August 11 2011 Republican debate Thread

[Sherry]

Mitt Tried to target Obama all night, no one else and I think it's going to hurt him. He is the #1 and he is more like #3.. A back up, your VP maybe.

I would not be surprised if Bachmann is not the VP candidate. Shoot for the first female VP again. In tonight's debate she actually improved her standings as far as I was concerned. I don't think she is presidential material but she did hold her own.

I also loved the way she copped out of her answer about being submissive to her husband. It was a good answer but she really avoided the inference of the question.

Immie

I DVRed it so I'm still watching, but what was the context of that question....I can't imagine the men being asked if they're dominate over their wives.

 

[Immanuel]

Those of you saying Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons don't understand his position at all.

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Mitt Tried to target Obama all night, no one else and I think it's going to hurt him. He is the #1 and he is more like #3.. A back up, your VP maybe.

I would not be surprised if Bachmann is not the VP candidate. Shoot for the first female VP again. In tonight's debate she actually improved her standings as far as I was concerned. I don't think she is presidential material but she did hold her own.

I also loved the way she copped out of her answer about being submissive to her husband. It was a good answer but she really avoided the inference of the question.

Immie

I DVRed it so I'm still watching, but what was the context of that question....I can't imagine the men being asked if they're dominate over their wives.

Context was that she had said something in another context about being submissive to her husband. If she were President would she be submissive to him then as well. Inferring are we electing Michelle or her husband.

No, they would not have asked that of the men.

Immie

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Those of you saying Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons don't understand his position at all.

I didn't get the impression he wants them to have it. He made it clear he doesn't care either way.

He made it clear that US policy of policing the world is only going to encourage Iran to use nuclear weapons against us when they do obtain them.

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

 

[Avorysuds]

Those of you saying Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons don't understand his position at all.

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

He said they are not near having one and the pressure we put on them if anything makes them want one more, and he's right.

If you were in a room full of vilolent people that had bats and they said YOU can't have one and that if you did anything to piss them off they would beat you to death, what would be your reaction?

 

[Avorysuds]

I didn't get the impression he wants them to have it. He made it clear he doesn't care either way.

He made it clear that US policy of policing the world is only going to encourage Iran to use nuclear weapons against us when they do obtain them.

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

Do you even know what the fuck the word "isolationist" means? Please respond because I want to hear the new definition.

"You can't developed weapons, only we can... and if you try we will fucking kill you." Is that not being an isolationist? I mean how is it you would stop them, serious question? Divide us with more war?

 

[ShackledNation]

I didn't get the impression he wants them to have it. He made it clear he doesn't care either way.

He made it clear that US policy of policing the world is only going to encourage Iran to use nuclear weapons against us when they do obtain them.

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

He sounds like an isolationist by saying remove trade barriers? He is a noninterventionist, not an isolationist. You have allowed the media to brainwash you into listening to Paul with a jaundiced ear. Paul is not saying lets give Iran nuclear weapons. He is saying trying to prevent them from doing so will only hurt the US as Iran becomes more upset with us.

As for the contention that we had isolationism 30-40 years ago (or nonintenventionism, which I assume you meant)...are you kidding? We were a huge interventionist power then. The foreign policy of the United States since the dawn of the 20th century has been one of heavy interventionism. We were meddling with Iran, Europe, had bases around the world...heard of the Cold War? Vietnam which was just before that? Where are you getting this bizarre notion that in that time we were noninterventionists? It is simply completely false.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have to say that I don't plan on voting for any of these people come election day, but, of all of them, Romney and Paul lost any opportunity of winning my vote tonight.

It sounded to me like Paul thought it would be a grand idea if we just gave the damned technology to the Iranians. I mean WTH?

Immie

It shouldn't have sounded like that, because that would be ridiculous.

I know it is ridiculous but damned he did everything but say it.

Immie

I'm sure that's what Santorum would like us all to take from what Ron Paul said, but that's not what he meant at all.

 

[arKangel]

faux news = MORE WAR

Dr. Paul = Wins the debate.

 

[Immanuel]

Those of you saying Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons don't understand his position at all.

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

He said they are not near having one and the pressure we put on them if anything makes them want one more, and he's right.

If you were in a room full of vilolent people that had bats and they said YOU can't have one and that if you did anything to piss them off they would beat you to death, what would be your reaction?

I'd be looking for an automatic to be honest with you.

Paul lost any chance of earning my vote. I realize he would not "give" nuclear weapons to Iran, but he lost my vote in this debate if he had ever had the opportunity of winning it that is as I do not plan to vote for either party.

Both he and Romney achieved the same results as far as I was concerned.

I was also dissatisfied with all of their answers in regards to taxes. I am not in agreement that lowering the tax rates will suddenly improve the economy. I think that is nothing more than wishful thinking. There responses sounded like pandering to the upper class if you ask me.

