FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republican Debate Nov. 12, 2011





coolclay
The debate last night was amazing, for the hilarity factor of the other candidates and their ridiculous canned responses, but also for the way Paul was able to prove himself once again as the man for the job.


My favorite moments of the night
Quote:
Ron Paul strongly disagreed with his two rivals, stressing the need to go to Congress before taking military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran.
While the majority of everyone else expressed they were ready to jump into another unconstitutional war .

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/

And the torture question
Quote:
Ron Paul vehemently disagreed, declaring that "water boarding is torture" and "torture is illegal" by both U.S. and international laws. He called the practice of water boarding both "immoral" and "impractical," questioning the effectiveness of such techniques.
While Cain and Bachman were like um yea waterboarding isn't torture and if it was sure why not!


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323716-503544/cain-bachmann-say-they-would-support-waterboarding/

It absolutely blows me away that people are actually seriously considering Herman Cain. A elementary school student could come up with a better plan to turn our country around than 9-9-9, I am surprised some extremist Christians haven't realized that the 9-9-9 flipped upside down would be 666, and which would unequivocally make him the devil!
ocalhoun
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Ron Paul strongly disagreed with his two rivals, stressing the need to go to Congress before taking military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran.
While the majority of everyone else expressed they were ready to jump into another unconstitutional war .

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323686-503544/romney-gingrich-at-gop-debate-wed-go-to-war-to-keep-iran-from-getting-nuclear-weapons/

And the torture question
Quote:
Ron Paul vehemently disagreed, declaring that "water boarding is torture" and "torture is illegal" by both U.S. and international laws. He called the practice of water boarding both "immoral" and "impractical," questioning the effectiveness of such techniques.
While Cain and Bachman were like um yea waterboarding isn't torture and if it was sure why not!

Well, those are some good points in his favor.

But... even though radical new ideas are the only thing that could win the election, I don't think he's going to get the nomination without toeing the GOP party line.
liljp617
It's interesting how Ron Paul is completely ignored in every single debate.
Bikerman
I find it amazing that two wannabe Presidents could seriously assert that waterboarding is not torture and is something they support. Notice the whooping from the crowd when they said it ? That also makes me shake my head.
The US has pissed-away the goodwill of the world since 9/11. After the event there was sympathy from pretty much the whole world. Then Bush made his 'for us or against us' speech and people began to say 'hold on a minute'. Then we get AbuGraib, Guantanemo and other outrages and now most people I know are profoundly unsympathetic to the US - even those who would once have been considered friends.
Now you have two clowns trying to 'out-macho' each other and doing it by proudly declaring that they will torture people (and I'm not even going to consider the stupid claim that it ISN'T torture, because anyone who genuinely thinks that is too stupid or too dogmatic to bother with).
Christopher Hitchens voluntarily underwent waterboarding. You will recall that he was and is a vocal supporter of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
He had no doubt it was torture.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
My favorite moments of the night
Quote:
Ron Paul strongly disagreed with his two rivals, stressing the need to go to Congress before taking military action and saying it isn't worthwhile to use military force against Iran.
While the majority of everyone else expressed they were ready to jump into another unconstitutional war .

This was one of my favourites too, but this guy is too old! And he looked fragile as well. I wonder whether he is physically fit for the job?

I thought the one that looked the most self-assured and had a good grasp of how the political cookie crumbles when you're President was Newt Gingrich. I don't think he would offer plenty out of the box as he says he would, he probably would just be a President like any other President before him, i.e. everything is negotiable in order to get votes for himself and for decisions he would like to be made.

Cain, Perry and Huntsman did not come across very self-assured. Romney was not too bad. Have a feeling that Gingrich is going to swing this one, which is an amazing relief. No McCain and no Palin. Things are looking on the up and up for the Republicans. They at least have a selection of good citizens to choose from.

coolclay wrote:
It absolutely blows me away that people are actually seriously considering Herman Cain. A elementary school student could come up with a better plan to turn our country around than 9-9-9, I am surprised some extremist Christians haven't realized that the 9-9-9 flipped upside down would be 666, and which would unequivocally make him the devil!
I can't imagine that he would ever make it. Apart from his policies I thought he looked a bit of a loner on stage, not making eye contact with the other Republicans on stage. Ditto Bachman, Huntsman and Santorum.
liljp617
Bikerman wrote:
I find it amazing that two wannabe Presidents could seriously assert that waterboarding is not torture and is something they support. Notice the whooping from the crowd when they said it ? That also makes me shake my head.
The US has pissed-away the goodwill of the world since 9/11. After the event there was sympathy from pretty much the whole world. Then Bush made his 'for us or against us' speech and people began to say 'hold on a minute'. Then we get AbuGraib, Guantanemo and other outrages and now most people I know are profoundly unsympathetic to the US - even those who would once have been considered friends.
Now you have two clowns trying to 'out-macho' each other and doing it by proudly declaring that they will torture people (and I'm not even going to consider the stupid claim that it ISN'T torture, because anyone who genuinely thinks that is too stupid or too dogmatic to bother with).
Christopher Hitchens voluntarily underwent waterboarding. You will recall that he was and is a vocal supporter of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
He had no doubt it was torture.


