"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Online poll: Who won Monday’s GOP debate in Tampa, Fla.?
The four remaining Republican candidates have moved on from South Carolina and have arrived in Florida. Tonight they faced off at the University of South Florida in Tampa. If you watched the debate hosted by NBC News, National Journal, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Florida Council of 100, let us know who you think won in our unscientific online poll.
Also, in the comments section below, let us know your opinion of the candidates’ performance and the questions posed by moderator Brian Williams of NBC and panelists Beth Reinhard of National Journal and Adam Smith of the Tampa Bay Times.
WORLD Washington Bureau chief Edward Lee Pitts is on the scene in Tampa this evening. Look for his upcoming WORLDmag.com Web Extra report.
Topic: Campaign 2012, News Desk
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top65 Comments to “Online poll: Who won Monday’s GOP debate in Tampa, Fla.?”
Still voting for Ron Paul. Newt’s joke about Castro’s eternal destiny fell flat. Be careful about tossing the judgment around there, friend. He also called himself “a genuine conservative” when talking about who on the stage is going to bring the Republican party back to its roots. ::Laughs:: Conservative is small government and “we have a pretty good guide for that” in the Constitution.
Note: I had a phone call right when Congressman Paul was answering the query about the Terri Schiavo situation. Can someone summarize what he said for me, please?
Report comment to moderator
100% Ron Paul. I agree!
Report comment to moderator
NW Juliana, I had the same question while trying to take notes that got in the way of the rest. I’m glad you wondered, too.
Report comment to moderator
Come on. Debating points never go to Ron Paul. He replies to a good point or two, but don’t over-pump him up. It’s a waste of enthusiasm better saved for analyzing the issues. Goodnight.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know how a Conservative can support Newt Gingrich after everything he has done in his life. Why do we forget so easily? I think Ron Paul is the most humble and truthful man up on the stage. If America can lean his way I have hope, but if we elect Newt or Mitt, I have little hope.
Report comment to moderator
Endless petty bickering back and forth by two disgustingly ambitious and phony men focusing on themselves – Newt Romney. Ron Paul on the otherhand was, in the little amount of time given him, able to cogently discuss the origin of our economic problems and what needs to be done to fix it.
Paul also reminded us what “conservative” means – not “Big Ideas” to transform society (Gingrich channeling FDR), not managing the leviathan better (Romney), not offering the carrot and stick of foreign aid or embargo/war (Santorum) but limiting government’s footprint on OUR necks by following the Constitution. Remember that “#$%(*& piece of paper” as George W. Bush is reported to have said? Yeah, THAT piece of paper.
http://www.rense.com/general69/paper.htm
Report comment to moderator
THRZ, you are talking to a wall.
Conservative Christians seem, by and large, to only talk about returning to the Constitution and its principles. In reality they seem, by and large to want to use the power of government to advance their agenda.
They also think that a Republican statist is better than a Democratic statist, because the Republican will regulate and tax us slightly less than a Democrat and will move us toward a totalitarian system a bit more gradually. They seem content with that.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is running for President of Iran. Ron Paul’s egregious and nfounded accusation against the USA in this debate that we have committed and are committing an act of war against Iran lines up nicely with the way the mullah’s and ran and Ahmadinijad vthinkabout the USA. No decent American who is een modestly informed could say what Ron Paul said against the united States in this dabate. Ron Paul actually ebelieves that if Iran closed the sraits of Hormose (spell?), it would be a rightful response to our act of war against them.
Ron Paul repeatedly stands with the Iranians against the US. I would vote for Obama over a candidate as unhinged as Ron Paul No, i just would not vote if those two were my only options.
Report comment to moderator
#7
Agreed. I finally realized that some of what the Liberals say about Conservatives is true. Not all of us, of course, but enough of us to know better.
Report comment to moderator
THUZ, your trite summaries of what the candidates believe is “conservative” were just selective camaign spins on your part and they did not truly represent the real views of the candidates. But it is a long tradiion for supporters of one candidate to try t define the others inadequately. It’s just a campaign ploy. People should listen to each canddate speak for themselves and not so much to those to try to define the other guys.
Gingrich’s “Big Ideas” to transform society would be welcome if they are conservative ideas. i think Paul idealss are just as big as Newt’s but Newt has a much better record of getting some of his ideas int play and practice.
