Republican debate thread

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
rules lead to government and enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not necesarily

[Copernicus]

I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.

[iron81]

Being a hawk does not preclude one from being a libertarian. The Libertarian Party believe that government should be reduced to it's "core functions", which includes national defense. Once you get there, the only conclusion you need to reach was that Iraq was necessary for our national defense.

[Taso]

I couldn't believe that one guy tried to dance around the "would you let employers fire someone who was a homosexual if they thought homosexuality was immoral" question by saying, "Well, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, I think it's best to let the employers decide." - So..Yes? "Yes."

And I can't believe his answer was actually yes. How is this any different than an employer saying "I think people with black skin are immoral, I won't hire any of them." This answer just stinks with bigotry.

The only one I'd ever vote for, out of that group (and in truth, all the democrats as well) is Rudolph Giuliani. To me, he is the only one who isn't an extremist of some sorts, isn't a religious nut - and he also didn't vote for the war, and is now against it, just because the public doesn't support it anymore.

(I am a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, I know I'm in the minority here, not trying to start a debate about it.)

Also, as someone else said, I think he is the only republican (read: candidate who doesn't want to pull out of the war) that can win the general election.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't believe that one guy tried to dance around the "would you let employers fire someone who was a homosexual if they thought homosexuality was immoral" question by saying, "Well, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, I think it's best to let the employers decide." - So..Yes? "Yes."

And I can't believe his answer was actually yes. How is this any different than an employer saying "I think people with black skin are immoral, I won't hire any of them." This answer just stinks with bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a private company wants to have that kind of hiring policy it's their (stupid and probably bad for business) prerogative. It's not bigoted of the government to allow them to do that. That would be like saying the government is bigoted for allowing the KKK to exist.

[mark_foley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't believe that one guy tried to dance around the "would you let employers fire someone who was a homosexual if they thought homosexuality was immoral" question by saying, "Well, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, I think it's best to let the employers decide." - So..Yes? "Yes."

And I can't believe his answer was actually yes. How is this any different than an employer saying "I think people with black skin are immoral, I won't hire any of them." This answer just stinks with bigotry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a private company wants to have that kind of hiring policy it's their (stupid and probably bad for business) prerogative. It's not bigoted of the government to allow them to do that. That would be like saying the government is bigoted for allowing the KKK to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

He backtracked this morning saying that he misheard the question. He then said that it should be illegal.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortly after 9/11 I watched an interview with an American reporter who had recently interviewed Bin Laden (before the attacks). He said that Bin Laden appeared very smart and articulate, and wanted three things:

1. U.S. to stop supporting Israel.

2. U.S. to end the embargo on Iraq at the time, as innocent children/people were dying from lack of food.

I forget what the third was, maybe for us to get out of the Middle-East in general with our oil interests and such? In any event, all 3 of these points are perfectly reasonable. Yes, Israel might be eradicated after we stop giving them tanks, but that's not really our problem. They also might have to try to make nice. If U.S. citizens want to support Israel's military with private donations they can feel free.

Anyway, for a while after 9/11 there were a bunch of Americans (college students) who did think it was largely our fault, and I agreed. In the last couple of years though, all public opinion has shifted to the belief that the terrorists just want us eradicated because we're not hardcore Muslims.

I don't know what the real story is, but I do recall reading some messages from terrorists in the last year or two that blamed the U.S. citizens for voting the wrong people into office - and again, that's a reasonable position.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are 100% wrong in your belief that the terrorits problem is with the government and not the people of the US. Their problem is with our ideals, our freedom and our status as infidels.

They have said that very plainly, and I see no reason not to believe them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shortly after 9/11 I watched an interview with an American reporter who had recently interviewed Bin Laden (before the attacks). He said that Bin Laden appeared very smart and articulate, and wanted three things:

1. U.S. to stop supporting Israel.

2. U.S. to end the embargo on Iraq at the time, as innocent children/people were dying from lack of food.

I forget what the third was, maybe for us to get out of the Middle-East in general with our oil interests and such? In any event, all 3 of these points are perfectly reasonable. Yes, Israel might be eradicated after we stop giving them tanks, but that's not really our problem. They also might have to try to make nice. If U.S. citizens want to support Israel's military with private donations they can feel free.

Anyway, for a while after 9/11 there were a bunch of Americans (college students) who did think it was largely our fault, and I agreed. In the last couple of years though, all public opinion has shifted to the belief that the terrorists just want us eradicated because we're not hardcore Muslims.

I don't know what the real story is, but I do recall reading some messages from terrorists in the last year or two that blamed the U.S. citizens for voting the wrong people into office - and again, that's a reasonable position.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are dozens of statements from Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, the Hamas and other terrorist organizations that expressly state that ALL infidels are to be eradicated.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a hawk does not preclude one from being a libertarian. The Libertarian Party believe that government should be reduced to it's "core functions", which includes national defense. Once you get there, the only conclusion you need to reach was that Iraq was necessary for our national defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Important key word for why almost all libertarians are against Iraq highlighted.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a hawk does not preclude one from being a libertarian. The Libertarian Party believe that government should be reduced to it's "core functions", which includes national defense. Once you get there, the only conclusion you need to reach was that Iraq was necessary for our national defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are certainly libertarians who are hawkish (e.g., the Randians).
But I think most libertarians would see a hawkish foreign policy as definitively inconsistent with fundamental libertarian principles (and rightly so).
That said, certainly some who are libertarians might take unlibertarian views on a small % of issues.