This was the best Republican debate to date, hands down. The format was very good, with the questions pitting candidates against each other on specific issues. And the moderator didn’t intrude upon the debate. Well done, Fox News.
- Duncan Hunter - F - he needs to follow Sam Brownback’s lead and drop out. He is a solid conservative, there is no question about it. But he is out of his league in these debates. His pronouncement that eliminating free trade with China would cure the Social Security problem was….well, not good.
- John McCain - C - he just didn’t do much. Had a good line here and there. Started very slow, I thought, came on a little better later in the debate. He seems to be positioning himself as the “adult” (as noted on NRO’s The Corner) by not going on the offensive with gusto. He did have a great line against Hillary on her Woodstock museum funding proposal, saying it was probably a good cultural and pharmaceutical event but he was tied up at the time and couldn’t make it. Obviously scripted but it played well.
- Mike Huckabee - B - didn’t get enough time to articulate his positions but I thought he recovered well from his poor performance in the last debate. He is the only candidate that is actively reaching out to minorities - maybe this hurts him in some voters eyes but it’s good for the party in mine. He is the only candidate that dares to talk about the need for the spending in health care to move from the extremes at the beginning and end of life to prevention for the masses. When he said ““I’m not interested in fighting these guys – I want to fight for the American people”, the very conservative crowd went nuts. But he completely silenced them when he said, “All jokes aside, there’s nothing funny about Hillary Clinton becoming President.”
- Mitt Romney - B -very strong answers what it means to be a conservative, why marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, and why private insurance is better than government health care. I thought it was his best overall performance of all of the debates. He showed spontaneity, spunk, confidence and detailed knowledge of the issues.
- Ron Paul - F - he needs to drop out and form a third party. He is so far removed from the Republican base that he gets booed more than he gets cheered. He’s completely right about Social Security and he did nail the insurance question, saying that no one is happy with the current system but that will play better to a third party than to a party that has to eventually govern.
- Rudy Giuliani - B - strong performance. He was attacked out of the gate by Fred and handled himself very well, given the audience. Absolutely hit the school choice question out of the park. Out of all of the guys on the stage, I’d want him to be dealing with foreign governments and terrorists. I’m not certain that he can ever distance himself enough from his liberal background to sway the far-right but he’s giving it a good shot. He’ll have to do it without the conservatives in Texas though, given Rick Perry’s endorsement of his candidacy.
- Tom Tancredo - F - go away already. Does he really think illegals are the cause of Social Security’s problems? Every single analysis I’ve seen suggests that they are supporting the system, which is why the government has been soft on the border. Really, he is outclassed here.
- Fred Thompson - C - last debate, he started slow. This debate, he started strong (very good answer outlining why Rudy isn’t a conservative) but looked really weak in the middle. To his advantage, he gave a strong last answer to close the debate. And looked pretty good in the spin room after the debate. But his attempt to attack Rudy failed somewhat when he had to defend his votes on tort reform in a return volley. And his reasoning as to why it was disclosed that he once lobbied for abortion rights sounded like it came straight out of a movie script - “I’m their worst nightmare”. Many people continue to claim that Fred is the conservatives best hope. If that’s true, he needs to put the pedal to the medal and prove it.
I can’t pick a winner in this one. I’d love to give it to Huckabee but he just didn’t get enough time - if he had, perhaps he would’ve won based upon his willingness to put forth new ideas to turn the country around. That leaves me to choose between Rudy and Mitt. I thought that they were both strong in different areas. So I’ll wimp out and say that they were all winners.
Fred wasn’t far behind and was certainly better than in the first debate he participated. He has a tendency to look down and away from the camera, not a good thing for a televised debate. McCain didn’t really help himself as far as I could tell. Sure, he had a good line here and there but nothing really stood out. I’m surprised that when he talks about his long career in the Senate as an attribute, the other guys don’t roll their eyes and ask why he’s complaining about things now.
Tancredo and Hunter need to do the right thing and pull out. Perhaps they can convince another candidate to support their issues in return for an endorsement.
And Ron Paul. What can you say? The guy needs to form a third party and the quicker the better, all the way around. Lots of people are looking for something different, as evidenced by his ability to raise money. He cannot win the Republican primary. In a third party, he could peel away a portion of the conservatives in the Republican party and a portion of the anti-war crowd in the Democratic party. Perhaps then people would take him seriously and listen to his positions, many of which are very positive for the country but are not going to get a hearing in either party.
Well, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
329 Responses to “Grading the Repubs - Part Seven”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
I didn’t watch the debate, but Zogby’s poll shows Huckabees percentage on the poll question ” Who could you not vote for” to be only 35% Hillary’s was 50%
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/hillary_Zogby/2007/10/20/42596.html?s=al&promo_code=3BBB-1
Die-hard conservatives and single-issue voters are going to give this election to the Dems…
Well that was a pretty silly analysis on Ron Paul. He didn’t get booed from the “Republican base”. Why don’t you bother telling the readers what he got booed for saying and who did the booing.
Ron Paul: “I think the American people, if we as a party realize this and understand that 70 percent of the people in America want the war over with. Their sick and tired of it and they want our troops to come home.”
Audience: “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. MAKE THEM STAY!!! WE LOVE WAR!!! WE DON’T WANT THEM HOME!!!”
Ron Paul: “We don’t need to go looking for trouble, we don’t need another Cold War, and all we have to do is start talking to people and trading with people. We don’t need to assume the world is going to blow up.”
Audience: “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. THE WORLD IS GOING TO BLOW UP!!! PLEASE SAVE US BIG GOVERNMENT!!!”
This was hardly the “Republican base”. So who was in the audience? As a Florida Republican I tried to get tickets, but I couldn’t. Why? They were almost all given to the campaigns who paid $100,000 = Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain. That was THIER SUPPORTERS booing the American people for wanting their troops home. That was THIER SUPPORTERS wanting to start another Cold War.
So did the television audience agree? Well sort of. Rudy McRompson did beat Ron Paul in the FoxNews poll.
Rudy McRompson: 35% (Giuliani 11%, McCain 5%, Romney 10%, Thompson 9%)
Ron Paul: 34% (just Ron Paul)
The REAL Republican base has spoken, and they want Ron Paul!
Ron Paul kooks…
Whatareyagonnado?
From what little I saw, Ron Paul was able to control himself a little better this time. I just can’t trust Rudy or Romney to represent me as a fiscal and social conservative. What I am worried about is voting for a more conservative, but lower tier candidate in the Primaries, and then having to choose between Rudy and Hillary in the general.
You’re right, duhmoose, he didn’t shriek and shrill as usual. But he didn’t get a lot of airtime.
Yogi,
Surely you jest. Not the base? Well, then, who is the base? The anti-war protesters that are supporting Paul? Hardly.
The Orlando audience was clearly not representative of the American people. This is the only conclusion one can make when one realizes that RON PAUL WON THE PHONE POLL BY ALMOST 10 PERCENT. The questions that should follow this conclusion are “Why?” was the audience unrepresentative and “How?” did it happen. The poll shows that real, everyday Americans want Ron Paul.
I am not a “Ron Paul kook.” I am a career Naval officer who has been politically neutral for my entire life–but this is about voting for America and our Constitution, which I took an oath to preserve! I am now supporting Dr. Ron Paul with my wallet–and my heart.
duhmoose,
Ron Paul is the only republican who can beat Hillary. If he doesn’t get the nomination, you can forget all about the general election.
Rudy McRompson supporters have trouble even putting a sentance together. Just look at Mike Smith’s comment as an example.
Yogi, nothing you can say will convince me that Ron Paul would be better for American than Hillary. He defames the Founders with the way he mis-represents their ideals, and the way he uses the Constittution to badger others, while clearly not understanding the document itself is getting really tiresome.
“Surely you jest. Not the base? Well, then, who is the base? The anti-war protesters that are supporting Paul? Hardly.”
bigjolly,
I don’t jest, and don’t call me Shirley. (Always wanted to use that)
The Republican base is NOT neoconservative. Bush did NOT get elected as a war-monger. Bush got elected by running on a non-interventionalist, no nation building, ANTI-WAR platform. BUSH changed, NOT the Republican base.
Who do you think the Republican base is? The neo-conservatives that hijacked the party with a liberal foriegn policy? Hardly.
“Yogi, nothing you can say will convince me that Ron Paul would be better for American than Hillary.”
duhmoose,
Thanks! You said it all. Neocons WANT Hillary. They identify more with Hillary than someone with a life-long conservative voting record.
There you go folks, for all to see.
Mike Huckabee is positioning himself very nice to be the VP nominee. It would be nice little bone to throw the social conservatives.
If Ron Paul runs as an Independant, don’t be surprised if 30-40% of his support comes from those who identify themselves as Democrats. It won’t help Dems as much as the media will say it does.
Good grief, where did you pull that one from?
Yogi, you speak of what you do not know. I am hardly a neo-con or a Hillary supporter. I can agree with many of Ron Paul’s views, however, his foreign policy is INSANE. His ideas on defense are INSANE. And as far as Bush running as Anti-war, maybe you didn’t see it, but in 2001, a wake up call was issued to the US. Things had to change.
You pompous Paulestinians (note - that’s not all of the Paul supporters) need to get past this rabid overreaction when someone dares take the name of your savior in vain. And you sane ones should maybe consider calling out the lunatic fringe. They are the ones making all of you look cultish.
Oh come on bigjolly, you can’t really be that ignorant. Well then again, you did write the original piece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_presidential_campaign,_2000
“Foreign Affairs: Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building.”
You should really learn how to use The Google.
Debates are only good for “sound bites” and “flubs”. A good debate for any candidate would be if he/she said something snappy that can be repeated over and over in the campaign. A “flub” is a negative sound bite that can be repeated over and over in the campaign.
“And as far as Bush running as Anti-war, maybe you didn’t see it, but in 2001, a wake up call was issued to the US. Things had to change.”
duhmoose,
A wake up call was issued to conservatives that their policy of non-interventionalism needed to be changed because of blowback from previous interventionalism.
O….K….
Save up some money and buy a clue.
Must be a real FRESH batch of kool aid available?
hamous,
The adults are busy talking. Please go back to the kid’s table.
Plenty of kool aid at the kid’s table.
What a moronic statement. You should study history:
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=70000&rendTypeId=4
Yeah, this guy was an “adult” too. I suspect you’ve got a lot in common.
“What a moronic statement.”
hamous,
I agree 100%! Look at the moron who said it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aQd0ELH7SNI
Chuck Norris’ endorsement:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58255
Hey, Yogi, why not click on the “nation building” link in that wiki article you linked to. Perhaps then you will understand why your statement is nonsensical.
Yogi, please, take a deep breath, put down the talking points, and come back when you can talk about substantive issues with clear logic.
LMAO
Huckabee is a shoe-in with Walker, Texas Ranger’s endorsement.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0d/WalkerCast9399.jpg/250px-WalkerCast9399.jpg
And the noecons say Paul supporters are kooky.
bigjolly,
Clicked.
“Nation-building refers to the process of constructing or structuring a nation using the power of the state. This process aims at the unification of the people or peoples within the state so that it remains politically stable and viable in the long run. Nation-building can involve the use of propaganda or major infrastructure development to foster social harmony and economic growth.”
