Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also funny, was when Pawlenty and Bachmann banged heads, there were resounding empty echoes.
I watched part of the debate again today, and think I was wrong about Bachmann, she did well.
One debate was about states rights vs gov't, for healthcare. Romney thought states could implement it, but not the Feds. Bachmann said neither could force people to buy something they don't want, that it wasn't Constitutional. Ron Paul said it probably was Constitutional for a state, but it just helped corporations and insurance company's, and drove a wedge between physician and patient. Everybody gains except the people.
Santorum wanted to control the federal gov't and the states by imposing his will and idea of morality. He kept talking about we, as a nation, rather than individuals. He was too dogmatic for my taste. He wanted to appear strong, but he over did it, imo.
So, Santorum and Romney lost that argument. Ron Paul came out with the best logical answer and Bachmann had the right answer, but for the wrong reason. I still like her. I put Ron Paul, Bachmann, and Newt as the winners. I don't dislike Romney, I just don't think he stood out.
I can't believe how many neo-cons and Bachmann fans think Paul is "nuts" for not wanting manage Iran's own policies. If they really wanted war with Israel, it would on already. (and have most likely ended in a massive defeat)
I was thinking about that today when I heard of more killings of the protestors in Syria. He is supposed to have killed about 2000 now. What brave people. They are calling for someone to kill Assad now. Hillary is as useless as our President. Could they be anymore frightened of Iran than they are displaying now? It is not our place to say who can or who cannot have nukes. If North Korea has them, so can Iran.
I just had a discussion with someone that understands Iran and the ME more than I. I have to change my mind. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. And furthermore, we cannot retreat from Iraq or Afghanistan. If we did, Iran would dominate both countries, spreading their extremeism. I wonder what would happen if we openly supported the protestors in Syria, got more involved. What could/would Iran do?
Last edited by claudhopper; 08-12-2011 at 11:02 PM..
I can't believe how many neo-cons and Bachmann fans think Paul is "nuts" for not wanting manage Iran's own policies. If they really wanted war with Israel, it would on already. (and have most likely ended in a massive defeat)
Having been a governor is not a panacea. In Texas especially, I'm told it is the Lieutenant Governor that does all the real work so it isn't like Perry will end up being a heavyweight candidate. On the other hand if they have accomplished things as governor the way Gary Johnson has, that is creditworthy. it is a different story.
Ron Paul has been in the military which none of the rest of them have; has run businesses (medical offices) and had a long proven consistent record in Congress and is the ONLY legislator that has gotten the REST of the legislators to see how CROOKED our monetary system is. He understands it and knows how to FIX it. The others our CLUELESS about our monetary system.
I think knowing about how the monetary system should work which underlies our entire economy is a KEY ADVANTAGE that Ron Paul has OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES!
What about all the WARS we are in??? No governor running has a clue about foreign policy. They all say they would do whatever the leaders of the branches of the military tell them. That is NOT BEING A LEADER OF A COUNTRY. We need someone who INTIMATELY UNDERSTANDS FOREIGN POLICY right now.
As you could see from last night, most of the candidates thought that Iran was a "big threat" and if elected probably would have started war number 7 there. That was UNTIL Ron Paul pointed out that they don't even have enough gasoline to fly here.
CLUELESS People is what we've had running our country for the past few decades in comparison to what we COULD have in Ron Paul. Let's not srew it up this time.
I agree with most of Ron Paul's policies, but his main issue is packaging. He needs to learn how to fit his policies in a digestible form like his son Rand does. The average voter is not as well-studied like most Ron Paul supporters are. This is why the media ignores Ron and brings Rand on all of their shows. Even Hannity (who hates Ron Paul) embraces Rand, even though Rand has virtually the same policies but only lays them out in an easily digestible form.
I was thinking about that today when I heard of more killings of the protestors in Syria. He is supposed to have killed about 2000 now. What brave people. They are calling for someone to kill Assad now. Hillary is as useless as our President. Could they be anymore frightened of Iran than they are displaying now? It is not our place to say who can or who cannot have nukes. If North Korea has them, so can Iran.
I just had a discussion with someone that understands Iran and the ME more than I. I have to change my mind. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. And furthermore, we cannot retreat from Iraq or Afghanistan. If we did, Iran would dominate both countries, spreading their extremeism. I wonder what would happen if we openly supported the protestors in Syria, got more involved. What could/would Iran do?
