Debate on Fox tonight...

[Doug.38PR]

sleezy politicians do that all the time in the Bible belt. They show up at the local megachurch, say a prayer, give a "testimony" as a thinly veiled campaign speech telling people "I'm a christian, I'm one of you, vote for me." Speaking of Texans, Bush did this too. As did/does Bobby Jindal. I've learned not to be impressed by it....in fact I'm suspicious of it

Doug you give me the idea that you rather have a political figure attending (or pretending ) to be christians like Jermiah Wright . Have you forgotten ? http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1

I don't understand your question. I'm just saying that superficial politicans play the "christian" all the time just to get votes in the Bible Belt.

 

[SirIsaacNewton]

Personally I thought the best response of the evening was Herman Cain's solution to Iran. It really made me respect him that much more. We all know where Ron Paul stands and we all know that he is to radical to win. However I thoroughly enjoy his viewpoints and support him 100%. Pawlenty vs. Bachman thing that went down really annoyed me and I have written both of them off. Huntsman really didn't impress me. I would rather drink a beer with Obama then Santorum.

All in all we know Romney is going to win the bid and he is going to be another Obama......

Oh BTW Newt Gingrich rocked and he hit the nail on the head calling the moderators out.

 

[03protege]

All in all we know Romney is going to win the bid and he is going to be another Obama......

Sounds pretty accurate.

 

[rob52]

I personally support Bachman because of her record. She has consitantly voted conservative, has strong moral values and has a better grasp of the Constitution than most on the stage. The deal between her and Pawlenty was contrived by the commentators hoping to get a talking point. Ron Paul has some good ideas but his foreign policy issues are naive and dangerous. The sad part of this is most Americans do not educate themselves before they go to the polls and believe, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, the minutia delivered by the press. As a result, I suspect we will end up with another progressive or centrist candidate like Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.
And when we do even if they are elected we will see more of the same, a gradual decline into socialism.

 

[SirIsaacNewton]

I personally support Bachman because of her record. She has consitantly voted conservative, has strong moral values and has a better grasp of the Constitution than most on the stage. The deal between her and Pawlenty was contrived by the commentators hoping to get a talking point. Ron Paul has some good ideas but his foreign policy issues are naive and dangerous. The sad part of this is most Americans do not educate themselves before they go to the polls and believe, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, the minutia delivered by the press. As a result, I suspect we will end up with another progressive or centrist candidate like Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.
And when we do even if they are elected we will see more of the same, a gradual decline into socialism.

Personally I think Santorum exhibited the most dangerous foreign policy. The "We are america... we don't have to apologize or respect any other nations sovereignty." attitude really pisses me off.

 

[RCRAMIE]

Bachman voted for the patriot act twice.

 

[gsneff]

Ron Paul won. Rick Santorum got his hind end handed to him by Paul. Santorum blew off the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) and invoked some vague "moral mission" of the US Government. Santorum was a cocky little punk.

Everybody else was bickering with each other (I got tired of the Pawlenty vs. Bachman whizzing match that went on forever), Newt was defending his own sorry legacy. They were all just chest beating the flag, giving us feel good statements and bumper sticker slogans.

Paul answered questions confidently, directly and showed that he thinks outside the box. That's what we need

Hitler also thought outside the box, that's not enough to vote for someone. and before you all jump down my throat I was NOT calling Paul a nazi. The idea that we would allow Iran to have nukes is absurd! They are not even remotely comparaable to China or the USSR. In those two communist countries they were/are atheist who only are living for the today, the nuts running Iran are living for the glory of the afterlife that they will be rewarded with if they kill the infidels, ie US!!!!

The Bachmann-Pawlenty feud was sophmoric and really hurt T-Paw (who I didn't like anyways).

Newt was probably the smartest guy in the room or so he thought based upon his arrogant body language. I look forward to the day he drops out. He will not have a speech t will be simply a press release because he is too prideful to face the cameras on that day.

Santorum is wasting his time and needs to drop out.

Cain messed up when he admitted he didn't know foreign policy then but had come a long way. This does not give people confidence and was probably a contributer to his placing fifth in Iowa.

Huntsman is in the wrong party. as is Romney who is only saying what he needs to to get elected.

Perry (although not present at the debate) talks a good talk but I don't know that I can trust him

Palin just needs to settle for Secretary of Energy or RNC Chairman.

Johnson needs to run for the senate.

Roemer is fooling himself but if the man is enjoying himself he isn't hurting anything.

 

[RCRAMIE]

Gsneff how does Iran with no air force, submarine, or missles that can reach us how are they a threat? It is not even clear if they are close to getting a nuke or even trying to get a nuke. Is getting a nuke or talking about getting a nuke is that enough reason to invade foreign countries?

I dont want Iran to get a nuke and neither does Ron Paul but we shouldn't start a war on the idea they may be trying to get one and they are not a threat to us.

 

[Yrdawg]

Gsneff how does Iran with no air force, submarine, or missles that can reach us how are they a threat? It is not even clear if they are close to getting a nuke or even trying to get a nuke. Is getting a nuke or talking about getting a nuke is that enough reason to invade foreign countries?

I dont want Iran to get a nuke and neither does Ron Paul but we shouldn't start a war on the idea they may be trying to get one and they are not a threat to us.