And better management is not a bad thing. Our problems cannot be wiped out all at once so maagement is a part of the solution, at least for realistic thinkers.
ABut the most conservative candidate in practice, policy, and performance is Rick Santorum. He has the best vision of limited gov’t and prtecting our liberties and our interests of them all.
Report comment to moderator
#7 – Kyle, it is Ron Paul who is the one who only talks the game and gets nothing real done about his ideas in the real world.
And your charge that “conservative Christians” want to use the gov’t to advance their agenda was weird. Why can every other group in America who participates i the political process have and seek an agenda and you ONLY have criticism for Christians for seeking to advance an agenda?
Kyle your misunderstanding and mijudgment of conservative Christians is at the rot of your disdain for them.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Kyle “They also think that a Republican statist is better than a Democratic statist, because the Republican will regulate and tax us slightly less than a Democrat and will move us toward a totalitarian system a bit more gradually.”
Exactly! Every day that Congress is in session is a bad day for America.
Joel – The point you keep missing is no one ever says Christians should not be involved. The point is what they vote for when they are involved. Moral side issues (like faithfulness to one’s wife or birth control) will not solve our economic or energy problems. It will not make America safer and more prosperous.
Report comment to moderator
It is weird that faithfulness to one’s wife is all that matters to some Christians, yet Ron Paul has been faithful and it doesn’t seem to matter. Ron Paul is the only evangelical. Doesn’t matter. He is the only one who has truly conservative principles and he has stuck to them for decades. Doesn’t matter. He is the only veteran. Doesn’t matter.
Apparently the problem is that he is just too conservative for Christians who want to use government to advance their cause and create a “biblical environment” as DC Innes put it. Well, is that what the other candidates intend to do? I don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
Dismiss me if you want to, but I am in good company with Xion, Tammy, THRZ, Juliana, and Frank. Did I leave anybody out?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, what I meant is that you cannot say that you are for smaller government if you want to expand government power in order to advance your particular agenda. In that case, you are the same in principal as the people who want to expand government power in order to advance a secular, liberal agenda. Just two sides of the same coin.
What Ron Paul and others like him want is not to use the government to wield power or advance an agenda but to actually loosen the government’s hold on us.
Report comment to moderator
Apparently the problem is that he is just too conservative for Christians who want to use government to advance their cause…
Xion: I think the problem is much more about their sense that, rightly or wrongly, Congressman Paul doesn’t make them “feel safe” in the area of foreign policy.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A. (14): I’m almost there – I’m still wrestling with the whole area of foreign policy.
Report comment to moderator
I clicked Mitt simply because he did the right thing and finally went after Newt. I wish people will take a look at Newt’past and reconsider his eligibility. Ron Paul was good as usual and Santorum seemed a little too condescending.
Report comment to moderator
#16 Tychicus “Xion: I think the problem is much more about their sense that, rightly or wrongly, Congressman Paul doesn’t make them “feel safe” in the area of foreign policy.”
Yeah, I am with you on that. I agree with Paul in principle, that “We should respect the sovereignty of other nations as we would have them respect our sovereignty.”
It is hard to argue against the Golden Rule, but I think Islam changes things. Does the Golden Rule still apply when dealing with the insane?
Report comment to moderator
On the other hand, Ron Paul does believe in an extremely strong defense, since that is the proper role of the Federal government. I would say that having troops overseas is part of our defense. He would not.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, concerning foreign policy I would characterize myself as somewhere between what might be a typical Republican view and Congressman Paul’s view, but leaning far more toward Paul’s view.
Report comment to moderator
If the Golden Rule doesn’t apply when dealing with evil, then it doesn’t apply to anything, but I think people articulate it improperly.
The problem is, people seem to think it means that since I want people to ‘be nice’ to me, I must be nice to them. Well, I don’t want people to “be nice” to me, I want them to treat me with justice tempered with mercy. If I become dangerous, I want those with the authority to do so to prevent me from wreaking havoc in my neighbors’ lives unjustly. But I also want them to respect my liberty to live my life governed by my own decisions, which means I’m free to make mistakes. That does not mean they need to bail me out of the just consequences of my decisions—though thoughtfully applied mercy might allow them to do so if they are inclined.