If Iran gets one nuclear weapon, Israel will still have 300 more. If Iran tries to hit Israel, they will be wiped off the map by the rain of nuclear weapons. In fact, Israel will probably launch a preemptive strike against Iran if they get the weapon anyway.
Either way, it's not our problem and we need to stay out of other countries' business. Who cares if Iran "dominates" Iraq and Afghanistan? Assad killing his people RIGHT NOW proves can't "save" everybody and we're simply hypocrites for not stopping all human rights violations and genocide EVERYWHERE, especially in Syria, Côte d'Ivoire, other places in Africa, in North Korea, etc.
If Iran gets one nuclear weapon, Israel will still have 300 more. If Iran tries to hit Israel, they will be wiped off the map by the rain of nuclear weapons. In fact, Israel will probably launch a preemptive strike against Iran if they get the weapon anyway.
Either way, it's not our problem and we need to stay out of other countries' business. Who cares if Iran "dominates" Iraq and Afghanistan? Assad killing his people RIGHT NOW proves can't "save" everybody and we're simply hypocrites for not stopping all human rights violations and genocide EVERYWHERE, especially in Syria, Côte d'Ivoire, other places in Africa, in North Korea, etc.
A word about Michelle Bachmann. I wanted to listen to her today, but the woman kept screeching, she needs to tone it down. She has a microphone, why does she feel the need to yell at us?
I know, she's trying to drum up enthusiasm, but it has the opposite effect on me. Palin does the same thing. No reason to yell, we can hear you just fine.
Men don't seem to feel the need to do this, why do women? It reminds me of Hillary screeching about "we have a right to disagree". It's a big turnoff!
A word about Michelle Bachmann. I wanted to listen to her today, but the woman kept screeching, she needs to tone it down. She has a microphone, why does she feel the need to yell at us?
I know, she's trying to drum up enthusiasm, but it has the opposite effect on me. Palin does the same thing. No reason to yell, we can hear you just fine.
Men don't seem to feel the need to do this, why do women? It reminds me of Hillary screeching about "we have a right to disagree". It's a big turnoff!
RON PAUL WAS AWESOME TODAY, as usual!
Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin Jr, and I can't take her seriously. I have paid attention to her for quite some time now, and she is all talking points. She votes the way I want her to on economic issues, BUT she has not proven that she has any in-depth insight beyond those talking points. Even her "I read Mises" quote seemed superficial at best. What's sad is people seem to gravitate towards her, but I think when Perry gets in he'll take all of her votes since he has the same views but more substance in comparison.
Also, Pawlenty is right, Bachmann doesn't have any real experience or accomplishments. Going that route again would simply give us the Republican version of Barack Obama (which would be better, sadly). I prefer Governors as Presidents since they have already proven they can run a government at the state level. Voting as a Congressman or Senator does not equal running anything but a self-managed office.
Even though I agree with her on many economic policies, she should not be the messenger for those policies. People said Reagan was dumb, but his stated viewpoints even as far back as the 60s were deep and insightful (youtube his late 60s speeches), which either proves he's a great actor, or was actually insightful and less deserved of the "stupid" label than Bachmann / Palin.
One thing no one can disagree on is that Ron Paul isn't well researched on his philosophy.
You know, I listened to Thaddeus today, and thought he made a great speech. To be honest, I was a little shocked to find out he was running for President. What happened to him? How come he didn't do better.
Michelle Bachmann is Sarah Palin Jr, and I can't take her seriously. I have paid attention to her for quite some time now, and she is all talking points. She votes the way I want her to on economic issues, BUT she has not proven that she has any in-depth insight beyond those talking points. Even her "I read Mises" quote seemed superficial at best. What's sad is people seem to gravitate towards her, but I think when Perry gets in he'll take all of her votes since he has the same views but more substance in comparison.
Also, Pawlenty is right, Bachmann doesn't have any real experience or accomplishments. Going that route again would simply give us the Republican version of Barack Obama (which would be better, sadly). I prefer Governors as Presidents since they have already proven they can run a government at the state level. Voting as a Congressman or Senator does not equal running anything but a self-managed office.
Even though I agree with her on many economic policies, she should not be the messenger for those policies. People said Reagan was dumb, but his stated viewpoints even as far back as the 60s were deep and insightful (youtube his late 60s speeches), which either proves he's a great actor, or was actually insightful and less deserved of the "stupid" label than Bachmann / Palin.
One thing no one can disagree on is that Ron Paul isn't well researched on his philosophy.
I'm leaning towards Cain over Michele. I really like the guy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
