?
?
most certainly not the gays.
It wasn't Guiliani or Romney with their pandering to the neocons on immigration reform either.
I think it was Ron Paul for standing up to McCain and saying let's get out of Iraq now.
The Ch's won. Chicken Hawks.
No Kidding wrote:
?
Increasingly, Ron Paul appears to be a giant in a field of Pygmies. He didn't just win the debate, he showed himself to be the only honest man on stage.
Ron Paul got booed consistently. Just because you like him doesn't mean he won.
reality is fun wrote:
No Kidding wrote:?
Increasingly, Ron Paul appears to be a giant in a field of Pygmies. He didn't just win the debate, he showed himself to be the only honest man on stage.
Ron Paul is a cheap snake oil salesman peddling an illusion that the U.S. can and should simply withdraw from the international scene with no adverse consequences. This isolationist siren's song plays well with million of Americans who don't understand, or don't care to understand, the world we live in. Wait...I've seen this play before...oh yeah, it was called the 1930s and it starred Charles Lindberg.
I believe the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, as I've said before. But we can't rewind the clock to 2002 and pretend it didn't happen. We must deal with the situation as it currently exists.
A "mistake" that we invaded Iraq. It was no mistake. It was a long drawn out plan which came to reality once the gang from the AEI actually were placed in positions of power in the "Office of Special Plans" a real department in the Pentagon.
It wasn't a mistake..it was criminal.
Hows that koolaid taste?
zse wrote:
A "mistake" that we invaded Iraq. It was no mistake. It was a long drawn out plan which came to reality once the gang from the AEI actually were placed in positions of power in the "Office of Special Plans" a real department in the Pentagon.
It wasn't a mistake..it was criminal.
Well I work in the Pentagon and I know all about what went on in Feith's office, etc... And while it disgusted me because they misused intelligence to serve a policy agenda, what they did was not criminal. Stupid and immoral maybe, but not criminal. Please cite the US criminal code that was violated...
We've all been over this a thousand times and we can argue about it until we're blue in the face. The fact is that we're in Iraq now and the '08 election discussion needs to focus on where we go from here, not where we should have gone.
Ron Paul was exposed as the wing-nut he really is in the debate last night. But what do you expect from a guy who has stared at box for 35 years. He's still talking about the inter-continental highway that is a figment of his imagination. He fumbled to answer any question with anything other than "We need to get out of Iraq". And when jumped on by McCain he cowered in the corner like a little boy.
The worst thing is, I like a lot of what Ron Paul Says- I'm a small federal government kind of guy, lets the states have control over how they run themselves and take care of the regional needs that can actually be targeted. Unfortunately, I couldn't ever vote for him for two reasons- I don't agree with his Iraq policy and the changes he proposes will never ever happen, especially not all at once. The current political atmosphere of congress would shoot down his proposals faster than you can imagine.
It was "criminal" nonetheless. Maybe there should be a criminal code that covers horrible leadership...
I've seen (and you have seen) careers destroyed over minor OER infractions...yet,
decisions that result in horrible consequences such as this, committing a country to war, injuring 10's of thousands, maiming, the cost, the miscalculation are blown aside as just bad judgement.
RFXCrunner wrote:
The worst thing is, I like a lot of what Ron Paul Says- I'm a small federal government kind of guy, lets the states have control over how they run themselves and take care of the regional needs that can actually be targeted. Unfortunately, I couldn't ever vote for him for two reasons- I don't agree with his Iraq policy and the changes he proposes will never ever happen, especially not all at once. The current political atmosphere of congress would shoot down his proposals faster than you can imagine.
I agree. Ron Paul is an honest, stick to his convictions guy, which is what we need more of. He's just looney. He can't be taken seriously. He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican side.