Al Kada and Talleybon don't have jets neither...but they can deliver a sootkase nook by slo boat or from a stealth bombur...but onlyst IF they possess the nook

 

[gsneff]

Gsneff how does Iran with no air force, submarine, or missles that can reach us how are they a threat? It is not even clear if they are close to getting a nuke or even trying to get a nuke. Is getting a nuke or talking about getting a nuke is that enough reason to invade foreign countries?

I dont want Iran to get a nuke and neither does Ron Paul but we shouldn't start a war on the idea they may be trying to get one and they are not a threat to us.

First they do have both a navy (including subs) and air force, even not being up to date on foreign policy and national security it is known that even teh South American drug cartels have subs they use to smuggle drugs into the US. If the cartels can gets subs you know the Iranians have them. Second, they are currently developong missles that can reach the US mainland. They currently have the technology to hit Europe, something that a mere ten years ago they were incapable of. Third, I never advocated the invasion of Iran (this is only an absolute last resort). I would however advocate bombing known or suspected nuke sites unddr the control of a terrorist nation such as Iran. I would also support assasinations of Iranian leaders and scientists involved in a nuke project as well as covert ops to instigate a revolution that we could reasonably count on a pro-US group coming out victorious in.

So in short, I don't support an invasion of Iran even though they are a real threat to the USA and our allies, but would deal with them harshly in order to preserve American lifes.

 

[Mjolnir]

Iran is no damned threat to the US. Period. Quit swallowing the Globalists, neocons and Zionists lies and THINK, please. Information of the US's foreign policy is in the public domain. Read it, goddamnit, as their goal for domedtic policy is equally heinous. You cannot divorce the two. as they are intertwined. Geesh!

 

[RCRAMIE]

The subs that cubans have are not the same type that can launch a nuke at us. We should leave Iran alone completely they are not a threat to us.

 

[RCRAMIE]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?deskto...d&feature=player_embedded&v=ZdF9NmgwjgY&gl=US

Mike church interview clears up Iran comment.

 

[CEHollier]

I know nothing about Perry, leVieux. I do know we deserve better that what we now have!

RICK PERRY: Rancher, TX Aggie, 12 year USAF officer / command pilot, Life member TX Rifle Ass'n / NRA, most popular & ONLY 4-term Texas Governor, handsome dude , no known skeletons, nice wife, Christian, actually knows how to operate a horse, created more jobe than the next four states COMBINED, stage presence ++++, anti-socialist, pro-States' Rights, carries a gun (himself), very popular.........................

Wht else do you need to know ?

leVieux

p.s. And, he came in a close second in the latest polls; despite NOT being in the race or participating.

Deja vous?

 

[leVieux]

Deja vous?

Is that intended "double entendre", or, did you mean "deja vu" ?

And, if in reference to Bush // Perry comparisons; no.

Perry is a native Texan from an old Texas farm/ranch family and a Texas A&M alum.

Bush was born in New England of a political family and was a Harvard/Yale grad.

Yes, Perry was once a dem and he did run one of the Algore campaigns; please recall that both were CONSERVATIVE democrats back then, something which seems to no longer exist.

What we need to be comparing NOW is Perry // Obama !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

leVieux

 

[highstandard40]

You can support this candidate or that candidate now, but history has shown that it does little good to us Louisiana voters. By the time the primary election finally gets here, this has all been sorted out, the field has been thinned, mostly by the media, and we don't have much choice at the primary ballot box.


"Iran is no damned threat to the US. Period.",...........Really?

Is Libya a threat? (Pan Am bombing) Is Yemen a threat? (Cole bombing) What about Somalia? In today's world, virtually every country in the Middle East hates the US and will harm us in any way they can. Those that claim to be an ally will shake with their right hand and stab with the left. Iran may not be able to mount nukes on rockets and level the US, but they do hate us and want to do us harm. I call that a threat.

 

[Leonidas]

.............. We should leave Iran alone completely they are not a threat to us.

I'm no international relations expert, so I'm gonna state this in gun forum terms to help me understand. I sit on my porch each afternoon. Each day a looney looking runt passes by and yells "I want you dead" or "I'm going to destroy you." Not sure, but I believe that this rises to the definition of assault. I do nothing, because he is no threat to me. Regardless that he threatens me repeatedly. Is it rational for me to await the day that he arrives with a gun and says the same things? Is it rational for me to wait for him to open fire?

 

[Russo]

I'm no international relations expert, so I'm gonna state this in gun forum terms to help me understand. I sit on my porch each afternoon. Each day a looney looking runt passes by and yells "I want you dead" or "I'm going to destroy you." Not sure, but I believe that this rises to the definition of assault. I do nothing, because he is no threat to me. Regardless that he threatens me repeatedly. Is it rational for me to await the day that he arrives with a gun and says the same things? Is it rational for me to wait for him to open fire?

yes, you must wait... unless there is an INVASION of privacy with a threat to your life can you legally defend yourself with lethal force. this is not hard to understand, Iran is nuts, yes... they changed the name of their country from Persia to Iran because Hitler was buddy-buddy with them during WWII and suggested the name change, but we have no power under the Constitution to pre-emptively strike them under any circumstance!

 

[Leonidas]

I didn't ask if it is legal. I asked if it is rational, i.e sane.

I'm not so sure about your Constitutional argument, either. Granada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya come to mind.

 

[RCRAMIE]

It would be irrational do to do it if it was not legal.

Of those you listed which ones have congress declared war with? The countries you listed are the problem which ones attacked us and what are the reason we are at war?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul729.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul687.html

He explains it better