And what are we doing in Iraq?
Uh, NATION BUILDING.
Now tell us how “we have to” and “Iraq caused 9/11″ and all those other neocon talking points.
With EPJ’s foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Huckabee stance and now Yogi’s lame attempt to disparage him, I think I just might have found my candidate!
Dude, what controlled substance do you have in that pic-a-nic basket? I did enjoy the video in #25 though. I love stop motion animation. It never goes out of style.
hamous,
LOL @ myself
wrong link
here you go
http://youtube.com/watch?v=THQ6tJK01Io&mode=related&search=
OH;
BTW, Bush won an election in 2004 that did not include a non-interventionist non-nation building policy.
Heh-heh-heh-heh. He said “blowback”. Heh-heh-heh-heh.
A guy over at MilBlogs comments on Ron Paul’s non-interventionist policy:
IMHO, I really liked Huckabee - he was the most articulate and he said what America needed to hear. On the other hand, McCain had some really great lines and Ron Paul seemed to have a handle on health issues, but then he is an M.D. so that is his mantra.
I also liked Giuliani as well, but he was too into himself as was Romney. The audience needed to hear what they solutions they could bring to the table, not what they did in the past albeit success. Ruling a country is not the same as governing a city or state even though it does help.
“When are you guys going to realize we’ve got a real enemy who’s beleif is that all Jews should die, and all Christians should either die or be slaves?”
sargevining,
More Jews live in Iran than any other country in the area, besides Isreal.
It’s called PROPAGANDA and you have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
And the tax that they pay for being dhimmis is how much?
vlou,
Thanks for the coherent comment! Funny how when I try to do an even handed post, at least one of the Paulbearers has to come out. Unlike Little Mike, they are unreasonable.
The issue voters and far right may give this election to the Libs.
I watched the debates and I too wondered where Hunter was. This was so obviously a push by the media and Bush Republicans to further their goals of a NAU. Remember if it’s a campaign promise or stand it doesn’t count once you are elected.
And please tell me the difference between Mrs. Bill Clinton and Giuliani.
I think our humble proprietor here could probably speak more authoritatively about the Iranian Jewish diaspora, but I would suspect that life for Jews in Iran is not very peachy.
#38 - Have you LIVED / RESIDED / held an ADDRESS in ANY Arabic country?
no you say?
TRY that for several YEARS - and then cmon back with your enlightenment……….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews
Real frikkin Jewish paradise there in Iran.
Actually bigjolly, it is the non-Paul people that are proving to be “unreasonable”. They are more than happy to elect Hillary and forget about all conservative values just so they can continue a liberal foriegn policy agenda. You already know you can’t win with Rudy McRompson, but yet at least Hillary will keep building the 14 permanent millitary bases and Vatican size embassy so we can continue the occupation of Iraq and further stoke the flames of terrorism.
That defines “unreasonable”.
Poor misunderstood Islamid Fascists.
We read ehat they write and say and we beleive it.
How unadult of us.
Life for Jews in Iran is far more “peachy” than life for arabs in Isreal.
Make sure you list all that info as well.
If the Republicans put Ron Paul up as a Candidate, Hillary will run campaign commercial showing all the endorsements and website fund rasing banners he’s getting from Nazis and White Supremacists.
You know, the ones the Paul Campaign has done nothing about and thinks is no big deal–like an adult would.
It will all she’d have to do to get people running away screaming from that frikkin nut bar.
#47 - “life for arabs in Isreal”
WHICH Arabs?
The bombs-strapped-to-their-bodies-hoping-to-kill-ANYONE around them?
or the ‘nice’ ones??
Please list the Israelis that have been bombing innocent people in Iran please (in the interest of being COMPLETE that you intimated above)
Hmmm, until Saddam was overthrown, where was the only place in the middle east that Arabs could live and vote in a democratic state?
sargevining,
You’re getting a little desperate. A neocon republican playing the race card, GOTTA LOVE IT!
Anyone ELSE hear Charles Durning and the band firing up ‘Dance a lil sidestep’???
color me NOT surprised at the lack of answers to simple questions,,,,,,,,,
Katfish,
“WHICH Arabs? The bombs-strapped-to-their-bodies-hoping-to-kill-ANYONE around them?”
Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder why they put “bombs-strapped-to-their-bodies-hoping-to-kill-ANYONE around them?”
Thank you for proving my point.
#54 I know this is an exercise in futility but exactly what point did he prove?
I;m beginning to see where you’re coming from Yogi.
And it explains those fund raising banners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel
Yah, Life is sooooooo much better for the 40,000 Jews in Iran than it is for the 1 and a half million Arabs in Isreal.
“Hmmm, until Saddam was overthrown, where was the only place in the middle east that Arabs could live and vote in a democratic state?”
hamous,
Congradulations on pointing out that invading Iraq is (D) Woodrow Wilson’s foriegn policy of making the world “safe for democracy”.
BTW, the answer is IRAN, DELETED.
No need to throw in a curse word. You’re doing fine and holding your own without that. LST Moderator
#54 - no please thank YOU for AB SO LUTE LY makin my point from #43…………
I’d venture you possess a higher level of knowledge regarding astrophysics or the rules of ‘curling’ than what’s been displayed so far this morning……
Why are Paulbearers frequently referencing the Vatican lately?
that’s easy.
It’s because they are heartless evil Baby Killers who misguided and uniformed folk enable by making excuses for them.
I’m REALLY understanding those fund rasing banner NOW.
Elders of Zion, Opus Dei–
Don’t you GET IT???????
“Ladies and Gentlemen” (pardon the exclusionary distinction folks)
I smell the vapor trail of a TROLL - and hence I will not waste further common sense……
Sorry for the long post but I think it may be time to drop Nekama’s Hammer on Da Bear:
No one is complaining about me giving ‘ol Fred ‘hitch yer britches’ Thompson a C. I thought I did well by Ron Paul, giving him solid advice.
#63 - Hammy please forgive me if I refrain from holding my breath waiting for you to receive a cogent, civil, and well reasoned response to 11 very well MADE points……….
I just get sick and tired of the media seemingly pushing Mit and Giuliani on us. I want a debate where everyone gets the same amount of time and the same list of questions.
These debates are a joke, nothing more then free time for Mit and Giuliani to get face time. Both are liberals and I will not vote for either one.
I know that makes some people angry because “I am letting Hillary win” But I would rather get her in and out in 4 years then have to deal with one of the other two liberals for 8.
Besides I am through with voting for people who MIGHT do what they say…..
#57 - You need a little geography lesson before you’re, uh, smarter than the average bear. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Iran is not a democratic country. Israel was the only place Arabs lived and voted in a democratic country.
Dear Yogi,
Registering on a blog owned by a Persian Jew who has family still in Iran (plus plenty in California who barely escaped the Islamic Revolution with their lives)– strike one.
Pushing the idiotic canard that life for Arabs in Israel (whether citizens of the State or “even” those under “occupation” in Judea and Samaria) is worse than those of Jews in Iran– strike two.
Misspelling Israel as “Isreal”– strike three.
Doing all of this first thing on my Monday morning– icing on the cake.
So long, farewell, alf wiedersehen, goodbye.
The Zionist Sword of Righteousness thirsts for more bannable blood… do not tempt me.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
#66 Broc, it does seem that way. Hannity’s interview with Giuliani after the debate was like watching a homely schoolgirl swooning over the star quarterback.
I agree on the Hannity thing. Good thing it was limited to a little 2″ box on my screen.
He’s bonafide! He’s a suitor!
I jumped on the Huckabee train after listening to his message on Glenn Beck….fortunately Neocon reminded me via a link to what his message was a few months ago. He is a liar too.
Go Ron Paul!
Daniel James
I screwed up and deleted your comment that got caught in the spam bucket.
Please repost but find a way to shorten that thing.
Squawk
David Benzion is my hero. By the way, do you consider yourself a Zionist?
Daniel, what in his message changed?
68
I like that. A guy that can lop of heads with a smile on his face.
76 lop off*
Great. The DJ/Eric coalition to tell the truth about Huckabee.
This should get really interesting.
#68, But David,
Where are we going to get our witty banter from now… I mean you go chopping the heads off all of those that are blasting their insane mindsets, how will we be able to actually see how crazy they really are…
This is Ross Perot all over again, but this time He who I shall not name, is pulling the fringe elements from both parties. That is the scary thing. If he did get elected who would be running the country, all the skinhead, neo-nazi, open border, isolationists.
I love seeing the Pauliner bot machine at work. I liked Huckabee until I looked at his record on taxation. He is a little too spendhappy for me. Hunter and Tancredo were my two favorites, but they have gotten psychotic about this illegal immigration thing. Yea, it’s a big problem but not the root of all problems. Geez! Oh, by the way, Ron Paul.
Not that I am supporting Ron. Jut wanted to see if the bot will catch it!
#14 -
“I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president believes in nation-building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders.” - George W. Bush, debate with Al Gore, October 3, 2000
Phil_M, I think you just showed that Bush did not run on a no Nation Building platform. Last I checked saying you would be careful about how you applied something is not the same, and in fact the opposite, of saying you would not do it.
And, as has been noted above, little less than a year later the world changed rather drastically.
#75 hamous
Do you really care? Nope.
Go Ron Paul!
One thing Bush has been steadfast about…open borders and his disdain for the Constitution.
#46 -
Careful with your terminology there. The type of Islam you refer to is better termed “Islamic Socialism” or “Radical Islami.” The “Islamic Fascism” line is used in the media as an alternative to “radical” and “socialist” because “fascist” historically equates to the right wing. Terms like “socialist” and “radical” belong to the left wing, but the left doesn’t want people to make that connection and many conservatives have unwittingly adopted the “Islamic fascism” term.
If you need proof that “islamic socialism” is a far more accurate term just look to Europe today where islamic radicals are a growing political force. The muslim political groups there align with the left wing socialist parties without exception. The muslim districts in Britain usually vote for the far left wing of the Labour Party, or for the “RESPECT Coalition” (George Galloway’s breakaway group). They have NOTHING to do with the political right and everything to do with the political left.
Same goes for middle east politics. If there was ever an example of a true “islamic fascist” in the middle east (fascism being defined by the characteristics of secular authoritarian nationalism), his name was Saddam Hussein. Most theocratic islamist regimes have heavy socialist underpinnings, such as a rejection of individual property ownership, a collectivist attachment to advancing the dar-al-Islam at the expense of the individual, a world-wide ideological viewpoint rather than nationalist (as tends to be the case with fascism), and the practice of islamonomics (an economic system based on the rejection of interest and many other monetary earnings as “usury”).
#85 Yes, I do. It was a serious question. If he’s changed positions to suit the political climate I’d like to know.
Just like the question on “Goooh” I’ve asked three times and haven’t received an answer.
#83 -
How about some more then?
“It started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission and that’s where the mission went wrong. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti. I wouldn’t have supported either.” - Bush, responding to a question about Somalia, debate with Gore on October 11, 2000
“But we can’t be all things to all people in the world. I am worried about over-committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. I don’t think nation-building missions are worthwhile.” - Bush, same debate, October 11, 2000
I don’t think Bush could have made it more explicit in 2000 that he looked down upon “nation building.” He’s changed his views though and became exactly what he criticized. That is why we’re having such a hard time in Iraq too. If your objective ceases to be winning and instead becomes “nation building” you end up fighting the war the wrong way.