Internationally, we do have neighbors. Those neighbors are free to make their own decisions just like we are. We are not obligated to bail them out of bad consequences, but we may do so should we decide it is in our best interests or if mercy compels us.
But I’m sorry, 900 or 1000 bases all over the world placed strategically so that we can interfere with our own neighbors’, and worse their neighbors’, free decisions, is not an appropriate application of the Golden Rule, in my opinion. It does not demonstrate a respect of people’s liberty to choose their own government forms, and it attempts to short circuit the just consequences that follow.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus (17): … I’m still wrestling with the whole area of foreign policy.
Frank: A couple of video resources I hope you’ll consider:
Debra (22): But I’m sorry, 900 or 1000 bases all over the world placed strategically so that we can interfere with our own neighbors’, and worse their neighbors’, free decisions, is not an appropriate application of the Golden Rule …
Frank: Speaking of which, have you seen this graphic, “United Bases of America”? (Click to enlarge)
Report comment to moderator
I thought it was a crazy promise that Obama would bring the troops home, when we still had soldiers in foreign countries from WWII. Nevertheless he’s brought them home from Iraq, and has plans for bringing them home from Afghanistan.
I’m not debating the wisdom of these plans here, but I did hear something interesting on the news a few days ago. I just caught the end of it, but a British official was responding to a question about what will happen if the U.S. follows through on more military cut backs. His reply was along the lines of, — those of us who are allies of the United States will simply have to take more responsibility for our own protection –.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK @24 – United Bases. Many years ago I was stationed in a country that’s not mentioned as having a base today. It wasn’t mentioned back then either. Since it was a neutral country we could not wear our uniforms, and had to go to work in civies. I bet there are still sites like that today that don’t make the official map.
Report comment to moderator
XION, you clearly missed the point.
Kyle wrote that “[Conservative Christians] …seem, by and large to want to use the power of government to advance their agenda.”
Well, the point, XION (please pay attention) is that all gov’t amounts to a use of power. The debate is over how much or limited that should be. Even Ron Paul understands that. So if Christians involve themselves at all in politics (on an equal basis with all others and under constitutional terms), they ARE involved in some sort of use of power. And we have an agenda too, just like ANY other people so involved. That’s ture of EVERY (yes, I’m shouting at you) person or group who engages at all in American politics. The power is to, in, of and for the people too. That includes Christians, brother!!!
So why do you and Kyle seem to resent that Christians have an agenda for engaging in politics as if that’s some bad thing??? Why can all other groups have an agenda and pursue it politically on fair constitutional grounds (which always involves the use of some power) but it’s bad for Christians only???
Concerned Christians want that agenda advanced with a sufficient consent of others on constitutional grounds. The Constitution limits the power of gov’t but it does NOT eliminate it.
The clear implication of Kyle’s criticism of Christians (with which you agree) is that you and Kyle do NOT think Christians should be involved in politics at all but all other groups can and should. Otherwise, you would NOT criticize Christians for using the power of gov’t to advance an agenda, since that is necessarily what EVERYONE who gets into politics to any degree is doing?
And you know as well as I that no Christians are trying to make laws to specifically define and enforce faithfulness to one’s wife or birth control. George Stefanopolis imagines that we are, but I know of no such efforts and neither did any of the Republican candidates.
IF CHRISTIANS ARE INVOLVED IN POLITICS in any way, then we ARE necessarily using the power of gov’t to advance and agenda! So is everyone else.
Duh!
Report comment to moderator
Leo@26 – That is interesting. I know the US has unofficial bases that are not on that map in Colombia.
Tychicus, I am studying international relations (switched from engineering) and have learned much about blowback, and even how our foreign aid contributes to increasing terrorism overseas. Of all the candidates up their, Ron Paul is the only one who wants to stop making the same mistakes of the past (mistakes the Roman Empire made as well) while Newt would willingly repeat them.
Joel Mark, you talk about Newt having a history of getting things done. All that he has done I want to reverse, especially the federalization of education. I could never vote for him because he will do everything I am against given the opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
Joel neither Kyle nor Xion said Christians should be uninvolved with politics.