It's sad when a Presidential candidate gets people in the audience shaking their head with discontent by stating torture is illegal and immoral. I believe Huntsman and Paul were the only two who stated very clearly that they would not allow torture as any aspect of policy -- and that's basically all they were allowed to say for 30 minutes because the moderators are terrible in every single debate. Cain, as usual, tried to have his cake and eat it too: "I don't personally believe in torturing people, but I will listen to military personnel on the matter."
Bikerman
Yes, that is the worst answer of all. At least the others took a position - his position is weasel - he knows he will accept waterboarding but is setting up the military to take the blame from him. Worm.
coolclay
You got that right Bikerman. I'd vote for some random guy off the street before I'd vote for Cain!

While I do agree that Ron Paul's age is a minor concern, I feel like it gives him both more credibility, knowledge and respect. He is about the same age as my Grandparents, and they travel the world, and are very active. I went whitewater rafting with them just a few years ago.

I don't know this for certain but I am pretty sure he is in peak health as well and physically fit. I couldn't find any medical issues on the web anyway.

Regardless I feel like he has the best and only chance of saving our country before we tip over the horizon (if it hasn't already past). The only policies I don't completely agree with are his environmental plans or lack thereof.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RonPaulI-mNotTooOldtobePresident/2011/06/20/id/400658
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
Regardless I feel like he has the best and only chance of saving our country before we tip over the horizon (if it hasn't already past). The only policies I don't completely agree with are his environmental plans or lack thereof.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RonPaulI-mNotTooOldtobePresident/2011/06/20/id/400658
Thanks for sharing the article. I also think very highly of him. He has a lot of integrity to speak the truth as he sees it. He did look frail to me however. And another reason that made me say what I said was last year in July/August there was an interview on Russia Today (RT) with a guy (I can't remember his name) who had done a survey of people in their twenties and thirties in the big cities like NY, Chicago, etc. and that most of the people in that age group could not relate to the guys in Government. But if you can relate to Ron Paul, maybe there is some hope that he would get support from those age groups. This was right on from the article you quoted:
Quote:
But Paul pointed out that his views are particularly important to the young. "It's these endless, undeclared, unwinnable wars that are dumped on the young people," he said. “That’s why the next generation, the current young people between the age of 15 and 25 or 30, are with me. They’re getting dumped on.”


I like this quote of his from the article as well:
Quote:
Paul disagreed with Lauer who told him that many people agree with some of his views but not all. “People don’t want bits and pieces,” the candidate said. “This is a package. Economic liberty and personal liberty are one and the same and a foreign policy that defends America and does not police the world is part of the package as well.”


So I'm more positive about his chances now. Only thing is I'm quite surprised he landed with the Republicans. I'd have pictured him more a Libertarian. Is this possibly because this is a 2-party dictatorship and he thinks he could make a more meaningful contribution on a Republican platform?
coolclay
Quote:
I'd have pictured him more a Libertarian. Is this possibly because this is a 2-party dictatorship and he thinks he could make a more meaningful contribution on a Republican platform?


You hit the nail on the head. This is not his first presidential bid, he has run as the Libertarian candidate in 88, but with a "two-party dictatorship" he was ignored even more than he is now.

He also ran in 2008 but this time decided to "follow the 2 party rules" and go after the Republican nomination, and did fairly well considering he was ignored by the media again, and garnered 10-25% of the primary vote in different states, but he conceded to McCain. He eventually withdrew his bid, and decided to focus his efforts of change in the House.

Believe it or not he has a HUGE number of young constituents, in 2008 he had around 500 branches of the Students for Ron Paul organization operating across the country!

The thing is he represents the true nature of the Republican party and the ideals it was founded on, the party of Lincoln.
handfleisch
Coolclay, I understand your enthusiasm for Ron Paul is based on positive intentions, I too have been glad about his anti-war positions in the past. But there are some problems with Ron Paul that make him unsuitable to be president.

First, for many years he sent out a newsletter under his name that contained a series of racist, bigoted rants. Paul now says that he didn't write them, but to me that is a lame excuse and disqualifies him from being president. If, on the one hand, he put out a newsletter for decades representing his views and didn't even know the horrible things that were in it, then that is huge and harmful incompetence. How many hundreds of thousands of people got racist propaganda with his name on it? If he can't keep track of his own newsletter, how can he keep track of a presidency?

If, on the other hand, he did know about it, then he's a bigot or he's okay with bigotry and he's lying about it now. Either way, he's unsuitable to be president.

Same goes for his basic Libertarianism, a silly and naive philosophy. Either he actually believes it, which is huge problem, or it's just a vague excuse -- which his anti-choice opinions on abortion would indicate.