You should also remember the context of the 2000 election. It came right on the heels of the Kosovo war - a war that most conservatives opposed because of its clear “nation building” characteristics.
Most conservatives opposed other “nation building” aspects of the Clinton presidency - Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia to name a few. They were deemed non-essential to US interests and thought of as wasteful interventionist meddling with no clear aim or purpose. The Republican position in 2000 had little room or tolerance for nation building. Our candidate roundly condemned the previous decade of nation building under Clinton, and most conservatives agreed with him.
It’s disturbing that instead of fighting real wars, Bush has taken to doing exactly what Clinton did - nation building. And as this thread shows, many of the same people who condemned Clinton’s nation-building in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and other places are now happily embracing it as long as we’re the ones doing it in Iraq.
And please note I have no problem with fighting a real war against islamic radicals when necessary. Just make sure it is fought as a war, and Bush is not doing that.
Phil_M,
The landscape changed. And as a matter of record, we did not invade Iraq under the guise of nation building. That we have had to deal with the consequences of the decision to eradicate WMD’s that were purported to be there is a separate issue. IMHO, of course.
The one thing I don’t recall being a huge issue in the 2000 campaign was a bunch of people running around with pocket copies of the Constitution, claiming that their interpretation and only their interpretation was correct.
Speaking of “disdain for the Constitution”:
http://www.goooh.com/Learn.aspx
BigJolly
So now that you’ve thrown the gaunlet down - what about Huckabee
Answer these questions
1. Explain the nursing bed tax of 2,000 per year
2. Explain the clemency of a Rapist who went and raped and killed again
3. Explain the Lulac 2005 speech and the killing of the voter ID and citizenship proof to vote and register and allowing illegal immigrants to compete for state funded scholarships
4. Explain why he refused to allow the removal of the 9% sales tax on food
5. Explain why Arkansas is 18th in state Taxation (Texas is 49/50) and yet 48th in income (Texas is 37th and has a large poor illegal immigrant population)
6. Explain why he’s suppotying a nationwide ban on smoking
Go ahead -
Answer me these questions three, ere the other side you’ll see…
Sorry, Eric, after your comment #271 over the weekend, I shall return to my policy of not responding to your comments. Enjoy.
You wanna cirlce jerk all day?
Not me
So I will assume you have no answer then…..
#97 So I’ll take it that you approve of the unconstitutionality of your new “non-party”’s positions on who can qualify as a candidate. Maybe you should refrain from future lecturing on the Constitution.
I miss interpreted this post from you so you could respond on your own terms
bigjolly Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
Great. The DJ/Eric coalition to tell the truth about Huckabee.
This should get really interesting
Sooo…
I just thought it fair to let YOU explain - present proof to the contrary
All Huckabee is doing is Clinton’s they have a vendetta thing
Any articles refuting the facts would be nice
Comment 271 was not my wording it was a post by two people MB4 and Neo at a conservative national blog
I am refraining from commenting on Huckabee’s character just stating facts backed up by actual video from the candidate himself
All I wrote was Neo Nails it again
The liar and crook was written by someone else a prominent conservative blogger quoted by a long time LST blogger
Sorry for the confusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2lap_RFiBQ
But it was in reference that Daniel and I were the only ones against Huckabee - there are more but that would be pushing the pushing other blogs limits
Comments like I’m frothing at the mouth a part of a coalition - you know stuff like that - lets go away from the personal and lets look at these candidates
How so? How has the “landscape” of radical islam changed? How is radical islam today significantly different from that encountered by practically every single country in the history of mankind who has ever faced a muslim invader or insurgency?
The driving religious ideology - expand the dar-al-islam - is the same. The quest for global domination is the same. The preferred methods of the enemy - guerilla warfare, insurgency attacks, blowing up stuff, and brutally executing people - are the same.
Like it or not, we’re dealing with the exact same problem Charles Martel stood down in the 8th century. We’re dealing with the exact same problem Jon III Sobieski drove away from the gates of Vienna in 1683. We’re dealing with the exact same problem that besieged and slaughtered Gordon in Khartoum in 1885. The same problem that tried to turn Iraq over to Hitler in 1941. The same problem that besieged the U.S. embassy in Iran in 1979. The same problem that bombed the Beirut marine barracks in 1983. The same problem that blew up an airplane over Lockerbie in 1988. The same problem that tried to blow up the twin towers in 1992, that blew up the Khobar Towers in 1996, that bombed several of our African embassies in 1998, and that bombed the USS Cole in 2000. The same problem that blows up trains in Europe and assassinates people for drawing cartoons. And yes, the same problem that blew up the World trade center in 2001.
Far from changing, the landscape of what radical islam is and what radical islam does has been remarkably consistent for well over 1,000 years, and we are by no means the first to recognize or deal with them.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries Britain dealt with virtually the exact same problem we are dealing with now, and in the exact same countries with even more lives lost than we have experienced to date. Go look up the names Rashid Ali al-Kaylani in Iraq, or Muhammad Ahmed al-Mahdi in Sudan, or Mirza Ali Khan in Pakistan, and read about their encounters with the British army.
If you think Najaf is bad, you should know that 7,000 British and Egyptian troops and 5,000 civilians were slaughtered in only two days from January 25-26, 1885 when Khartoum fell. The islamic radical nutcases back then wanted the exact same thing that Muqtada al-Sadr wants in Iraq today: a mahdi-induced worldwide islamic conquest.
Few people today know these things, but Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan - it’s all been fought before by other countries in other times, some of them surprisingly recent. Far from changing, the landscape of that part of the world is remarkably consistent: consistent in producing islamic nutcases and islamic nutcase-induced death and bloodshed.
Phil_M, you might be surprised how much some of the folks around here know about the Middle East, Arab conflicts, and Islamic wars. What you seem to fail to recognize is that the change of landscape is not the tactics of the terrorists, but the boldness they showed in attacking the US on our own soil. This caused an epiphany in the US populace which culminated in a united desire to do something about it.
#99
It is their org and their rules.
Please show me in the Constitution where they/goooh are doing something unConstitutional.
There is plenty of room for the very rich and lawyers in the repuke and demoncat parties.
these debates so it seems to me do not give us the picture we need to frame what the candidate actually stands for in regards to the party platform. i do not want to see who has the best joke or anything like that just facts on their thought processes.
Phil_M,
How has the landscape changed?
Before
After
Article 1 Section 2
Nope, there’s no means test (or reverse means test in this case), family heritage test, or occupation test in the Constitution. DJ, looks like you hitched your wagon to (another) organization that wants to shred the Constitution
Bold? Yes. It was bold to attack us on our soil. But was this any less bold than when they attacked an airplane that took off from German soil and exploded over British soil in 1988? Was it any less bold than when they previously attacked the twin towers on our soil in 1992?
Was it any less bold than when they marched an entire army into France in the 8th century? Or into Austria in the 17th century? Was it any less bold than when they sailed an invasion fleet into Greece in 1571? Less bold than when they sacked Constantinople in 1453? Less bold than when they slashed and burned their way into Athens a decade later? Cause frankly, I don’t think much of anything has changed about the boldness of islamic extremists. Bold and offensive attacks at the hearts of their enemies and at the most revered geographical possessions of those they encounter marks the entire history of radical islam.
And yes - I do consider the Parthenon, the Temple Mount, and Hagia Sophia - all three of which have been repeatedly sacked, desecrated, and smeared in mass bloodshed by islamic radicals - to be “bolder” targets than the twin towers, as offensive and horrible as the attack on the twin towers may have been.
Radical islam, for all its history, has shown absolutely no regard for the cultural landmarks of non-islamic peoples. If you truly know the history of radical islam then you also know that nothing is off limits to these people - nothing is sacred to them unless it’s a mosque. That they attacked us on our own soil is anything but surprising - it’s par for the course of how they’ve dealt with non-islamic peoples for over a thousand years.
Phil_M, Yes it was more bold.
#108 -
Here’s another before and after for you.
Before 1453: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hagia-Sophia-Laengsschnitt.jpg
After 1453:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aya_sofya.jpg
Notice the minarets? They came after the jihadis sacked the place. At least 10,000 civilians of Constantinople were slaughtered by the muslim invaders, and most of the survivors were sold into slavery. When Mehmet II arrived at Hagia Sophia he found hundreds of civilians had barred themselves inside, praying for protection. He ordered his soldiers to break down the gates. They lined the congregants up according to the price they could get for them on the slave market, executed the elderly who were deemed unable to work, raped the young women in the crowd, and converted the place into a mosque.
Phil_M,
While interesting history, your before and after have little to do with the current presidential race. Other than perhaps pointing out the wisdom of George W. Bush in fighting the battle on foreign soil and bolstering the arguments of Rudy and Huckabee.
#111 - Now you’ve reached the height of absurdity. Unable to counter vast historical evidence of similar muslim radical attacks on western peoples, countries, and sacred cultural landmarks including several of greater significance than the twin towers (Hagia Sophia, the Parthenon, and the Temple Mount come to mind), you revert to simple repetitive proclamations as if that somehow solidifies your point. I’ll take your lack of response as a concession that you have nothing more substantive to offer.
Phil_M - you seem to be arguing that since we have turned a blind eye to radical Islamists in the past we should continue to do so.
Phil_M, you want substance, how about crossing an ocean, attacking the commercial heart of the largest super power, attacking the military brains of the largest super power. Those events represent an escalation and a more bold attack than anything you have listed in modern times. Or did I miss the planes being flown into the British Parliament?
#113 -
I never suggested that they did. I did, however, bring them up to indicate that the radical islam we face today is little changed from the radical islam that western leaders faced 1,000 years ago. And why should we expect anything other from an ideology that is mired in the 9th century?
The problem with that claim is that Bush is not truly fighting the battle there. He’s waging a politically correct “nation-building” effort that is increasingly looking like a war of attrition. Taking the war to the enemy means actually making an effort to win something. Instead we’re propping up a government of Muqtada al-Sadr’s buddies and declining to attack jihadis because the decrepit tin-roofed craphole shack they’re storing their bombs in claims to be a mosque.
Very far from it. I’m arguing that in the past western civilization knew how to deal with radical islam on its doorstep: the only way to win is to punch back hard. The times demand a Charles Martel. They demand El Cid and Horatio Kitchener. Instead we’ve got George W. Bush and the “religion of peace” crowd calling the shots.
How about crossing the Bosphorus, attacking the religious heart of Christianity, and slaughtering thousands on the floor of its holiest places?
What about crossing the Aegean, attacking the cultural heart of western civilization, enslaving its people, and turning its most venerated landmark into a part-mosque, part munitions dump?
How about crossing the Arabian desert, sacking the historical heart of judeo-christianity, slaughtering its residents, and turning its single holiest place into a jihadi compound?
The only thing relatively unique to 9/11 is that it happened in North America, though even this is a weak point considering that they had tried to topple the twin towers previously in 1992. What they did there though was little different than what they’ve been doing in virtually every other part of the world for centuries: attacking, invading, blowing up stuff, and murdering innocents.
Phil_M,
Based upon what I’ve read and the soldiers that I’ve talked to about this:
you are greatly exaggerating the rules of engagement. True, we’ve all heard the out of the ordinary exceptions, but for the most part, our military destroys any site that fires upon them.
