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.
Looks like Romney scored the best , bad for the Huck and Mccain
I agree.
I thought Romney was the strongest.
Then Guiliani and Thompson.
McCain
Huckabee
Couldn't believe how close they had them sitting, all squished in together at that desk.
Yeah, Huckabee had a really bad night. I actually cringed for him when he failed to give a straight answer 3 times in a row after being questioned specifically about raising taxes. And on the immigration questions, yikes, didn't make much sense at all. I thought he looked foolish when he got mad at Romney for asking another direct question, one Chris Wallace said he was going to ask him anyway.
Felt bad for McCain on the age question (72), but thought he handled it well. I read his book, his account of being a prisoner of war. That man’s a true patriot. May not agree w/some of his positions, but he's a good man.
After the debate a reporter questioned a group of independents. The majority thought Romney was the strongest and that they'd vote for him, said Thompson was the weakest.
As always I appreciate how clear Romney is on the issues, what he's done, and what he will do. I have a lot of confidence in the man.
Everytime America has gone isolationist (the Paul doctrine) we have lost tens of thousands of young people in war. One only has to study history to see that we are no longer a big blot of land realitively underdeveloped on the other side of the world. Likewise, one only has to see how the Pakistani assassination changed our elections.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we are no longer a group of tribes covering one of the inhabited continents, but rather we are a world economy working inside a world heirarchy of politics. I encourage you to read the fable about the gingerman and the fox if you haven't lately.
I don't know who I will vote for President, but I know who I won't. Dr. Paul, obviously, but take your pick from the balance.
I was a regular Fox News watcher for about 2 years up until around 3-4 months ago. I tried to convince myself their bias was okay because all the other networks were doing it. At the end of the day, its conservatively biased junk. Not just the conservative view that no one else will report, but straight out junk. No different from the liberal media. Both are junk. When the NH GOP pulled support of the FOX debate it became painfully clear how ridiculous Fox has become. I would have watched begrudgingly if all candidates were included, but since they snubbed 2 candidates, I decided not to participate in Fox News' "WE Decide 2008" home audience.
Everytime America has gone isolationist (the Paul doctrine) we have lost tens of thousands of young people in war.
Ladies & Gentlemen, we are no longer a group of tribes covering one of the inhabited continents, but rather we are a world economy working inside a world heirarchy of politics. I encourage you to read the fable about the gingerman and the fox if you haven't lately.
Ron Paul is NOT isolationist. Repeating this incorrect statement does not make it true. He is a non-interventionist. Think: Golden Rule. Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
If your global view of the world were correct, we wouldn't have to fight for things as we would share all resources equally.
Everytime America has gone isolationist (the Paul doctrine) we have lost tens of thousands of young people in war.
The hidden benefit of the Paul campaign is that we get to see how many people really don't understand the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
We also get to see how many people feel that we have the right to invade soverign nations based upon a whim, overthrow their government, and plan to occupy for the foreseeable future. With no concept of reaction to our actions.
Ron Paul is NOT isolationist. Repeating this incorrect statement does not make it true. He is a non-interventionist. Think: Golden Rule. Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
If your global view of the world were correct, we wouldn't have to fight for things as we would share all resources equally.
I am all for non-interventionism in most cases...but if we close all our military bases around the world we are in effect becoming isolationist. If there is a conflict somewhere that the United States feels it needs to get involved in to defend our national security, without forward bases around the world how does the military replenish logistics and have launch sites from which to react. Also with no military presence around the world ("showing the Flag"), this vaccuum would be taken over by other countries.
The hidden benefit of the Paul campaign is that we get to see how many people really don't understand the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
We also get to see how many people feel that we have the right to invade soverign nations based upon a whim, overthrow their government, and plan to occupy for the foreseeable future. With no concept of reaction to our actions.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bily4
I am all for non-interventionism in most cases...but if we close all our military bases around the world we are in effect becoming isolationist. If there is a conflict somewhere that the United States feels it needs to get involved in to defend our national security, without forward bases around the world how does the military replenish logistics and have launch sites from which to react. Also with no military presence around the world ("showing the Flag"), this vaccuum would be taken over by other countries.
Unfortunately, bases are still required. Especially now that our economy is completely dependent on the rest of the world, we don't have the luxury to close our bases.
I was a regular Fox News watcher for about 2 years up until around 3-4 months ago. I tried to convince myself their bias was okay because all the other networks were doing it. At the end of the day, its conservatively biased junk. Not just the conservative view that no one else will report, but straight out junk. No different from the liberal media. Both are junk. When the NH GOP pulled support of the FOX debate it became painfully clear how ridiculous Fox has become. I would have watched begrudgingly if all candidates were included, but since they snubbed 2 candidates, I decided not to participate in Fox News' "WE Decide 2008" home audience.
It's almost exactly the same story for me. I didn't mind Fox News' conservative slant for the longest time. With most of the media leaning so hard to the left, I figured, Fox was a welcome antidote. No, it was never "fair and balanced," but a lot of their coverage DID seem more level-headed than what you'd get from a typical CNN broadcast. Of course, since 9/11, the whole network has gone from conservative to neocon, right along with the GOP. Now you have Hannity getting red-faced at the mere mention of Ron Paul. This "debate" was the last straw. They don't even pretend to be "fair and balanced" anymore. That's why, as of this joke of a debate, I refuse to call it Fox News anymore. It's Faux News, through and through. Just as bad as its leftist counterparts, if not more so.
I'm done with TV news. Half of what passes for news is Britney's latest meltown and the latest "American Idol" results, anyway.
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.