Report comment to moderator
XION, no one has criticized Ron Paul for being faithful to his wife or accused him of being unfaithful. Responsible people listen to him and measure his political & policy rhetoric with his actions and judge his qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief. THAT is where he falls short, in my view, not becuase of his personal marriage relationship.
Ron Paul is far to leftist for conservative Christians like me who actually listen to him. Yes, he clearly admitted to being to Obama’s left on foreign policy. Please pay attention.
Also, Ron Paul’s views on America in relation to Iran are just exactly the same as the views of the Iranian mullahs who hate us. He made that clear last night! He accuses us of acts of war against Iran and his spin is that if the Iranians do block the Starits of Hormoos (spell?), it would be a natural reaction to our provocation with acts of war against Iran. That’s dangerously ignorant and frankly, evil thinking, considering the facts. Ron Paul also stands by his vicious and false accusation that we killed a million Iraqis. But you can just go back to sleep if you wish.
That’s clear. Wake up, XION. Conservative Christians want someone who is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief and that rules out RP for all reasonable people who listen to him.
Report comment to moderator
ROM116, think!!!
Think! Read #27. There was a clear tone of criticism by Kyle for conservative Christiasns want to use the power of government to advance their agenda. Well, think! That’s necessarily what ANYONE is doing who is involved in gov’t–even if done so on full constitutional terms. All gov’t and anything they do is some sort use of power. To take power out of government is to eliminate gov’t completely!!! Even if you want to limit the power, you are still advocating some judicial use of power to advance an agenda. Why is it so bad that Christians do this on equal terms with others in MAerica on constitutional grounds?
Think!
Report comment to moderator
The reality of evil in the world does indeed make a difference in how we treat DIFFERENT nations. We treat them differently. The “Golden Rule” does NOT justify some blanket policy in all cases and toward all countries that ignores the reality that some nations are extremely dangerous and some nation (are you paying attention) are NOT!
Report comment to moderator
#15 – Kyle wrote; “what I meant is that you cannot say that you are for smaller government if you want to expand government power in order to advance your particular agenda.”
Then you are NOT listening to me at all, Kyle. I do not want to expand gov’t and neither do ANY conservative Christians I know. In fact, we want the opposite. I want to reduce it intelligently, realistically and seriously. But why start listening to us now? Just keep judging us for what we do not think or believe without listening!
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus,
Ron Paul acknowledged and identified himself in a recent debate as to the left of Barack Obama on foreign policy.
Ron Paul’s views on America in relation to Iran are just exactly the same as the views of the Iranian mullahs who hate us. He made that clear last night! He accuses us of committing acts of war against Iran and his spin is that if the Iranians do block the Straits of Hormoos (spell?), it would be a natural reaction to our provocation with acts of war against Iran. He is thus not qualified to be our Commander-in-Chief, not by any stretch.
Ron Paul also stands by his vicious and false accusation that we killed a million Iraqis.
Also, his accusation that blacks are executed at a disproportionate rate in the USA, implying a horrific racism in our law enforcement and justice network, was false. That case was well made by Dennis Prager here:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0112/prager011812.php3
Report comment to moderator
“Did I leave anybody out?”
*raises hand*
Report comment to moderator
“Ron Paul acknowledged and identified himself in a recent debate as to the left of Barack Obama on foreign policy.”
Yes, because Obama is A NEO CON when it comes to war. He is right wing extreme.
He is not democrat/liberal in the traditional sense.
So anybody with any actual reasonable sense of when war is appropriate is to the LEFT of obama.
OH NOOOOOOOSSS
Btw, Paul’s proposed budgeted defense spending, is on par with 2006 levels.
“Ron Paul also stands by his vicious and false accusation that we killed a million Iraqis.”
Iraqi’s say we did. We say at least 100k. Collateral damage is at least part of our responsibility for choosing a large clunky army to traverse across their nation seeking small isolated groups using guerrilla warfare.
Hows it working out? They had another dozen car bombs go off yesterday in Bagdad. Some peace we brought and settled.
Report comment to moderator
Newt needs to hope more states have TV networks with men like John King or Juan Williams there to ask questions. If I were Romney I’d pay Marianne Gingrich to go on TV and say bad stuff about me as well.
In the south Romney needs to campaign under a pic of George C Wallace. He could point out that Mormons were fighting federal forces in 1857 which would technically make them the first rebels!
