Who won the Republican debate?

sometimes you shouldn't save everybody.

they breed and you must share resources with them. part of the time thats ok. The other part they rob and kill you, then rape your wife. somehow they deserve life as if it were cheap and easy. If the constitution has to right it out "right to this and that" then obviously its not easy. I say f*** em. They can help themselves in that situation, and if they can't too bad so sad.

There could be a cat 5 hurricane next week Dec. 6 hitting New Orleans. There would still be 200,000 people there that refuse to leave, and would know whats comin'

People at the same time deserve less credit, and more than we give them. Its a case by case basis.

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.

are you wearing a tinfoil hat?

Stupid Lefties wrote:

[quote]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.

It's a shame that since so many people in this country have such little understanding of the constitution and foreign affairs Ron Paul sounds "looney."

Mitt Romney, to me, comes across as an entirely inauthentic guy.

mitt is plastic and mccain sounded a bit crazy in some of his attacks on ron paul. couldnt see either of them winning the nomination.

i got the feeling Mitt would say something like, " yeah this baby has a few miles on her but she's in great shape. What's it going to take to get you into this Oldsmobile today." He was totally hammered on that gays in the military position.

McCain seemed as unpresidential as ever. huckabee won IMO but Guiliani will get the nomination.

The big thing will be if the Dems nominate Hilary. A republican can beat Hilary but has no shot against any one else from the democratic side IMO.

sam w wrote:

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.

are you wearing a tinfoil hat?

Are you wearing a I *heart* Fox news hat?

arroyo runner wrote:

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.

It was an exaggeration for effect. It is a matter of law that the Governor of a state must formally request federal disaster assistance before the federal government can act. That was one reason the response was a little slow - because the LA governor waited a little too long to make the request. I think the federal was slow to act on Katrina for a variety of other reasons. I was just pointing out what other people voiced, not what I personally believed.

Fighting the Barbary pirates was the main reason Congress authorized in 1794 the funds to build the first 6 ships of what would become the U.S. Navy. Opponents were very wary about the power the federal government would have with a Navy. What's wrong with pointing that out? Or is it just in you to insult people you don't know and pretend you could run the country better?

Not CNN! Caught again conspiring with Democratic activists by choosing their questions among thousands for the airing.

Anderson Cooper pleads ignorance. No one is doubting his self-assessment.

i watched most of the debate and thought Huckabee was the "winner". He's a guy many people knew nothing about, and he came across as likeable, reasonable, intelligent, and incorporated enough wit and charm in his responses that I think people will consider him more seriously. Ron Paul stood out cause he's so different from the others, and I think a Republican who wants immediate withdrawal in Iraq could be interesting, since so many Americans are of that opinion, too. People are also gonna like his idea on taxes/small government. My opinion is that taxes are the biggest issue facing most Americans. For a country formed in part to escape oppressive taxation, the idea that the federal government should take a third (or more) of one's paycheck is just getting out of control. It would take a radical candidate to address this, and people may start to come around. That said, Paul will never win, and of the "real" candidates, I thought Romney did a great job.

Where these folks come from that continually make insulting remarks like "tin foil hat".."kool-aid".."bill clinton".."idiot"...that's all they've got.

Guys like Rundaddy and me and many others know what small group is responsible, what group has all the blood on their hands..

Anybody who is even the least bit concerned and inquesitive...know.

They know about the AEI, PNAC, The Office of Special Plans...

I read a book once about american prisoners of war of the japanese in Burma...

It's called "Prisoner of the Japanese"..I'll bet Runndaddy has read it.

In the introduction it says "Sooner or later, when crimes are committed, it is necessary to go back and mark the spot"..or something like that...

I appreciate Rundaddy's candor in all of this and he is fair, but this won't go away..I have been a leader of many men, Rundaddy proibably has to.

He knows the dishonor in what went down to get us in this war...so do many others.

The tax burden on Americans is still far lower than on the citizens of most developed nations. I'm not advocating far higher taxes, but I think it's pure folly to argue that dramatically lowering taxes would be sound fiscal policy. Taxes were slightly raised during the '90s and the economy grew like crazy and the government eventually balanced the budget. What was wrong with that?

RunDaddy wrote:

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.

Anecdotally (and speaking very generally), it would seem that the majority of Americans--those occupying the broader political center--like federal involvement in issues that are beyond their immediate control like national defense, air quality, and disaster response. No one I know minds the Federal Reserve all that much. However, they like less federal involvement in those things they can control, like who they sleep with, talk to on the phone, etc.

Lots of gray areas here, but in any event Paul's message falls well outside the mainstream. He serves to highlight some interesting issues, kind of like Kucinich, as another poster pointed out.

By 2000, the country was in an economic recession which was worsened by September 11, 2001. The tax breaks created since then have created the economic prosperity enjoyed over the last few years. While it seems paradoxical, tax cuts raise the federal revenue because it encourages large income citizens to reinvest and use their money instead of hiding that money in shelters or offshore. If you look back at former adminstrations like Kennedy and Reagan, you'll see the evidence that tax cuts do raise federal revenues.

there is it wrote:

It's a shame that since so many people in this country have such little understanding of the constitution and foreign affairs Ron Paul sounds "looney."

What does understanding the constitution and foreign affairs have to do with Ron Paul being looney? I already agreed with RFXCrunner when he said there is a lot to like about Ron Paul. He is good to have in the national debate, as he does create conversation. That doesn't take away from the fact that Ron Paul, on stage spouting out about inter-continental superhighways running through your backyard, is looney. Or the believing that isolationism against radical islamic terrorists, when they have already attacked us on our own soil, is looney.

It's a shame that so many people in this country have so little understanding of common sense, that they can assume (from one forum post) the knowledge of ones understanding of the constitution or foreign affairs.

regeanomics do not work.

Should I be surprised? Calling a candidate a "looney" because they're either parroting ABCNBCCBSFOXCNN, or because of some deep rooted fear of realities they have no grasp of? So much for critical thought.

You do understand that there is a difference between isolationism and non-intervention, or perhaps you don't?

The reserve banking system and it's proxy wars are, and should be, living on borrowed time. Ron Paul isn't the alone in understanding this concept, he just happens to be the only politician who's brave and honest enough to properly address it.

Once again Ron Paul wins the debate.

mattk wrote:

regeanomics do not work.

Where did that come from? Who the hell said anything about Reaganomics (at least spell it right)?

You're like Steve Carell in Anchorman..."I love lamp!"

anyone who thinks we should do away with the Fed is looney.