|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
|
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
Post debate speech [/ QUOTE ] Does anyone have a version of this with better sound quality? |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century and, again, its acceptance is a reaction to recent history, to the incompetance of the US gov't in the 21st century. I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close. [/ QUOTE ] There's that word again. [ QUOTE ] To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter. [/ QUOTE ] Of course it doesn't disqualify you. |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
I'm sort of wondering why it matters what the political affiliation of the questioners is? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]I agree its pretty lame that CNN claims not know. But
|
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
Re: My Ron Paul comments. (snipped for focus on the following) ...I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century... I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close... To the person who asked earlier, yes I am Canadian, I don't know if that disqualifies me from being able to speak on the matter. [/ QUOTE ] So would you object if the USA were to implement a foreign policy similar to, oh, say, Canada's foreign policy? My impression is that Canada, while retaining membership in the U.NH., does little or nothing in the way of interventionism in its foreign policy (non-intervention is a policy and stance Ron Paul favors). Maybe Canada does a token amount overseas in terms of intervening if and when the U.N. says it should, I don't know. I'd like to know if you would support the USA doing about as little intervening overseas as does Canada. Oh yes, and if you would support the USA having about as many military bases overseas as does Canada. I'm asking because I think those would be the approximate real-world effects if the USA were to implement something akin to Ron Paul's foreign policy. Except for retaining membership in the U.N. (which you favor), the real-world effects would be that the USA would get out of the rest of the world's internal affairs for the most part, just like Canada. Or do you think that that would somehow be unfeasible or that it would be making a mockery of the advances of the 20th century? So, what do you think about this? And thanks for reading, by the way. |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
I do stand by my comment that his current popularity (compared to his limited profile, non-existent really, on the same platform over the course of the last couple of decades) is happening because of the cynicism fostered by the incompetence of the Bush administration. [/ QUOTE ] It's not just the President, it's the incompetence of politicians in general. The Dems took over congress and the senate on promises that they would hold the Bush administration accountable and they have done jack [censored]. A lot of people are sick of politician's empty rhetoric and unprinicpled behavior. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise polluted political landscape. [ QUOTE ] I do stand by my comment that his policies, foreign especially but also domestic, are unfeasible and his foreign policy makes a mockery of the advances of the 20th century and, again, its acceptance is a reaction to recent history, to the incompetance of the US gov't in the 21st century. I think pulling out of the UN and being isolationist and solely self-interested to the point of absurdity may be better than the Bush foreign policy, but it isn't the best foreign policy the US can take into the future, not even close. [/ QUOTE ] This is really just a big *sigh* I don't think you have looked very closely at his policies if you think he is an isolationist. [ QUOTE ] Finally, I think that if he did get the White House he would undertake to dismantle all these programs and foreign ties and immediately find out that the President isn't all powerful, and he wont be able to. So what happens next? he has to preside over them for 4 years, and you've elected someone to run the system who doesn't believe in it. [/ QUOTE ] Another *sigh* Ron Paul understands how our government works better than most people. He has stated that he knows he can't do most of the stuff he wants to right away. He can pull our forces home though and that would save billions of dollars. He is the only Republican candidate that seems to understand that you can't just cut taxes, you have to cut spending as well. [ QUOTE ] woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate [/ QUOTE ] This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
I missed the debate, but LOL that there seems to be a consensus that Huckabee came off the best, given that he's basically admitted to being a complete idiot (by not accepting/understanding very basic scientific theories).
I am distressed to see that Mr. Huckabee is a fellow bass player. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] |
Re: Jeez.....These Debates Suck
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] woman hating (aka pro-life) candidate [/ QUOTE ] This is just funny to me that you think his reason for being pro life is because he hates women. As an obstetrician I think his views on abortion carry more weight than most people including most women. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree with both these points. Characterizing the abortion issue as being gender-specific is overlooking the true meaning of Roe v. Wade. I think Ron Paul actually gets it: abortion is an issue of privacy that is best handled at the state level. |
Re: ***Official*** CNN/YouTube GOP debate
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hmmm, If you are "near Socialist" I don't understand how you can support Ron Paul. Care to explain? [/ QUOTE ] Sure. I don't agree with any candidate on everything. I'm sort of a "libertarian socialist" ... [/ QUOTE ] I'm another one of these crazy "libertarian socialists" (not sure I like that term...) that would vote Ron Paul if nominated but probably Dem or Green party if he's not. I've argued before that many of the worst violations of personal liberty (root word of liberal) are currently from the executive branch: War mongering, domestic spying, drug war, etc. President Paul could immediately have an impact in stopping these things. And would do a better job ending them than most of the democratic candidates. But he would still have a tough time putting an end to public schools, social security, etc. because these would require a democratic or republican congress to pass a bill to be put in front of him. That would be a lot of work to get that many politicians to ignore the popularity of all these programs and put an end to them in 4 or even 8 years. So a Paul presidency is high reward, low risk for social leaning libertarians. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.