Report comment to moderator
I heard Newt sent Juan Williams a case of chilled champagne out of gratitude!
Report comment to moderator
#36
To “settle” Iraq down we need a generation raised in a secularist western oriented culture. That generation needs to grow up with a fundamental orientation to free markets and private property rights. I dont think we stayed long enough to achieve any of that.
Imagine how Japan would be or Germany would be had we packed up and cleared out from either one in 49 or ‘50.
Report comment to moderator
#34 – Tychicus, let me add that I like much of what Ron Paul says too about smaller gov’t, cutting spending and real money. I don’t want you think I am against all that he says. I’m not. At #34, I just listed a few things I oppose. The problem is that he has no record of actually persuading others and working with other leaders (something our Constitution requires to get anything passed) to get bills passed. One trivial bill in over 20 years. We can do better.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: “Ron Paul also stands by his vicious and false accusation that we killed a million Iraqis.”
THORN: “Iraqi’s say we did. We say at least 100k. Collateral damage is at least part of our responsibility for choosing a large clunky army to traverse across their nation seeking small isolated groups using guerrilla warfare.”
Ee-gads! Some Iraqis in some survey accuses us of mass murder of holocaust proportion and you accept it uncritically??? It’s a huge lie!
The collateral damage is the fault of the terrorists who hide behind women and babies. Ron Paul is blaming us for all deaths in the nation, forgetting that Al Qaeda’s mission was to slaughter as many innocent people as possible. We were there to protect those people and we did so at great cost to ourselves. And Ron Pual blames us for what our ememies and and for what we actually stopped them from doing in many cases. Sheesh!
Report comment to moderator
Fact is RP views will leave us in a dangerous spot, when it comes to dealing with evil men in the world.
His views of send ever thing back to the States will leave is with Judges making laws for the nation.
Report comment to moderator
Good brief post at #42, Pastor Roy.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I am afraid that you, Xion, and I are still not on the same wavelength.
Republicans, of late, want a big government that promotes conservative and neoconservative agendas. They want to spend as much as possible on programs that foster their views, particularly going after “the terrorists.” And, at least as important, to gain power or to remain in power themselves.
Democrats want a big government that promotes a liberal agenda. They want to spend as much money as possible on programs that foster their views, particularly taking care of “the needy.” And, at least as important, to gain power or to remain in power themselves.
Libertarians, like Ron Paul, want a small government that doesn’t promote any person’s or any group’s agenda. They want to spend as little money as necessary on the bare minimum of government functions and activities. (And one of those certainly is defense.) They don’t so much want power as they want to be in a position to relinquinsh as much power as possible.
Report comment to moderator
Newt haters tend to equate the sum of all legislation passed while he was speaker with his own convictions as an individual. They ignore his own declarations of his beliefs and they assume that he is lying, that Newt couldn’t possibly be both conservative and still capable of working sincerely with others. They’ve bought into the Clintonian version of Newt without even pausing to consider the meaning the word “is”.
Newt is not just a conservative in the best, most Kirkian sense of the word, he is a tactical realist who recognizes that in order to achieve one’s chief and most important aims, one must sometimes allow one’s opponent a few achievements of their own and in so doing, the necessity of maybe sacrificing some less important aims for the time being. He is not just aware of the political dynamics of a room, he flows in and out of them with grace and manipulates them with artistry. In terms of operational effectiveness, Newt is the polar opposite of Ron Paul or Obama. Ron Paul entering a room of dissonant political dynamics is more like a softball entering a china shop through the window. Neither Paul nor Obama care about consensus, they are didactic and peremptory and expect the self-obviousness of their rightness to be apparent to all. Gingrich takes nothing for granted. He allows others their opinions and yet strives continually to cajole and convince. He is a congenital consensus creator, a networker extraordinaire who must network or die. He is built for coalition building the way MJ was built for jumping.
Paul’s voting record may be ideologically pristine (so long as pork barrel earmarks aren’t held as a sign of hypocrisy and flip-floppiness), but of what use has it been to anyone other than his immediate constituency (again, considering pork barrel politics a positive)? Gingrich held together the first three-peat GOP majority since before the Great Depression. He passed a slate of legislation that Reagan only dreamed his Congress might’ve sent up for signature. The man has some serious heft to his resume.