I know, that makes me a heretic, but so be it.

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't get the impression he wants them to have it. He made it clear he doesn't care either way.

He made it clear that US policy of policing the world is only going to encourage Iran to use nuclear weapons against us when they do obtain them.

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

The word isolationist is, for starters, a misnomer. The word you're looking for is noninterventionist, and we didn't have a noninterventionist foreign policy 30 or 40 years ago. Not by a long shot. We've been hyper-interventionist from the 20th-century onward.

 

[Avorysuds]

faux news = MORE WAR

Dr. Paul = Wins the debate.

They ha da little thumbs up thumbs down thingy for each person, did you see Ron Pauls by chance, I missed it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He made it clear that US policy of policing the world is only going to encourage Iran to use nuclear weapons against us when they do obtain them.

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

Do you even know what the fuck the word "isolationist" means? Please respond because I want to hear the new definition.

"You can't developed weapons, only we can... and if you try we will fucking kill you." Is that not being an isolationist? I mean how is it you would stop them, serious question? Divide us with more war?

You want to have a serious talk with me leave your condescending attitude at home friend.

 

[arKangel]

Who cares if whomever gets war technology, North Korea has it... Oh wait aminit, they don't pose a direct threat to our mideast "allies"... so who cares.

Meanwhile, faux news admin has a heck of a night deleting chat posts that are pro-Dr. Paul.
Record breaking night of chat busting I'd bet... if the guy wan't such a scum bag I'd reccommed him for geek-admin honors.

 

[liebuster]

Those of you saying Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons don't understand his position at all.

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

 

[Immanuel]

Those of you saying Paul wants Iran to have nuclear weapons don't understand his position at all.

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

No. I'm sure they'd still want a nuclear bomb, even though we have no evidence of them attempting to build one, because Israel has nuclear weapons. They'd be no more a threat to us if we left them alone than they would be to Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden or any other country that knows how to mind its own business.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

He made it clear that US policy of policing the world is only going to encourage Iran to use nuclear weapons against us when they do obtain them.

That's not what I heard. Even the crowd had as many booing as cheering during that exchange. He sounds like an isolationist. That ideology worked 30 or 40 years ago but not now.

He sounds like an isolationist by saying remove trade barriers? He is a noninterventionist, not an isolationist. You have allowed the media to brainwash you into listening to Paul with a jaundiced ear. Paul is not saying lets give Iran nuclear weapons. He is saying trying to prevent them from doing so will only hurt the US as Iran becomes more upset with us.

As for the contention that we had isolationism 30-40 years ago (or nonintenventionism, which I assume you meant)...are you kidding? We were a huge interventionist power then. The foreign policy of the United States since the dawn of the 20th century has been one of heavy interventionism. We were meddling with Iran, Europe, had bases around the world...heard of the Cold War? Vietnam which was just before that? Where are you getting this bizarre notion that in that time we were noninterventionists? It is simply completely false.

I havnt heard anything about Paul on the media, his name rarely comes up when I watch tv. Having said that what I am referring to when I say isolationist is the fact that he will let anyone do anything they want and he will just take a back seat. Isolating our govt from the powers it should be exercising both outside our borders and within.

It matters not. I don't think he will be the nominee. I won't vote for him unless its either him or Obama. I wasted a vote once on a fringe candidate. I won't be making that mistake again.

 

[Immanuel]

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie

No. I'm sure they'd still want a nuclear bomb, even though we have no evidence of them attempting to build one, because Israel has nuclear weapons. They'd be no more a threat to us if we left them alone than they would be to Switzerland, Iceland, Sweden or any other country that knows how to mind its own business.

I think you are wrong... maybe if we quit intervening in the ME and stayed out for 1000 years, but in the meantime we'd be waiting for the day they came after us.

Immie

 

[liebuster]

No they probably won't because we have affected their policies by asserting our influence on them for so long. Like Paul said, We stood up to the Soviets and their 30,000 nuclear weapons and we did alright. Why do we need to freak out about a Iran having one nuclear weapon?

Maybe if we stopped spreading our "democracy" by the end of a gun and started spreading it by EXAMPLE then we wouldn't have countries trying to develop nukes.

Then I don't understand his position because that is damned near the message I got from him.

Immie

Why did North Korea develop a nuclear weapon?? Because they have had the greatest military the world has ever known at their southern border ready to invade them at a moments notice for the past 50 years. Thats why!!!

Why is Iran trying to develop a nuclear weapon?? Because the have the most powerful government in the world actively trying to influence their sovereignty for the last 40 years. That's why!!!

The point is these countries are developing nuclear weapons because of the policies of US!!!!!!

Do you honestly think that if we adopted Ron Paul's philosophy that suddenly Iran would quit attempting to build nuclear weapons or when they did finally achieve their goal that they would not be a threat to us?

Immie