I honestly believe Huckabee ran away with the debate last night. Mitt could have ruined his campaign his performance was that bad. Rudy is Rudy, he'll do well in debates but never great. Fred still hasn't asserted himself as the canidate he really coud be. McCain is nuts. The others are fly under the radar, fringe canidates. But Huckabee softened his Jesus freak status, was articulate and even said he'd send Hillary on the first flight to Mars. He's likable and definately won last night, but I still don't think he can win the Presidency, at least not yet.
zse wrote:
It was "criminal" nonetheless. Maybe there should be a criminal code that covers horrible leadership...
I've seen (and you have seen) careers destroyed over minor OER infractions...yet,
decisions that result in horrible consequences such as this, committing a country to war, injuring 10's of thousands, maiming, the cost, the miscalculation are blown aside as just bad judgement.
Well what did you expect? It wasn't like Bush had a long history of successful business and political ventures. I hope you didn't vote for him...?
The Dems aren't doing much, nothing is getting done, which is probably good. The last thing we need is Bush mucking around in anything else. I wouldn't trust that guy to fix my toilet, let alone any problems this country has.
Stupid Lefties wrote:
RFXCrunner wrote:The worst thing is, I like a lot of what Ron Paul Says- I'm a small federal government kind of guy, lets the states have control over how they run themselves and take care of the regional needs that can actually be targeted. Unfortunately, I couldn't ever vote for him for two reasons- I don't agree with his Iraq policy and the changes he proposes will never ever happen, especially not all at once. The current political atmosphere of congress would shoot down his proposals faster than you can imagine.
I agree. Ron Paul is an honest, stick to his convictions guy, which is what we need more of. He's just looney. He can't be taken seriously. He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican side.
I honestly believe Huckabee ran away with the debate last night. Mitt could have ruined his campaign his performance was that bad. Rudy is Rudy, he'll do well in debates but never great. Fred still hasn't asserted himself as the canidate he really coud be. McCain is nuts. The others are fly under the radar, fringe canidates. But Huckabee softened his Jesus freak status, was articulate and even said he'd send Hillary on the first flight to Mars. He's likable and definately won last night, but I still don't think he can win the Presidency, at least not yet.
This was the first debate that I have seen and I thought Huckabee done a very good job. IMO, he 'kicked ass' on the bible question. Mitt done a good job and came across as reasonable. I still like McCain and Ron Paul seems like f' tard. I've been disappointed with Fred's campaign. I thought he would really have a huge impact when he entered the race but that just isn't happening.
RFXCrunner wrote:
The worst thing is, I like a lot of what Ron Paul Says- I'm a small federal government kind of guy, lets the states have control over how they run themselves and take care of the regional needs that can actually be targeted. Unfortunately, I couldn't ever vote for him for two reasons- I don't agree with his Iraq policy and the changes he proposes will never ever happen, especially not all at once. The current political atmosphere of congress would shoot down his proposals faster than you can imagine.
Nothing wrong with being opposed to big federal government at the expense of the states, but I really think people need to think that through on an issue by issue basis. The debate over the power of the federal government versus state governments is as old as the Republic itself, of course. Over the last two centuries, the power of the federal government has grown and changed for some very valid reasons, like the need to create a Navy to protect American commerce against the Barbary pirates. You can't imagine each state having its own Navy (unconstitutional).
Also, I find it amusing that so many people in America like Ron Paul's message about a limited federal government, and so many other Americans go nuts when the federal government didn't swoop in 2 minutes flat and save everyone in New Orleans during Katrina.
I'd like to see the federal government more involved.
Many states really suck. I mean, they are pathetic. We need to get the feds to force those morons to join the 21st century. They're holding us all back. I mean, what's the deal with Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana, etc?
Alabama, Mississippi, Indiana.
Which one does not belong?
Way to throw a random state in there.
Are you serious with that two-minute argument? People in this country were pissed because the time interval for getting some help into those people was several days. That's not even in the big government/small government debate - that's pretty much a competence issue.
Support for your previous argument was pirates? It's little wonder how f'd up this country is when deep thinkers such as yourself are making the wheels go 'round at the DOD.