Compare Gingrich’s personal views, as expressed best in his inaugural speech as Speaker, to those of the RINOs and establishment drones and the yes the Democrats whose votes were the deciding votes on most of the legislation during Newt’s tenure and of course you’ll find discrepancy. But Newt is no more responsible for the views and votes of those to the left of him than is Ron Paul. The main difference between the two is that Newt was at the forefront of the fray and has the battle damage to prove it, whereas Ron Paul has had the equivalent of a desk job during the war, hiding in his office away from any danger.
One cannot assess Gingrich’s record without digging deep into the historical context. One especially cannot trust any Lame Stream summary of the man without first de-Clintonizing it by identifying and extracting all the rehashed lies of the Clinton machine designed to blunt Newt back in the 90s. As the only proven coalition-builder on the stage, and a man who will never ignore conservatives and so long as they don’t let him, won’t sell them too far down the river either, Newt seems our best choice. Newt, shackled to the Ron Paul agenda and a 24hr/7days-a-week appropriateness censor is surely the Reagan of the 21st century or if not, as close as we’re gonna get anytime soon.
Report comment to moderator
On the historical consistency of conservative Christian Republicans:
Conservative Christians who supported Nixon’s departure from office show tremendous consistency with their call for Clinton to leave office too. The difference is that the Republican Party in Nixon’s day refused to condone his illegal cover-up activities and called for Nixon’s departure. The Democrats, in contrast, all lined up behind Clinton regardless of his illegal cover-up activities and his many sins in office.
The same Democrats who wanted Nixon gove, hypocritically refused to tell Clinton to step down. And Clinton was worse than Nixon at every level of illegality, and Nixon did not commit adultery with an intern either).
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, we disagree on what most Republicans advocate. They don’t want a big government that “promotes conservative and neoconservative agendas.” They want a smaller gov’t that promotes conservative agendas (forget the ‘neo-conservative’ label because it is was just an vacuous attempt to brand others).
I think you are confusing Republicans with Democrats, Kyle.
I disagree that Libertarians, like Ron Paul, don’t promote any person’s or any group’s agenda. That’s just silly. There is indeed a Libertarian agenda but there is no effective strategy for getting it through a divided congress effectively (even if a Libertarian was actually elected, there is no strategy for political success).
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul’s foreign policy views concerning Iran and the middle east are shared by many specialists. Concerning Nation building Jim DeMint recently made it clear he agrees. Concerning Israel evangelical Christians are divided. Some claim the state to be the fulfillment of prophecy, others believe it’s a country like all others. When Ron Paul warns of the threat of domestic tyranny he is supported by John Whitehead, former aid to Francis Schaeffer. As Christians we can’t point a finger at Muslims or Islam and claim we have found the ultimate evil in this world. Evil is in our own hearts.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree, Onthemoney. I know of no respectable specialist who holds such insane and radical views as does Ron Paul regarding American and Iran. I have not heard or read any of the people you named say the same things as Ron Paul has said about America, with regard to Iran.
Report comment to moderator
RP view is let Iran have the bomb. We will pull out of the middle east and let the True Muslim take control (the ones who kill women, strap bombs to them selves etc.)
RP view of Korea pull out and when the North attacks the South.. Do nothing about it. because they are not attackig us.
Report comment to moderator
“Ee-gads! Some Iraqis in some survey accuses us of mass murder of holocaust proportion and you accept it uncritically???”
Um no, it was a survey on how many family members were lost.
I don’t believe they asked who’s fault they thought it was.
“The collateral damage is the fault of the terrorists who hide behind women and babies”
So we should shoot/bomb civilians in the way then?
“And Ron Pual blames us for what our ememies and and for what we actually stopped them from doing in many cases. Sheesh!”
I think there is blame on both sides at this point.
As the former CIA director (Michael Scheuer) in charge of hunting down Binny said the other day on Napaltano’s show, Paul understands that for every action there is a reaction.
Scheuer recognizes Al Q’s still major presence, yet supports Paul primarily because the guy critically weighs the cost of meddling in other nation’s affairs.