If he were elected president, the Republicans would take all the parts of his "Libertarianism" that they liked (selling off all of the national parks, getting rid of federal regulations on pollution and all sorts of things, withdrawing from the UN, taking away women's reproductive rights) and forget about the parts they don't like (stopping aid to foreign governments, cutting military spending.) If you like the idea national state park coastline in California being own by corporations or rich people to be their private beaches, vote Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul newsletters:
Quote:

They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
So I'm more positive about his chances now. Only thing is I'm quite surprised he landed with the Republicans. I'd have pictured him more a Libertarian. Is this possibly because this is a 2-party dictatorship and he thinks he could make a more meaningful contribution on a Republican platform?


Pretty much. I don't know that it has so much to do with making a "meaningful contribution" as it is the simple fact that third party Presidential candidates cannot get elected in our current system. Conspiring to keep third parties out is one of the very few things Republicans and Democrats work together on.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So I'm more positive about his chances now. Only thing is I'm quite surprised he landed with the Republicans. I'd have pictured him more a Libertarian. Is this possibly because this is a 2-party dictatorship and he thinks he could make a more meaningful contribution on a Republican platform?


Pretty much. I don't know that it has so much to do with making a "meaningful contribution" as it is the simple fact that third party Presidential candidates cannot get elected in our current system. Conspiring to keep third parties out is one of the very few things Republicans and Democrats work together on.
Is it a conspiracy or simply a political system that is not serving the US that well any longer? And it's up to "the people" to change it? BUT since the political system seems to be financed and "run" by mega corporations, citizens have become kind'a paralyzed and helpless to make themselves heard.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So I'm more positive about his chances now. Only thing is I'm quite surprised he landed with the Republicans. I'd have pictured him more a Libertarian. Is this possibly because this is a 2-party dictatorship and he thinks he could make a more meaningful contribution on a Republican platform?


Pretty much. I don't know that it has so much to do with making a "meaningful contribution" as it is the simple fact that third party Presidential candidates cannot get elected in our current system. Conspiring to keep third parties out is one of the very few things Republicans and Democrats work together on.
Is it a conspiracy or simply a political system that is not serving the US that well any longer? And it's up to "the people" to change it? BUT since the political system seems to be financed and "run" by mega corporations, citizens have become kind'a paralyzed and helpless to make themselves heard.


I'd like to make it clear I was using the word conspire in the sense of "seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment." I just want to make sure nobody takes my use of the word as implying I believe in some far-fetched conspiracy theory to keep third parties out.

I think it's very clear Republicans and Democrats work together to keep third party candidates out of contention. They've done it quite openly in the past. Ross Perot springs to mind, among others. It is also ignorance and stubbornness among the voting population that weakens the possibility of third parties.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So I'm more positive about his chances now. Only thing is I'm quite surprised he landed with the Republicans. I'd have pictured him more a Libertarian. Is this possibly because this is a 2-party dictatorship and he thinks he could make a more meaningful contribution on a Republican platform?


Pretty much. I don't know that it has so much to do with making a "meaningful contribution" as it is the simple fact that third party Presidential candidates cannot get elected in our current system. Conspiring to keep third parties out is one of the very few things Republicans and Democrats work together on.
Is it a conspiracy or simply a political system that is not serving the US that well any longer? And it's up to "the people" to change it? BUT since the political system seems to be financed and "run" by mega corporations, citizens have become kind'a paralyzed and helpless to make themselves heard.


I'd like to make it clear I was using the word conspire in the sense of "seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment." I just want to make sure nobody takes my use of the word as implying I believe in some far-fetched conspiracy theory to keep third parties out.

I think it's very clear Republicans and Democrats work together to keep third party candidates out of contention. They've done it quite openly in the past. Ross Perot springs to mind, among others. It is also ignorance and stubbornness among the voting population that weakens the possibility of third parties.
OK got it, and thanks for setting it in the right perspective. And I agree. I'd think one of the reasons would be they want to avoid splitting of votes as well?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

I'd like to make it clear I was using the word conspire in the sense of "seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment." I just want to make sure nobody takes my use of the word as implying I believe in some far-fetched conspiracy theory to keep third parties out.

Collusion would be the word you're looking for.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:

I'd like to make it clear I was using the word conspire in the sense of "seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment." I just want to make sure nobody takes my use of the word as implying I believe in some far-fetched conspiracy theory to keep third parties out.

Collusion would be the word you're looking for.


I suppose. They are synonyms after all :O
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Collusion would be the word you're looking for.


I suppose. They are synonyms after all :O

Synonyms, yes, but they don't have exactly the same meaning.

Conspiring implies that a group actually met in secret and explicitly agreed on a plan to do something.
Colluding implies that there were no meetings or explicit agreements, just that all the parties involved work towards the same (underhanded) goal because of the same, shared interests. There may be an implicit understanding between all of them, but not anything ever explicitly stated.
Related topics
Let the gutter politics begin
Tea Party = Occupy??
Can a moderator
best frihost website layout/design/functionality
Bush’s Openly Religious Language
Próxima revolução será suprimir o mouse, afirma Bill Gates
The Official FriHost IRC Channel!
Obama's speech to Congress Feb 24, 2009
September 12, 2011
Hammy's Interesting Thread of Interesting!
December 12, 2011
Timeline in FaceBook...!
Paypal Hacked!
I'm not sure if I'm being jealous or he's just a dick
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.