But, since I’ve never actually been on the ground personally, I’ll have to say I don’t know what the full truth is on this one.
So - what is Phil_M’s plan? Do we leave? Do we stay and kill every living being in sight, never knowing who is innocent and who is not? Do we stay the current course?
Curious.
Hitler actually ordered his bombers to attack British Parliament in 1940. The entire House of Commons was gutted. It didn’t mean Hitler was any less evil before that day, or more evil after that day. It was par for the course for Hitler’s evil, and exactly what Hitler did to thousands of other buildings and landmarks.
When radical islam attacked the twin towers they were doing what radical islam has done for centuries. It was pure evil - nothing more, nothing less. But it was also evil they had perpetrated before and will attempt to commit again if we do not guard against it.
#118 - On that we can agree. This is another case where Bush has done much better than his predecessors but not quite enough to finish the job. Much like domestic policy - he gave us tax cuts but failed to control spending. But in this case, even though he hasn’t done enough, we are safer because of his actions.
It’s called sarcasm, bigjolly. Look it up. But you should also look up the taliban funeral we declined to bomb out of respect for the “religion of peace” and you will find that my sarcasm is not at all far from the mark.
My personal preference: Pull back to a perimeter zone around Iraq. Cut it off completely from the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria. Nothing goes in or out of the U.S. blockade without our approval. Let the sunnis and shias fight it out until they establish themselves in relatively cohesive geographical regions. There will be bloodshed unfortunately, but on the plus side much of it will be from the scummy terrorist elements on each side killing each other. Then when it’s all fought and done, consider partitioning the place.
I looked it up for you.
Why are the “very rich” excluded from the Gooohmer party?? Are they assumed not to have the best interests of the country at heart—only asset protection??
Yeah, man, that’s a party I can really get excited about–one where you have to submit a financial statement to join.
Whom else is excluded besides the filthy rich and attorneys? Catholics? Jews? Asians? Pharmacists?
Sign me up. I look good in a brown shirt.
123 -
Okay, I’ve tried to keep quiet, but you forced me…..
Phil - your #123 has to be the one of the silliest things I’ve read hear all day (and given what I’ve been reading that’s going some!) Pull back a perimeter around Iraq? Have you looked at a map lately?? We can’t even kep drugs from coming across the Texas/Mexico border, which is shorter and friendlier. How many soldiers do you think it would take to enforce that blockade? How long do you think they would have to stay there? What about food, medical supplies, water, etc. Who decides what to let in? Do you think that some of those folks might decide to fight our soldiers instead of each other?
I realize that good answers may not be easy, but let’s not just throw out stupid answers because we don’t have anything else.
#125 - Hang the rich!
Catch the blue train
To places never been before
Look for me
Somewhere down the crazy river
In case you haven’t noticed, the US/Mexico border is porous because of the lack of a political will to make it anything less so. It is not impossible to control the border but the irrefutable fact is that our government does not want to do so.
Let’s see…well, Iraq really only has one port of entry by sea, and the sea is necessary for any mass transport of goods so that makes a natural choke point. A couple ships and a couple patrol boats in the Straight of Hormuz oughta do that. The northern border could be taken care of by Turkey, which is already furious about Kurdish incursions into their territory. The Kuwaiti border is already controlled from the last war over there, and the Saudi border is mostly desert. That leaves us with Iran and Syria. Don’t know exactly how many it would take to set up perimeter checkpoints there, but I can guarantee it’s a lot less than trying to police the entire country of Iraq.
Very simple - we do. If they need food etc. let it through. But that’s our discretion.
The main access point will always be the straight of Hormuz. Last I checked, Iraq didn’t have a navy that could challenge us in any meaningful way.
127
Eat The Rich
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h45WnW0ASFY
Come on baby, eat the rich,
Put the bite on the son of a beeyoch,
Don’t mess around, don’t give me no switch,
C’mon baby eat the rich
C’mon baby eat the rich
Phil_M, and how would that stop the over land transport of arms we know is already happening across the Iran/Iraq border?
#129 Hadn’t heard that one in a decade or two.
video to #127
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zVAwIJE-_84
My decision is made. In the primary, I am voting for Duncan Hunter. Every quiz I take puts him at number 1 for my issues. He is the right fit for my conservativism. I know he isn’t an elloquent speaker…. but I remember when God told Moses to speak, and Moses was dumbfounded, saying , why me, I can’t speak well, use my brother. God always picked imperfect people. I think Hunter will surround himself with advisors who are also conservative and experienced in places he is weak. Soooooooo GO Duncan Hunter!!!!!!!
Wow, you’re old!
AW - you left yourself open for that one.
Yes I am hamous……. Should I tell you what else God said?
130 -
That’s exactly the point. Instead of trying to police every house and street corner in Iraq, we should pull back to the main border access points and control them. By sea that means the Straight of Hormuz. By land that means choke points on the Iraq-Iran and Iraq-Syria borders.
Oh, by the way - it is amazing how one guy’s opinion that Ron Paul didn’t fare so well in a debate brings this sort of response…
A little bird has told me that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for the POTUS. He will choose Fred Thompson as vice president. Fred will be reluctant but he then accept the invitation after all. And voila, Mitt is the POTUS comes January 2008. How sweet is that?
Not sweet at all…..Unless you want to vote a republican president into office that is a liberal….
#138 - The chorus of Mormon vindication would ring long and loud in such a circumstance.
Myself, even if I were a Mormon, would probably not vote with the flock. Romney has too many issues in my book…
But seriously, Hunter is always in my top three as well. I’m just not sure the Republicans could stand another less-than-eloquent President after this one.
Newsflash: Hunter will be out of the race by the time the Texas primary rolls around.
It would be hard for me to vote for any politician who had been elected to a statewide office in Massachusetts, regardless of party. I don’t think there’s a more liberal state than that.
#142 I agree, you are probably right, but that won’t stop me from backing a man I believe is right for the country. I will do a lot of praying!
#141
Hamous I think that we should put the best man up for the job that represents the conservative agenda. Not the person that says he is conservative to get the Republican nomination because he is charismatic enough to win.
Besides we put anyone conservative up against Hillary and they will look good to any freedom loving American.
You guys that want to send in Giuliani or Mit just so we can “win” think about it a minute.
The first thing Hillery will do is point out all their liberal votes of the past. Showing they are flip floppers at best or untrustworthy at worst.
Either way at that point all she has to do is make conservatives stay home based on their own candidates liberal past. I never hear this point made on major media. But if we put up someone with a liberal past, all she has to do is point it out over and over so conservatives feel its a lost cause and stay home.
“******” that little bird singing too fast, I could not get the date right for the next POTUS which should be 2009. The bird clarifies to me that even though Mitt is a flip-flop but his governing credentials are at most tilting to the right given the liberal set up of the Kennedy’s state of Mass. Given a chance and with the straight talking of Fred Thompson as his vice president, he will be governing much more from the right of GWB as you shall see. By the way, I do not know of any liberal that spent their youth time to do good deeds and spreading the Good News while still marry to the same woman for the last 25 years. I take that liberal any time.
“The bird clarifies to me that even though Mitt is a flip-flop”
At least the little bird is honest. Ill pass on this alone thanks!!
I still like Ted Nugent! With R Lee Ermey as a running mate!
Nugent / Ermey 08!
Well, it’s good to see a days worth of presidential debate discussion that does NOT include an accusation that Ron Paul is a 9-11 “truther” (so far…) It’s encouraging to see propaganda like that becoming less effective among the informed.
Instead of criticizing Ron Paul because you assume his foreign policy to be inferior, how ’bout convincing folks that the current policy of occupying Iraq indefinitely or expanding premptive military actions in the region can be beneficial.
And once you do that, you might try explaining how in heck we’re supposed to fund such an effort.
But first, there’s still a few WMDs the neocons still need to find, otherwise you have ZERO credibility and the choice of the republican candidate is moot.
#149 - Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther nutjob.
But seriously, it isn’t about proving that the current president’s policies are better than Paul’s, it is the fact that Ron Paul is far more than a non-interventionist, he’s an isolationist. You’ve shown me nothing other than your own opinions to convince me otherwise.
And the neocons have shown no WMDs, despite convincing the American people to invade a foreign country because it possessed them.
The “neocons” were not the only people in the world who believed that Saddam had WMD’s. So did his pwn people, the UN, many of our allies, etc.
But that’s not really the point, is it? Call it a gut feeling, but if we weren’t keeping the jihadis busy over there, I am convinced that we’d be “kept busy” by them over here a lot more often than we are now.
Not to mention: Ron Paul is the wrong man for the job, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
An endless series of votes against something does not comprise leadership.
Thanks Jim. It is not my aim to turn you into a Ron Paul supporter.
I would like to point out that president puppet’s neocon handlers were the driving force behind the WMD farce, and went to great lengths to convince people that they were there. Certainly, it was readily accepted by imperialists do-gooders like HRC, but that still doesn’t make it true.
We invaded a country as a result of information we now know to be false, and it is reasonable to suspect that the major proponents of the invasion knew more about the quality of the intelligence than they let on.
We’re spending millions in tax money, taken away from every American, and through debt, taxing our children’s yet to be earned wages.
The way I see it, if you propose taking MY money to fund YOUR war, the burden of proof is YOURS. So far, it’s looking like a pretty poor case.
Again, the neocons have no credibility with most reasonable and informed people. They blew it by blatantly lying to us about their motives. And that’s not just my opinion. Look at the results of last year’s elections…
this race boils down to two candidates Rudie and Fred that’s who the money thinks can win. if Fred cant raise money Rudie will win because they think he can beat Hillary.
in either case can you imagine the adds that could be run on Hillary? think of all the escapades that bill has had since his political inception.
it would be so bad that their multiple marriages would go unnoticed as the PT boys take off on Hilliary for staying with bill thru that mess and do you want her running your country when she cant run Bill or used bad judgement in staying with Bill?
Would someone please, pretty please blast me for giving Thompson a C? My day is ruined because everyone focused on RP. I thought I did well by him.
And another thing. I was serious. RP needs to form his third party NOW. Why wait? He’s at his peak, no frickin’ way he’s getting the Pubbie’s nom, why not peel parts of both parties off and make a run for it?
155 bigjolly i like what you did with Ronnie Paul.
keep a`stiff upper lip and keep having a good day.
Where, o where have ‘ol Fred’s supporters gone,
Where, o where could they be?
Are they hitchin’ their britches
And chewin’ gum at the same time
Where, o where could they be?
Fred Thompson deserved his C. He doesn’t have be believing just yet…
For the record BJ, I think your treatment of RP is fair overall. But strategically, it’s far too early for him to take the third party route.
#58 - *raises hand*
And gum makes me burp - no thank ya SUH
Whoa there, hoss. You’re making it sound like we started talking about Saddam and WMD on September 12, 2001. As if no American President before Buscho and his evil handlers ever thought that Saddam was a threat. You’re wrong.
Oh, and by the way, I think and have thought for a long time that we’re increasing debt at an astoundingly stupid pace. I also think that it won’t stop even if The Savior Ron Paul takes office.
I’m glad we agree on the downsides of charging the war on our collective MasterCard.