Report comment to moderator
“On the historical consistency of conservative Christian Republicans:”
Meanwhile, Ron Paul wanted Clinton impeached over his bombing the middle east without congressional authority or declaration of war in 98/99…not Lewinsky…
Report comment to moderator
“I disagree that Libertarians, like Ron Paul, don’t promote any person’s or any group’s agenda. That’s just silly.”
From the FEDERAL level.
“There is indeed a Libertarian agenda but there is no effective strategy for getting it through a divided congress effectively (even if a Libertarian was actually elected, there is no strategy for political success).”
Oh sure there is, in the least say a Libertarian president with Paul’s values would GRIDLOCK 500 kings and queens hell bent on continuing to over spend, over control, and over war.
Bi-partisanship between Dems and Reps lately produces NDAA, SOPA, debt ceiling increases…the list goes on and on.
Report comment to moderator
WAIKO 45, thanks for a superb differentiation between Gingrich and Paul and the guy in the WH now.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, “Um no, it was a survey on how many family members were lost.”
That’s worse, Thorn. That Ron Paul would just cast a blanket opf blame on us for every death (perpetrated by the terrorists and those were there to stop) is so shameful and dishonest, it is unspeakable. You just don’t realize how offensive that is, especially for people like me with love-ones who died serving ini Iraq and protecting the Iraqi people.
Thorn wrote; “I don’t believe they asked who’s fault they thought it was.”
Yes, it was Ron Paul (shame on him) who projected that blame on us by accusing US of killinga million Iraqis. And the survey gave him NO RIGHT to do that. what an abuse of information to poison the discourse!!!
Report comment to moderator
WaikoloaLogoi (45): Newt haters … ignore his own declarations of his beliefs and they assume that he is lying …
Frank: Uh, only those “red meat” declarations of his beliefs with which he chums the waters when he goes a-fishin’ for your average conservative.
When I consider his more unguarded declarations of his beliefs — to say nothing of his actual votes as a congressman — I take him at his word.
And when I consider the whole package, a see little more than a self-aggrandizing, flip-flopping opportunist who will say anything — whether to bed another woman or the American voter.
A slimy salamander is he.
A newt.
Report comment to moderator
@53 Bi-partisanship between Dems and Reps lately produces NDAA, SOPA, debt ceiling increases…the list goes on and on.
This is the most troubling thing to me. We just elected a House full of Republicans (supposedly quite a few Conservatives) and we’re getting worse legislation than ever.
Report comment to moderator
Gingrich is slimy! Liar and a cheat.
Report comment to moderator
“We just elected a House full of Republicans (supposedly quite a few Conservatives) and we’re getting worse legislation than ever.”
How so, Debra? I disagree. Explain please. Do you understand how a divided contress works? There is not much that the House can do when the President can veto what they do and the senate can block it completely. It is the American people who put this President in power and put a Democrat senate in power and if you want more conservative legislation, it will take patience and persistence and lots of persuation before that can come.
The quickest thing that can overcome the snags (all of which are not bad) in congress is a strong and united will of the people expressed directly to congress and the President in letters, e-mails, calls and more.
Report comment to moderator
Conservatives could easily have blocked passage of the NDAA until American citizens were explicitly exempt, but they decided they would rather increase spending than actually protect Americans by preventing an egregious increase in executive powers.
And in the same month they passed NDAA, they approved the sale of 29.4 billion dollars of sophisticated weaponry to the very oppressive Saudi Arabian government. We’re arming the enemies of our friends, while at the same time creating a stockpile of weapons we will doubtlessly see the need to defend should Islamists grow stronger on the Arabian peninsula.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, not all conservatives agree with you on the NDAA. That does not mean they are not conservative.
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
You are right on.
Report comment to moderator
#61
I disagree. If a “Conservative” agrees with NDAA, they are more properly called a “Statist.” They are not a conservative, that’s for sure.
Report comment to moderator
I rather think it does, given the actual text of the bill does not contain specific exclusions for all American citizens on American soil. But we’ll see in the general election whether the people are going to keep biting the same old bait. I just know I’m not.
Report comment to moderator
#55
Again, you pick out this ONE statistic, that could be interpreted multiple ways. In other words, you look at the MOTE in Ron Paul’s eye.
And, yet, you excuse logs, even massive log jams, in the other candidates’ eyes. It baffles me.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!