Gingrich, Paul Spar Over 'Chicken Hawk' Charge...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by paulitician, Jan 8, 2012.

  1. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Asked during Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate about Ron Paul’s charge that he is a “chicken hawk,” a visibly angry Newt Gingrich fired back by saying the Texas congressman has a history of making inaccurate statements about opponents.

    Gingrich pointed out that he comes from a military family, and that his father spent 27 years in the Army as an infantryman. He also noted the decades he has spent working with the military as a civilian.

    “I would say, as an Army brat who watched his mother, his sisters, and his father for 27 years, I have a pretty good sense of what military families and veterans’ family need,” Gingrich said.

    WMUR Anchor Josh McElveen asked Gingrich the original question. When his fellow moderator Diane Sawyer turned the conversation back to Paul, the congressman implied that Gingrich had sought military deferments to avoid serving in the Vietnam War.

    “I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren’t — they have no right to send our kids off to war, and not be even against the wars that we have,” Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon, said. “I’m trying to stop the wars. But at least, you know, I went when they called me up.”



    Read more: Newt Gingrich | Ron Paul | Chicken Hawk | The Daily Caller
     
  2. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Mess with the bull,you get the horns.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2012
  3. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,396
    Thanks Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    Every single person on that stage would waste our kids lives to protect OUR oil, it is a requirement to be president.
     
  4. paulitician
    Offline

    paulitician Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    38,401
    Thanks Received:
    4,136
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,972
    Not every single person on that stage.
     
  5. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,396
    Thanks Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    Every new president has a day, soon after he is elected, where he visits the pentagon as president for the first time. he comes away from his first meeting with the joint chiefs a puppet of the MIC, I would love to know what they say to him. Iv'e heard it suggested that they show him a full color film of the Kennedy assassination that looks suspiciously like it was filmed from the grassy knoll, probably not, but they have some kind of lever that gets them all the wars they want.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,515
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    Protect our soil?

    Who's threatening our soil, I'm really curious?
     
  7. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,396
    Thanks Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    read it again.
     
  8. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,515
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    I did and it's wrong on multiple levels. First of all, dem or repub, any candidate would "waste" lives fighting a war. Obama has as well. Second, Paul clearly stands alone on that stage regarding the use of these lives, so let's add disingenuous to wrong. Third, there hasn't been a war that was for the purpose of actually defending our soil since WWII.
     
  9. occupied
    Offline

    occupied Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Messages:
    16,396
    Thanks Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    I said OIL not SOIL. And Paul would fight a war over it because the MIC demands it.
     
  10. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,515
    Thanks Received:
    4,845
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,338
    Ok, my bad, I honestly kept seeing soil for some reason. Had an argument about no nations posing a threat to us here on our soil the other day so maybe that's why.

    But you're trying to say that Paul would fight a war over it because his life would be in danger if he didn't. Regardless of whether or not I agreed with that, you do realize that it's a pointless response for the purpose of debate, right?
     

Share This Page