But the pesky facts remain. We invaded Iraq under assumptions we now know to be unfounded, and it is illogical to plan for a permanent presence based on that mistake.
Cause that would ruin any chance he currently has of picking up a few delegates to the RNC convention, and a few Ron Paul delegates to that convention would be a good thing because they could disrupt the circus’ orchestration.
We need to plan for our presence there based on what the reality at this time is. The reality at this time is that if we brought home all of the troops in Iraq tomorrow, that region will collapse into utter chaos, and that chaos WOULD follow us home. Just up and leaving Iraq is not the answer, nor is holing up in our own borders and counting on 2 oceans to protect us anymore. It doesn’t work.
Accomplishing what, exactly?
Phil_M,
More curiosity. How many delegates do you think he could win? I can’t see him winning enough to disrupt anything.
But if he ran third party, I think he could impact the election.
Maybe your right Jim. Perhaps the sole path to securing our safety is via world domination through military intervention.
You still have not proven that your opinion is realistic, nor have you proposed any viable financial means of continuing the current invasion, much less making it permanent or expanding it to other lands.
The theory that “if we leave, they will follow us home” is unsubstantiated rhetoric, and should be classified along with the rest of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
Unless, of course the neocons can actually justify the invasion and continued occupation with facts instead of fear (for a change…)
Apparently you didn;t look at the map when instructed to do so.
How does closing the Straights of Hormuz keep weapons from coming into Iran via the Caspian Sea?
While it may sound oh so military “Occuppying the perimeter of Iraq.” denies to us the road and rail infrastructure of the interior of that country—whihc is about the only way you’re going to get supplies to the troops you’ve put “on the permimeter.”
In other words, in a country like Iraq, the only way you can safely and reliably supply troops “on the perimeter” is if you hold and control the “interior” too.
Old military proverb:
“Amatuers study tactics. Professionals study Logistics.”
Well;
It seems to have worked out pretty well for World Peace where Germany, Japan, Korea, and the Phillipines were concerned.
#1 - I am not what you would consider a Neocon.
#2 - I am not advocating for the permanent occupation of Iraq.
#3 - My gut tells me that leaving Iraq would bring more terrorism to our shores, that much is true. HOWEVER:
#4 - Leaving Iraq tomorrow would certainly cause that country to collapse and create a generation of unprecedented instability and loss of life in that region. That’s not fear, that’s fact.
Ask yourself this: While you may be an eminently reasonable person when it comes to politics, why do you think that Ron Paul seems to attract the fringe elements from both the Left AND the Right??+
Thanks Sarge, I get it now. We should stay in Iraq forever because we won WWII. Duh! How silly of me not to grasp the logic before now.
/sarcasm
I think there are more holes in that argument than there were in the buildings of Dresden in 1945.
Today, even South Korea is questioning the benefit of our continued presence on their border. Perhaps they’ve realized that the forces of free trade and prosperity did far more to end the cold war than waging proxy wars in third world countries ever could do.
If we can successfully stand up to 40,000 multi-megaton soviet warheads without dominating countries and propping up puppet governments (THEIR tactics) I think it’s probable that we can do the same with third world Arab tyrants.
Unless of course, we get overly wrapped up in the religious aspects–which by definition removes logic and reason from the debate.
Um, who brought up religion?
Peace Jim. I don’t know if you’re a neocon or not, and I would want to accuse you of that any more than I would want to accuse you of building WMDs in your garage. But let’s face it dude, you seem to support at least one of the fundamental characteristics of contemporary necons.
As far as bringing religion into the conversation, I don’t think that can be avoided in a truly open and honest discussion.
That was because the protection of the most powerful and charitable nation on earth was extended to them long enought so that they could not only run thier own affairs free from agression by their neighbors, become an econmoci assest that devoloves to the benefit of the planet, and a faithful ally.
Just like it did for Germany, Japan, and the Phillipines,
I know it sucks for you that it turned out this way, but, ther it is
bob42
So I ask once again.
Just ummm what is RP’s foreign policy plan for oh how bout North Korea this time. You know those guys don’t you. They have no desire to trade with us what so ever, have nuclear weapons, have already said they want to fire on the US. By the way they do have that capacity. North Korea can usually be bought off, but since RP does not believe in doing that, Kim has said that he would fire on the US reaching Hawaii.
So what is RP’s policy going to be with Mister Kim? Wait till he nukes Hawaii and then decide?
bob42,
Could you please encourage more sane Ron Paul supporters to visit? It’s refreshing to see solid arguments instead of the Yogi’s of the world.
Thanks, Dave
And what was that you were saying bout free trade and playing nice with Iran?
Oh I forgot they will love us when we bow to the will of some wannabe dictator named Bin. Nevermind. We’ll be jump one big happy romper room flamily.
I might focus on the Dems soon. You guys see this poll at Democracy for America?
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
I reckon Ron Paul would even let the NoKos invade the SoKos—
Being all non-interventionist and all.
Have you noticed that no one really seems to like Giuliani? They only see him as someone who can beat Hillary. This is all so fear-based!
If Rudy is nominated, you can bet that Clinton will trash him bad! There is so much dirt on this guy it’s not funny. If you don’t believe me, check out “Giuliani Time” on Google video or therealrudy.com or just google “Rudy sucks”. The guy recently got booed at a Yankees game during the singing of “God Bless America”! The only reason he does so well on Fox is that Rupert Murdoch is his client.
He had the nerve to say at a debate to Ron Paul that he had never heard of Paul’s explanation for 911, even after he’d been given that very same explanation by a Saudi who wanted to send a check for $10 million to the WTC families. BTW, Rudy refused the check, but then later his own firm did millions of dollars worth of business consulting for Saudis. What a jerk!
#171, jimb, is your gut connected to Chertoff’s gut? Your gut is not omniscient. They attacked us because we were over there (according to bin Laden and the CIA–do the research). Leaving would save American lives, dollars, and improve our favor on the world stage.
Without a concerted effort to start heading home, the Iraqi government will never take it upon themselves to make their country their own. By the way, about 70% of Iraqis want us gone already!! http://tinyurl.com/3988ba. As Ron Paul said, we’re just there saving face.
Ron Paul attracts people across the political spectrum. That means left, right and center, including fringe. He has broad appeal, which means he can beat any democrat by a landslide. He’s a Goldwater Republican, was a friend of Reagan and would make a great president.
America needs real change and everyone else is just the same-old, same old. Hopefully, some open-minded people will take another look at RP, especially when more candidates leave the race. I predict Hunter, Tancredo and then McCain, in that order.
Exactly! So why not start the third party now?
A Ron Paul presidency would be a green light to any nation that wanted to invade it’s neighbor.
I bleive that we’d be safe insaying that.
wouldn’t want any blowback from intervening, would we?
Dude, McCain is a fiesty old fart, he ain’t going anywhere. I agree with Hunter then Tancredo, Hunter strikes me as a more realistic person. Tancredo is not in this to win the presidency, he wants to make a name for later. IMHO.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/resistance-is-futile.htm
70% of Iraqis want foreing fighters out of Iraq.
foreign Fighters is the name they give to the Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, and other uslim fanantics that come there to be Baby Killers
I bleive that Thompson’s calculus is that he will pick up the supporters from the “bottom tier” candidates as they drop off. Which is probably why he isn’t as “fire in the belly” as some folks would want him to be.
As long as he takes his shots at Rudy and Mitt and keeps saying Conservative things (especially the States Rights stuff), I think he’ll do just that. I don;t thank any of the folks currently supporting the bottom tier will drift to either rudy or Mitt.
The kicker will be when McCain throws his support in Thompson’s direction—which might come during a brokered convention—right when it’s needed the most.
a post with one too many urls in the spit bucket—-
sorry
Look Up
Squawk
LST Moderator
/See if I really did not like you……
The US, USSR, and other significant nuclear powers have managed to keep their fingers off of the big red switch because of the simple concept of mutually assured destruction.
North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, in terms of both warheads and delivery methods are laughable.
The one common element I see among the loudmouthed nuclear-wannabe dictators of the world is the realization that nuclear saber rattling reliably gets attention from “the most powerful and charitable nation on earth.”
Whether that attention comes in the form of being the target of our military power or our charity is a dice roll for them. It should not be so for us.
Ron Paul has spoken his piece about North Korea. If you really wanted to know stuff instead of just blowing smoke, you’d use a search engine.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul69.html
Paul has a much better understanding of foreign policy than George Bush or any other candidate.
We’re going broke borrowing money to pay for Iraq, to lend money to Israel (in Euros, cuz they don’t want a devaluating dollar), and to fund air bases all over the world.
I’m not afraid of the armies, I’m afraid of the bankers!
Bigjolly, McCain will take much longer to bow out, but unless he learns how to manage his money, he’ll have to quit when he goes bust.
I suggest that a candidate who “attracts the fringe” is not what Mom and Pop voter in Middle America is looking for.
Or anybody else except the “fringe.”
I’m listening to liberal radio on Sirius and they are trashing Ron Paul, way worse than what you see around here. Mike Malloy. Talking about having a fire at your house and grabbing a bucket with your neighbor. You guys have some work to do.
Yah–
tell that to the city they land on…
He just said that RP would cut your throat for his political beliefs! Wow. We are truly gentle!
Ain’t gonna happen. RP is very dubious on 3rd parties. He knows from experience. It’s uphill enough for him already. He knows he’d just be a spoiler and has stated so many times.
Why do we have to be the world’s policeman?
#194: Do you mind if I ask you where you live? Not actual address, but city and state.
obo42
Your faith in humanity is admirable (not) and naive.
I imagine Hawaii would appreciate your glib response.
There is one huge difference between the USSR and Iran. The Muslim Religion.
190 posts later and my #4 is still dead-on accurate…
President Paul
Yes
North Korea just nuked Hawaii
Oh really
Yeah Really, there ain’t nuttin left on the islands.
Ah shucks there goes my coconut and pineapple juice.
Well don’t you think we ought to retaliate or something?
Nah. Call Del Monte and see if they can get their coconuts and pineapple from North Korea. You know these things happen. Oh and call the flag makers and tell them we can save money by putting 49 stars on the flag.
Because if we let agressive nations invade thier neighbors, then agressive nations get stronger, and they invade more neighbors.
They get more money and they build bigger bombs.
Wars, even ones we’re not involved in, are very bad for the world economy, and because we’re the biggest part of that economy, it;s bad for us.
War between two of our trading partners is not good for us. It stops trade to those partners—in both directions.
if that war occurs between=–oh, I don’t know—Sunni Saudi Arabia and Persian Shiite Iran because Iran has invaded Iraq and persecutes the Sunnis there—whether real of percieved, will result in economic devastation for this country when they both styart selling oil for $500 a barrel to buy all the guns, ammuntion, and food they will ned—not to mention all of the folks who will line up on either side in the conflict.
But we’ll all be safe in the knowledge that we didn’t intervene–and that will keep us warm at night, and get us through the days we spend at home because we can’t afford to drive to work.
Just one example.
Want one where North Korea invades south Korea and the Japanese and Chinese jump in?
#199: I need oxygen, stat!
President Paul
Yes
North Korea just nuked Hawaii
Don’t worry, the war heads they use are laughable, go back to work.
