolina during the week of the primary, I had opportunity to see the endless parade of political ads blanketing the airwaves. The single most negative ad I saw was one from Ron Paul blasting away at Rick Santorum. This wasn't a Super PAC ad, either. It was from Paul's campaign, with Ron himself declaring "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad" at its conclusion.

    These candidates may show a different face in debates, but their campaign ads are extremely negative. We just haven't seen any of these yet. When the circus comes to Ohio (provided these four are still in it) I'm sure you'll get a chance to see them at their best/worst.
    I'm more concerned that the others didn't have ads blasting Rick Santorum.
  • majorspark
    I Wear Pants;1068428 wrote:I'm more concerned that the others didn't have ads blasting Rick Santorum.
    Why would they waste money on him? He was behind in the polls. If Santorum did get the nomination it would be entertaining watching you people go ape shit thinking Rick wants to control your prick.
  • I Wear Pants
    majorspark;1068438 wrote:Why would they waste money on him? He was behind in the polls. If Santorum did get the nomination it would be entertaining watching you people go ape shit thinking Rick wants to control your prick.
    It was more of a joke than a serious campaign suggestion.
  • stlouiedipalma
    sleeper;1067761 wrote:Ron Paul is the best candidate up there. I don't care if he called the others Hitler, I'd still vote for him.

    I'll say at least he had the balls to say his piece in the ads and didn't hide behind a Super PAC do do his dirty work.
  • dwccrew
    fish82;1067399 wrote:That's what happens when you jump into a conversation and start spouting off without reading back.
    I read the conversation; you didn't make many points or sense throughout it.


    fish82;1067399 wrote: Thanks. Your accuracy and pettiness is duly noted.
    It's petty to point out that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars in minerals and not just opium and goats? Ok.
  • fish82
    dwccrew;1068646 wrote:I read the conversation; you didn't make many points or sense throughout it.
    You obviously didn't...at least until after the fact. IWP managed to grasp the concept we were talking about...I'm sorry you weren't able to. Better luck next time, I guess.
    dwccrew;1068646 wrote:It's petty to point out that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars in minerals and not just opium and goats? Ok.
    In the context of the discussion, being actual reasons for invading Afghanistan, yes. I'm touched that your care level is high enough to point it out though. ;)
  • HitsRus
    Newt Gingrich has picked up the endorsement of Herman Cain

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich/2012/01/28/gIQAG2KnYQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
  • believer
    QuakerOats;1067932 wrote:give it a whirl ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game
    I answered everything as honestly as I could and Rick Perry is my closest match followed by Newt and then Ron Paul. But even with Perry, my answers only matched 5 out of 11 which is telling me that I really don't have a dog in this race! lol