#181 had a bad tinyurl. It was meant to be http://tinyurl.com/mmm49 (mmm49). Not sure how that happened.
Thanks to all for the comments. It’s good to hear them trashing Ron Paul. That means they’re finally taking him seriously! A while back, Huckabee–when asked who was his biggest threat–immediately responded “Ron Paul”.
BTW, I’m noticing a lot of folks here knocking Ron Paul, but w/o the guts to say who they are supporting. What’s with that? Some would call those cheap shots.
You cannot have oxygen. It isn’t listed in my pocket constitution. Sorry. Good luck to you.
But Sarge
Didn’t you know if we just stay in our own borders and not make any strategic alliances or create mutual aid agreements or trade treaties with anyone we will be loved by everyone?
Didn’t you know that creating a treaty with another country is considered meddling?
You wouldn’t want to be meddlin now would ya?
I can’t believe you missed that wisdowm.
/SNARC OFF
Sarge
#202
ROTFLMAO goodun
181 had a bad tinyurl. It was meant to be http://tinyurl.com/mmm49 (mmm49). Not sure how that happened.
Thanks to all for the comments. It’s good to hear them trashing Ron Paul. That means they’re finally taking him seriously! A while back, Huckabee–when asked who was his biggest threat–immediately responded “Ron Paul”.
BTW, I’m noticing a lot of folks here knocking Ron Paul, but w/o the guts to say who they are supporting. What’s with that? Some would call those cheap shots.
I really am surprised that these guys who tout thier supposed knowledge of History to support thier “blowback” principle don’t recognize this particular scenario.
It kinda played itself out the last time this nation and others pursued a “non-interventionist” policy.
We sat back and watched Jews die in that one too—ntil we got attacked by another nation that had been invidading IT’s neighbors. They were a little tired after raping nanking, but not as tired as they would have been had we “intervened” then.
So, war is bad for the economy, so we go to war to stop a war. OK, got it. (This is a test post. I think the moderator decided he didn’t like me, cuz the last 2 posts didn’t make it.)
LOOK UP
“YINY URL” gets caught by our spam bucket.
Sorry bout that
Squawk
LST Moderator
Aw Squawk;
You and I both know that it only takes a little bitty nuke to really screw up somebody’s day.
We’re just a couple of mean old neocon codgers I guess.
It takes a special kind of person to laugh off a nuclear warhead.
I wish I didn’t take things so seriously–
Anybody see my rose colored glasses?
#208: If you include too many links, it usually goes into the spit bucket.
I’m still curious to find out what city and state you reside in.
Maybe I should be shaking in my boots, but I keep recalling what I’ve read. Are you folks really that scared of North Korea’s military capability?
Aren’t we kinda blurring the real threat of terrorism with the barely plausible threat of countries with over-boasted nuclear capability attacking us? Even Bill’s buddy Kim is smart enough to know that only HIS destruction is assured if he A) Ever really gains the capability, and B) ever gets stupid enough to attack.
I’m guessin’ Sarge isn’t too concerned about North Korea.
I on the other hand, look at a map and see how close they are, knowing full well that they have nuke capability, however modest it is and think, hmmm, that’s a problem.
Sarge
#211
From here on in you are here to fore will be known as Sarge Neocon w/ his side kick Squawkeneocon.
Dn’t know bout you but I have been called worse by professionals.
You know this “no WMDs” farce is bad enough coming from the Demos. But now coming from the Paulestinians, the supposed “soul of conservatism” its getting really annoying.
Fact: Hussein had WMDs
Fact: Hussein used WMDs against the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds
Fact: Every security organization in the world believed he had WMDs
Fact: He blatantly flaunted the UN resolutions concerning WMDs for 12 years
Can you please get another argument? You’re sounding like a bunch of kindergarteners. Really.
Pretty much.
cuz one thing this ol History nut learned is that if we had gone to war with Germany when they occupied the Ruhr in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and sustaind 10-20,000 casualites, we would have avoided severl hundred million a few years later.
One thing bothers me, though:
If the “blowback” principle is in effect, which essentially says that we peed all these guys off when we invtervened over and over agaion, doesn;t that mean that horse is out of the barn now?
Don’t we just have to deal with all the people we peed off, simply because we peed them off and they are peed off now?
I mean, if they are peed off because we intervened and all—how to we make it up to them so thier not peed off and killing us anymore?
You describe generations of intervention—which would mean that they are all pretty dam peed off. doesn’t seem to me that people that peed off would stop being peed off just by us simply saying:
“Sorry about that. Didn’t realize we would pee you off. We’re going home now.”
How does Ron Paul intend to make it all better with the peed off people of the world?
This board must not like tiny “erl” (especially mmm49). This post got “kabonged” twice with that domain in it and I was trying to correct the address from post 181.
Thanks to all for the comments. It’s good to hear them trashing Ron Paul. That means they’re finally taking him seriously! A while back, Huckabee–when asked who was his biggest threat–immediately responded “Ron Paul”.
BTW, I’m noticing a lot of folks here knocking Ron Paul, but w/o the guts to say who they are supporting. What’s with that? Some would call those cheap shots.
If we can put nukes in the Pacific on our islands, why do we have to be in Korea? That just agitates ‘em. Good move.
Oooh! Oooh! Can I be a neocon too? Please??? Huh??? Can I???
Bob42
Do yourself a favor and quit reading the RPAcolyte training manual. You strike me as much more intelligent person than that.
Hamouseneocon
glad to see you
AND we even have a Big Jolly Neocon blessing us with his presence.
Not to be confused with the Mickey Mao’s Club
I had an earlier reference w/ a shortened address. This blog seems to toss any posts pointing to this redirect site, so here is the address: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html
Thanks to all for the comments. It’s good to hear them trashing Ron Paul. That means they’re finally taking him seriously! A while back, Huckabee–when asked who was his biggest threat–immediately responded “Ron Paul”.
BTW, I’m noticing a lot of folks here knocking Ron Paul, but w/o the guts to say who they are supporting. What’s with that? Some would call those cheap shots.
If we can put nukes in the Pacific on our islands, why do we have to be in Korea? That just agitates ‘em. Good move.
Now that was funny I don’t care who you are
/LST will never be the same.
BigJolly’s a liberal and don’t you never forget it!
We don’t mind being liberal with our neocons. We spread em everywhere we can.
Bigjolly’s a big ol’ liberoneoconoclast.
Why is it that I’m not surprised that someobdy who thinks it’s OK to let agressive nations invade thier neighbors also talks tough about not being afraid of itty bitty nukes?
(Hmm, went through some sort of “spam” insurgency. I had tried to post a corrected address to no avail.)
Thanks to all for the comments. It’s good to hear them trashing Ron Paul. That means they’re finally taking him seriously! A while back, Huckabee–when asked who was his biggest threat–immediately responded “Ron Paul”.
BTW, I’m noticing a lot of folks here knocking Ron Paul, but w/o the guts to say who they are supporting. What’s with that? Some would call those cheap shots.
If we can put nukes in the Pacific on our islands, why do we have to be in Korea? That just agitates ‘em. Good move.
Hey, I like that! A liberoneoconoclast. I have a title! Yes!
I guess I was marked as spam, cuz now I can’t seem to post (even w/o any urls.) Hmm
Restored em.
Squawk
Moderator.
#223: Dang, I’m calling you butta, cause you’re on a roll!
I guess elkabong thinks I will stalk him/her….I must have super powers by being able to find them with just a city and state. The main point to my question was that most of us here live in Texas, we’ve heard and KNOWN of Ron Paul before his presidential candidacy. Nobody can ever seem to tell us just ONE piece of legislation that he has passed, or what he has accomplished since being in office, other than voting for ear marks, before voting against them. Hey! I love Wild American Gulf shrimp! BTW: You cost me a beer.
Not only is bigjolly a liberal, he’s John Cornyn’s water boy!
Ummmm no. you never asked who “we” are supporting.
In my case, it ain’t none ya business who I am supporting. But rest assured it ain’t Ron Paul. Isn’t living in a democratic REPUBLIC grand.
[...or maybe I can!]
Thanks to all for the comments. It’s good to hear them trashing Ron Paul. That means they’re finally taking him seriously! A while back, Huckabee–when asked who was his biggest threat–immediately responded “Ron Paul”.
BTW, I’m noticing a lot of folks here knocking Ron Paul, but w/o the guts to say who they are supporting. What’s with that? Some would call those cheap shots.
If we can put nukes in the Pacific on our islands, why do we have to be in Korea? That just agitates ‘em. Good move.
Hey, Elkabong61, don’t fret, there’s no conspiracy! HAL gets us all. Eventually, he releases us but he does seem to enjoy holding us up a bit.
You nick would mean you’ve managed to make a bong out of elk horns would it? I recall trying that. Too much suction required.
“Fact: Hussein had WMDs”
No argument there, it’s a well documented fact that WE helped him get those WMDs.
“Fact: Hussein used WMDs against the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds.”
Right again. Saddam was a very bad boy, but we were somehow able to overlook his evil nature when doing so supported our “strategic goals” in the region. Saddam reached room temperature months ago and had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. Bin Laden however, remains warm and cozy.
“Fact: Every security organization in the world believed he had WMDs”
Right again. Which only goes to show that if you’re good enough at spreading propaganda, you can indeed fool most of the people most of the time. We and the rest of the world now have ample evidence that we were all lied to.
“Fact: He blatantly flaunted the UN resolutions concerning WMDs for 12 years”
Blatantly flaunting would require actually HAVING WMDs after those 12 years. Blatantly BLUFFING would be a more accurate description.
I support no one right now.
I’ve notice of late that support of a candidate at this point in the process may cloud my judgement, make me associate with loons and White Supremacists, say really stupid stuff about laughable nukes and letting people invade thier neighbors, and react as a total jerk when somebody criticizes my candidate.
Effects may differ from individual to individal.
But look here Miss Coach Southerntragedy, dat’s some high quality H2O!
bob42, are you a neobluffer?
ElKabong61
Let’s get some historical facts involved here. first of all We are in S. Korea because the UN left us with a mess they started. Furthermore we are in S. Korea NOW because the South Korean government asked us to stick around. And that relationship has benefited South Korea and the United States after a mess that the UN (Oh by the way did you know RP loves the UN) left us with.
FWIW, I’m probably the only one around here that has actually come out in support of a candidate. Then ditched him when he went all green. But thinkin’ ’bout gettin’ back into the camp.
Huckabee ‘08!
Which, BTW, means that you freely and publicy knform us that the main person on the surface of the planet responsible for making people beleive that Saddam Husseing had WMDs when he MAY NOT HAVE HAD THEM is Saddam Hussein.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I can’t wait until - only 90 days - the primaries begin and the turnout proves this has all been a waste of time. All the gaming of the internet polls will not change the fact that a small percentage in the primaries is all that brother Paul is going to get. Then maybe we can talk about something else.
Neocons
There are very few people who throw around the term “neocon” who have the slightest idea what one is. In fact, most people, particularly the anti-war crowd, haven’t a clue as to the actual definition or its proper usage. When I see a commenter hurling “neocons” through the air, I immediately put them in the questionable intelligence column.
And no, I won’t define it here tonight because I have a thread post in the hopper on the subject. You can read my wit and wisdom there.
bob, bob, bob. The proven and documented evidence is that the French, Russians and Germans (with a little Italian participation) provided the materiel, technology, and precursors for Hussein’s WMD programs. All we did was turn a blind eye.
texpat, I tried, I swear I tried! Not a single defense of ‘ol Fred ‘pull yer britches up’ Thompson!
Squawkbox, listen to yourself! You’re all complaints and no solutions. It’s easy to knock someone you don’t like, especially when you can’t suggest a person who you think is the best candidate.
If you are too shy/embarrassed about your preferred candidate, that’s ok.
You are nothing but a loser, bj. What can I say ?
Actually, I’m with Squawk on the Huckabee thing. I can overlook his flirting with the greenies as long as he is steadfast on other conservative issues. He’s got some convincing to do for me, though. And the LSTers who’ve come out against him give him a plus in my book.
ElKabong61
Hi Sailor
come here often?
Come in here for the first time and all of the sudden you know me.
I got plenty of solutions. They just include that whackjob Ron Paul.
Squawkbox
Ron Paul loves the UN? What parallel universe are you getting your facts from?
Squawk shy???? Oh my, there must be a tear in the time-space continuum. Come on boys, smoke’em if you got’em! The end is nye!
You ain’t the first to point that out, texpat. But thanks for the reminder.
Keep coming back.. By the process of elimination you will figure out who I like/ or don’t as the case may be.
There is a reason we have secret balloting process and I believe in it.
Ain’t that the truth?
I never got an answer to my question about how Ron Paul would cprrect all the “Blowback” that has peed off all those people.
My guess is that he would institute a “Suck Forward” polciy and straighten the whole thin out in a couple of days.
Whaddya think?
He might even be able to get Larry Craig to head it up.
Hmmm that is interesting. ElKabong61 took my bait but missed the meat of my comment about Korea. It figures.
bigjolly
Actually, I think people are very puzzled by Thompson, just like me. I don’t know whether this strategy is a result of his wife running everybody off from the campaign or something more mysterious I don’t understand. I do think it is weird.
Yep, that would be Squawk. Shy fella, he is.
250
Hamous
Really?
I’m notagainst Huckabee - its the other 92 96% of the entire Republican Party that is
Then Maybe you can answer the questions
I mean after all if you are considering Huckabee - then he will be getting some serious heat on these and his overtaxing Arkansas and his love of illegal immigration
1. Explain the nursing bed tax of 2,000 per year
2. Explain the clemency of a Rapist who went and raped and killed again (and 111 other violent felons) not parole not furlough but set em loose
3. Explain the Lulac 2005 speech and the killing of the voter ID and citizenship proof to vote and register and allowing illegal immigrants to compete for state funded scholarships?
4. Explain why he refused to allow the removal of the 9% sales tax on food on the third poorest state in America with a 800 million dollar surplus?
5. Explain why Arkansas is 18th in state Taxation (Texas is 49/50) and yet 48th in income (Texas is 37th and has a large poor illegal immigrant population)
6. Explain why he’s supporting a nationwide ban on smoking
Hey you want to advocate his positions then enjoy
There’s more too with links
Pssst! Squawk! Gimme a hundred bucks and I’ll keep your secret safe! :)/ducks and hauls butt!
I can’t believe I gave up a free beer for this. But then again…..this “technically” isn’t an RP thread…..
#220
You’re right. I am more intelligent than that. I read excessively, do my own math, and have logically and reasonably concluded that the two party duopoly is not only ill equipped to preserve our liberty, they have no incentive to do so.
Maybe Ron Paul is the vehicle that will slay that evil beast, or maybe not. But this I know for certain: Our country has had scores of political parties over the years. Effectively limiting the peoples’ options to only two choices isn’t anywhere close to a representative republic, and is detrimental to our freedom.
The two party political industry is a self protecting circle jerk that benefits itself at the expense of the citizen.
It’s time for a change.
Please trust that I’ve ripped up the democrat portion of the dynasty with equal vigor.
Sarge Neocon
I can answer your question about correcting the “blowback”. No really I can. Seriously. I really can. Hold on a second. Wait for it.
See
Now wasn’t that easy?
And I do belevie they support Ron Paul.
What a coinkydink, huh?
texpat,
I keep wantin’ to jump on the bandwagon. Seriously, I don’t want to be the only one that doesn’t jump on the wagon. But he’s a very weak candidate thus far, for whatever reason. The only way it makes sense is to believe he’s lazy but the guy has a helluva life story! I don’t get it.
Huckabee ‘08!
bigjolly, nice guess on my nick, but you are as wrong as you are about your politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmemBa1HAzU Enjoy.
Wrong about my politics?
You gotta be kidding! I’m never wrong. Never.
Ask my kids…..
How dare you sully the Honorable Senator Thompson.
He will put cheese on every muffin and right every wrong know to mankind.
He will slay all the veil poltical beasts out there.
He won’t do that Suck Forward policy, however—–
LOL, nice video. Reminds me of what’s gonna happen to Rev. Paul when the votes are counted - kabong!
El Kabong, as I recall (being the old fart that I am) was an alter ego of Quick Draw McGraw.
And I can’t support Huck any more. His Nanny State stuff is just too much for me. The Paulistininans comlain about American intervention in foreign countries; well, I’m disgusted with American intervention into the personal lives of Americans.
Suck Forward. I like it.
#266: Yup./except for the Huckabee part.
I will wait to see who falls out, after the “pre” primaries in January. Ron Paul is definitley NO.
BTW: have they even set a date yet, or are they pushing it up to this December?
bob42
Ron Paul is a nice guy. Hell I even agree with him on tons of stuff…… EXCEPT his foreign relations policies. I’m sorry man but his policies will leave us in deep doo doo. I love the “idea” of free market doing its work, but man there are folks out there that want to kill us, period end of story.
You got enemiies in your personal life, gawd knows i got mine. We can ignore them and worse case call the law on them. When we go world wide you can’t just call the local Cut-n-Shoot cops to take the bad guys away or go to some judge or world court and put a restraining order on folks that think it is their religous duty to destroy us. Russia was a pragmatic country during the cold war. that is a far cry different form the motivations of Akmanijidob (however you spell his name).
Man ya best be reading and studyin’ just a little more than what you read in the political handouts and what you are fed by the main stream media.
169 -
Did you not bother reading what I wrote again? We are not talking about blockading Iran. We’re talking about Iraq, and the Straight of Hormuz is the single clearest choke point of sea-based transport into and out of Iraq. Without it, everything has to go by land and land transport is typically harder than sea transport - especially when there are lots of mountains and deserts to cross.
Yup, I’d say it’s pretty clear that you didn’t read my original posts. Where should I start…
1. Back in 128 I pointed out that the “perimeter” of Iraq is really only two stretches of border - Iran and Syria. Kuwait and Turkey are either already taken care of or could be induced to patrol on their own, and Saudi is nothing but desert for most of the border.
2. Naval blockades are self-supplying when you control the water, so the straight of hormuz is easily accomplished without so much as a single iraqi railroad.
3. Since we’re really only talking about two stretches of border, the logistics of supply is much more feasible than running stuff to the entire border or even to whole length segments of it. Instead you focus on choke points along the two land borders that stop the majority of traffic.
4. Since many of Iraq’s border regions with Syria and Iran are unpopulated, a successful perimeter line would not need to be literally on top of the border. It would only need to be at geographic chokepoints between the border and the population centers. This allows plenty of flexibility and a de facto buffer region to establish the necessary space, logistical coordination, you name it.
Really that isn’t the case at all. For starters, most of Iraq’s perimeter is uninhabitable desert. A large part of the remainder, as I have explained many times, is shared with countries that have a vested interest in holding a border line that also happens to suit us (namely Kuwait and Turkey). That leaves only the sea chokepoint (Hormuz) and a network of land chokepoints for Iran and Syria.
You’d be wise to take that advice, because obviously you didn’t study either.
bob42 sez “It’s time for a change” and I couldn’t agree more. Clearly, that change will not come from the irrepressible Dr. No. I guess it may be time to consider drafting the indubitable O.E. Hamster.
Hammie:
Looks good on a bumper sticker
or maybe just
Might bring a whole new democraphic to the campaing to counterbalance the White Supremacists.
You know, toss out a few throw pillows, add some track lighting, some tasteful curtains–
# 137 jimb
“Oh, by the way - it is amazing how one guy’s opinion that Ron Paul didn’t fare so well in a debate brings this sort of response…”
Ron Paul always elicits this sort of response, such is his charisma…
Huckabee. Nanny state. Aw man, I so want to counter that. But it’s late and the judger is lurking, this thread would get to 500 before I knew it and I’d be late getting to the plantation and all hell would break loose.
Ask yourself this. Should we spend the largest part of our health care dollars at the end of our life, lying in a nursing home or should we concern ourselves with the period of life that we can enjoy?
#189 - It seems to me that Paul advanced no solution in the article you referred to about North Korea other than to….Wait for it…Leave and do nothing?
Seriously. He suggested that we should have left South Korea long ago, stay out of Iraq (this was written before we went in), and everything would have been fine!
166 & 7 -
Don’t know how many he can get, but it’s certainly within the realm of possibilities. Some states split their delegates between two or more candidates, so Paul could get some with a strong showing.
I don’t think it will be enough to sway the nomination but that’s not the purpose. I simply want a couple of crazies down on the floor raising a point of order to everything, refusing to go along with the motions for unanimity, and basically turning the orchestrated RNC informercial into a joke.
Why do I want this? Because conventions have lost their purpose in the last 25 years, and even if it embarrasses us in the short run it will be a good thing in the long run to turn one into a logistical nightmare.
Charisma? So that’s what we’re calling it now?
So long and thanks for the fish!
Oh, I get it.
You want to extend our supply lines so that they go through Saudi Arabia and via the Bosphrous Straight through Turkey.
Got it Gen. Patton
Might I ask you then, if we don’t need to control the interior lines of communications, how da frik do we get the supplies from thier Turkey, Kuwait, and Sauid to thos frikkin “choke points across that nation from the parts that border nations that have “vested interest” in letting us send our supplies over thier borders?
Given that those choke points exist in the trackless desert wastelands you describe?
Dude, Ron Paul does NOT have charisma. That’s just another indicator in my book that you may well be overly enamored of the man.
Not that charisma in and of itself is a positive quality, anyway. Bill Clinton had BAGS of charisma, but he was a horrible president.
Dang, I really, really need to hit the sack. I’m not usually around with the late night attacks. Phil_M just took on Sarge, this could get interesting.
texpat has me going now with that nanny state thing. Is it nanny state to shift the burden for health care from the government to the individual?
We are fighting a regional war, not just a war in Iraq. Our President, Congress, State Department and fellow citizens, more often than not, ignore that fact at our peril and the peril of many others on this earth.
Thaniks for the fish?
In the River de Chute on the Canadian Border up in Maine my Dad and I used to fish for what we called suckers. Hmmm little did I know that thise skills would benefeit me now.
Phil_M = Gen. Patton
Nice shot, Sarge.
You’d better be fortified for the comeback.
# 286
My mama always said charisma is as charisma does…
go ron.
There you go. Now HAL has got me. Nary a curse word or a link to be found.
So much for the conspiracies.
Did he just admit or say that Ron Paul is charismatic?
I freaking knew it.
http://squawkboxnoise.com/?p=272
Mr. Moderator, I do believe that HAL has captured one of my finer moments.
Look up
Squawk
LST Moderator
However seeing that potential of a flame war maybe I shoulda….. Nahhhhh
Is little mikey and little mike the same person?
I’m outta here. LST is suppressin’ my message!
So let me get this straight:
Ron Paul believes that we have noting to fear from little nukes, just big ones.
That we have no interest in keeping one nation from invading thier neighbors.
And controlling interior lines of communications in a theater of conflict isn’t all that important.
Yup
It’s a definite Suck Forward Candidacy.
Nite all.
ST, it has something to do with cold water…..
#275, Squawkbox, I consider your input to be some of the more reasonable I’ve seen here.
Wow! That scares me so much that I’m becoming comfortable with hanging my chad for the lesser of two evils, yet again!
Maybe you’re right… Maybe we should have invaded the USSR when we had the excuse to do so. What the heck, let’s get to the root of the problem and invade Saudi Arabia tomorrow!
Or NOT.
jimb
I owe you thanks for the compliments you have paid me elsewhere. I appreciate it.
Don’t forget Sarge
I’m the shy one around here and Ron Paul is charismatic
bob42
Russia at that time could be negotiated with and even trade established with and even somewhat peaceful relations established, depending who is president oops now Putin is “Czar’. But anyway you get my point.
Iran on the other hand……
bigjolly
We’ll talk tomorrow, I’m sure. G’night everyone.
Toodles
/closes curtain
The strategy of mutually assured destruction only works with people who value life. The Russians fell into that category. Islamofascists don’t.
I’m a morning person, so I have to wonder why in heck I’m hanging out here this late!
Just a bit of curiosity… Why is it that after nearly every Republican debate, the discussion here is littered (if not dominated) with Ron Paul discussion?
This doesn’t seem to jive with the heavily promoted conventional wisdom that he should not be a legitimate candidate, or “doesn’t stand a chance.”
Seems to me that he gets a lot of attention from real people with real ideas, whereas the WaPo & the beltway insiders continually encourage us to ignore him, and do so to a far greater degree than any other candidate from either party!
Controversy is good. It makes people think and challenge that which others would have them believe without question.
Nope. You’re still not reading evidently. Over 95% of the Iraq-Saudi border is uninhabited desert with a population density of ZERO for hundreds of miles. To route stuff around Hormuz and up through Saudi would be a logistical nightmare for the jihadis - literally treks of hundreds upon hundreds of miles on foot and camel. And that goes without mentioning the fact that if it came from Iran originally, it would need to cross the Persian Gulf at some point or another to go up through Saudi.
To route stuff through Turkey…well there’s a problem with that too in case you haven’t been following the news lately. The Turkish army is mobilizing about 60,000 troops on the Iraqi border right now because of PKK raids on their territory coming out of Iraq. Their border is also with the Kurdish region, which hosts and gives shelter to the PKK. With that in mind, something tells me that Turkey isn’t going to be very enthusiastic about letting massive conveys of illicit arms destined for Iraqi insurgent groups (presumably including the PKK) to cross their border any time soon if we play it right and use them as a strategic ally.
You might want to rephrase that one for clarity’s sake. I believe you are asking though how we get our supplies to the Turkish, Kuwaiti, and Saudi borders, right?
Very simple. First, the Saudi border is already addressed above. It’s an uninhabited desert for hundreds of miles. Massive smuggling operations across it are a logistical nightmare for the smugglers, whereas patrol could be easily conducted at minimal cost by air - much as we do in the deserts of Arizona near Mexico (although this time with the will to actually enforce it and the authority to shoot em down when they’re spotted). For Turkey, leave that one to the Turks. They currently have a 60,000 man army near the Iraqi border and it seems to be supplying itself just fine. And Kuwait’s a small country that’s become accustomed to a heavily patrolled border with Iraq for the last 15 years. So just stick with the status quo there.
Natural choke points exist in mountains, rivers, and streams. Artificial choke points exist near roads, trails, and rails. It’s all a matter of identifying them and setting up operation to maximize effectiveness. You don’t try to seal off everything - just most of it.
As for the desert parts of the border, see above. To smuggle into Iraq by desert means crossing hundreds of miles of uninhabited wasteland. Treks take days at a time across open space with virtually no villages to hide in. Send up regular air patrols and it’d be a turkey shoot.
#305 hamous
Bingo - you win the prize !
To put it another way, from roughly 1992 to 2003 the United States and most other western nations imposed a trade embargo and sanction regime upon Iraq.
The sanctions were nearly total, covering all but the most basic goods and medical supplies. They devastated the Iraqi economy, even when they were being circumvented in the later years by corrupt UN officials with the oil-for-food program.
They were also sustained and implemented without so much as a single U.S. base inside of Iraq itself.
Yet Sarg is saying we need to control the interior of Iraq to close it off at its perimeter. If that’s the case, then how the hell did we do it for over a decade prior to the current war?
#300 - Think nothing of it. I’m just a blog-pimpin’ fool!
Because every time Bigjolly rates the Republican candidates in a debate, he gives Ron Paul a poor grade, the Paulistinians see it pop up in their RSS feeds, being the internet-saavy creatures that they are and descend en masse upon LST to defend their savior.
Much the same way he does so well on internet straw polls.
#305 - Yup. You got the game theory down. That’s why nukes worked in staring down Russia.
The cost equation is different with the islamic socialists. You can’t get them with mutually assured destruction so you gotta go after something else. That something else is to undermine their sustaining investments in their host populations. Take away the “services” that the jihadis use to make the locals sympathetic and give them places to hide.
To put it another way, this is why we shut down Hamas hospitals, schools, and other charities. Hamas uses these things to bribe the locals into letting the radicals live among them, and to draw recruits out of the local populations. Plow down the Hamas hospital and the Hamas school and the locals no longer gain from their presence - it’s all risk to them now because they have terrorists in their midst who do nothing for them and make them susceptible to attacks.
This is also why we cannot ever win a politically correct war where every so-called “mosque” is off limits to avoid offending the “religion of peace,” and where Hamas “charities” are thought of as a legitimate humanitarian activity.
The most we can do is give the locals a warning in advance: we’re gonna blow up Jihad Academy whether you like it or not, so don’t send your kids there. Otherwise you put yourself at risk. Sooner or later they’ll get the message and cease to tolerate Hamas in their midst.
Phil M: It seems clear that you favor blockading/isolating Iraq, a country that we’re trying to help set up a functioning government for. That doesn’t make sense on at least 2 levels:
1. I thought Ron Paul was a “non-interventionist”. Blockading a country is, in the grand scheme of things, only slightly less intervention than our current occupation.
2. Hobbling a new government’s ability to trade, come and go, etc. isn’t conducive to helping Iraq become an independent, self-governing nation again.
Either walking away from or “containing” Iraq makes no sense at this point in time.
#312 - your approach to Hamas is incomaptible with your guy’s “non-interventionist” theories, too…
Nice try, but it fails to answer the question. Where is the vocal support for the other candidates BJ gave flunking grades to?
Where is the die-hard McCain support? In the time we’ve spent discussing Ron Paul tonight, people have have contributed to his campaign, mainly through small donations.
There’s something happening here folks. What it is may not exactly be clear to you just yet.
I concur with BigJolly’s assessment with exception to Flamin’ Tom Tancredo,
he acquitted himself better in this debate than any other, he did not go ballistic, and displayed a sense of humor about his strident immigration position, if he improves as much in the next debate I will look forward to his presence and think he should have a position in the cabinet.
Tancredo? In a Hillary cabinet?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
314 - I’m by no means a follower of all of Paul’s foreign policy. I’m about half on board re. the stupidity of nation building, half against re. how to deal with islamic wackos. I find much more to support w/ Paul’s domestic agenda than anything international, so i’m willing to criticize him on that aspect and support him on the parts I agree with.
It sort of went away with McCain-Feingold.
Tancredo is too single-issue. Romney is too socially liberal, despite the fact that he should be VERY conservative given his religion. Rudy G. is a New York Liberal. He has the wrong position on the second amendment and multiple other things.
Thompson is an unknown, but he would have to convince me he’s worth voting for in the primary. So far, he hasn’t done to well.
Paul is right out. He and Giuliani are the only ones I know I won’t be voting for. Paul is horrible on foreign policy - everything I have seen of his positions is totally unworkable in today’s world. His domestic policy is one of “vote against everything”. No one positive solution. He’s a legislator. Let’s see one piece of legislation he’s even come close to passing that meaningfully shrinks the Federal government or curbs spending or anything.
I might be able to get behind Hunter or Huckabee. Too bad they don’t have a chance in you-know-where of winning the primary.
319 - Congress is where we need to focus our fixing of many of our Domestic woes. I want a President who supports that, or course, but if he’s really really weak on foreign policy, then he’s not really a good candidate.
Paul is really really weak on foreign policy. And he’s not eally going to be effective on the domestic front, either, even if his ideas are sound.
RP’s idea of leadership would be to veto everything. While that may be a nice symbolic gesture, it really only sets a confrontational tone. You’d see an unprecedented amount of cooperation between Dems and Reps in Congress passing bills with veto-proof majorities.
This would, of course, be to our collective detriment.
Huck gets better every time and wears well too, with the exception of RP, all the men, in their own way, are good, but flawed, with our prayers and Grace, one will stand above the others.
#313
That’s the thing - I don’t want to nation-build in Iraq, don’t think it can ever be done successfully, and don’t really care whether Iraq becomes a democracy or whatever. All I want is America to be rid of Iraq and free of any threat related to it, and cutting the place off from the world is the best way to do that right now.
#321 - God remains in control. We may not like who ultimately wins, but one thing is for sure is that God will find a way to work His plan out through (or despite) whoever winds up in the White House. That’s where I place my faith. Not in any man/woman running today for President.
I’m not sure I agree with you. If we pull out now and cut them off, the people and government will undergo great hardship, civil war, hunger, sickness, etc.
And they will remember. For a long time.
St. Thomas Aquinas is spinning in his grave again. Give him some reason to stop.
G’night all.
Their muslim. They’re still fighting over crap that happened in the 9th century between shias and sunnis. They’ll remember for a long time no matter what we do, and they’ll probably hate us for it. If its a civil war, I say let them fight it. At least it thins out the ranks of the kookier ones among them.
#324… True that, Jimbo!
It should be pretty clear by now that Iranians remember 1953 to a far greater degree than most Americans do.
And why not? In 1953 the U.S. was governed by elected leaders, whereas Iran was subjected to a puppet government installed by a benevolent external superpower.
Read the headlines folks. Blowback is not something that only happens in airport restrooms. It’s real. Our own CIA defined the phenomena based on substantial research and evidence. Much of which has been ignored for political reasons.
So, Adee comes in passes a note then leaves, g’night Adee, I have a letter to put together for Senator John.
bob42 - you may think that I validated your theories on blowback, but actually, I didn’t. You see, if anything, Ron Paul’s isolationist policies would have us leaving Iraq, and that would create enemies that staying would not.
So every action has a consequence. Paul’s isolationism, IMO, would have worse consequences for us than would a more active role in foreign matters, even our current involvement in Iraq and the WOT overall.