Could today shrinken the GOP pool?

[avatar4321]

I know Hunter was waiting for Nevada. I think he might drop out after this. And if Thompson doesnt win South Carolina, he might be out too. Does anyone think any candidates will be out after this or are we waiting for Super Tuesday still?

[red states rule]

I know Hunter was waiting for Nevada. I think he might drop out after this. And if Thompson doesnt win South Carolina, he might be out too. Does anyone think any candidates will be out after this or are we waiting for Super Tuesday still?

It is time for Fred, Paul, and Hunter to drop out

[Pale Rider]

It is time for Fred, Paul, and Hunter to drop out

Paul won't drop out. Hunter and Thompson, probably. But after today I think you're going to see an energized Paul, and besides that, the man has plenty of money.

[No1tovote4]

Plus Ron Paul doesn't expect to win. He is there for the same reason that Tom entered, to ensure a portion of the debate leads to the other candidates taking on some of his stances so that what is important to him is not forgotten in this Election as it has been in the past.

[red states rule]

Paul won't drop out. Hunter and Thompson, probably. But after today I think you're going to see an energized Paul, and besides that, the man has plenty of money.

Paul is to dumb to see the handwriting on the wall.

I have a better shot at winning the nomination then he does

[manu1959]

ok.....can someone tell me why the news is MIA on the dem caucuses in nevada......

[red states rule]

ok.....can someone tell me why the news is MIA on the dem caucuses in nevada......

The numbers are not coming in as fast

Fox news will have some reports in about 1 hour

[No1tovote4]

Paul is to dumb to see the handwriting on the wall.

I have a better shot at winning the nomination then he does

Again, he doesn't expect to win, what he expects is for the leader to take on some of his message and therefore ensure that what he believes in isn't forgotten.

[avatar4321]

ok.....can someone tell me why the news is MIA on the dem caucuses in nevada......

i think the caucus started later than the Republican caucus

[manu1959]

The numbers are not coming in as fast

Fox news will have some reports in about 1 hour

bill must be counting them first.......

[red states rule]

bill must be counting them first.......

and you know he will call it fair and square

[Pale Rider]

Paul is to dumb to see the handwriting on the wall.

I have a better shot at winning the nomination then he does

Well... rsr... it's "too" dumb... not "to" dumb. And it's "than" he does... not "then" he does.

If you're going to point out how dumb someone is, at least try and sound intelligent enough to take that position of superiority.

I think some of you guys hate Ron Paul with such a fever, it's almost like Bush hatred syndrome. I think the guy is honest and believes America should regroup and follow the constitution. I can't understand why people would hate him so much for believing that.

[red states rule]

Well... rsr... it's "too" dumb... not "to" dumb. And it's "than" he does... not "then" he does.

If you're going to point out how dumb someone is, at least try and sound intelligent yourself.

I think some of you guys hate Ron Paul with such a fever, it's almost Bush hatred syndrome. I think the guy is honest and believes America should regroup and follow the constitution. I can't understand why people would hate him so much for believing that.

I do not hate anyone PR

I see him as a joke that long ago ceased to be funny. I do not agree with his making excuses for the 9-11 attacks for one

If he had his way Saddam would still be in power, still funding terrorist groups, and still firing on our aircraft

Tells me alot about him right there

[manu1959]

Well... rsr... it's "too" dumb... not "to" dumb. And it's "than" he does... not "then" he does.

If you're going to point out how dumb someone is, at least try and sound intelligent enough to take that position of superiority.

I think some of you guys hate Ron Paul with such a fever, it's almost like Bush hatred syndrome. I think the guy is honest and believes America should regroup and follow the constitution. I can't understand why people would hate him so much for believing that.

i actually like his isolationism stance...but when he said we deserved what we got on 911 that did it for me.....

[Pale Rider]

I do not hate anyone PR

I see him as a joke that long ago ceased to be funny. I do not agree with his making excuses for the 9-11 attacks for one

If he had his way Saddam would still be in power, still funding terrorist groups, and still firing on our aircraft

Tells me alot about him right there

He didn't and doesn't make excuses for anything.

And even if Saddam was still in power, why would he be shooting at our aircraft when we wouldn't be flying them anywhere near him, unless we were just trying to provoke him flying into his air space?

[red states rule]

i actually like his isolationism stance...but when he said we deserved what we got on 911 that did it for me.....

Clinton ignored the threat of terrorism and we got 9-11

I hate top think what would happen if people like Paul were in charge

Perhaps we would see mushroom cloud over a major US city on TV

[avatar4321]

i actually like his isolationism stance...but when he said we deserved what we got on 911 that did it for me.....

its more non-interventionist than isolationist. I dont know that there is much more difference other than isolationist probably cut off all foreign trade and stuff and non-interventionists still trade but dont get involved in overseas military endevours.

Problem with that is i dont think our nation can be non-interventionist or isolationist until after we are free from foreign oil. Until we are free from that we have to be involved in the world if we want our economy to continue growing.

[manu1959]

its more non-interventionist than isolationist. I dont know that there is much more difference other than isolationist probably cut off all foreign trade and stuff and non-interventionists still trade but dont get involved in overseas military endevours.

Problem with that is i dont think our nation can be non-interventionist or isolationist until after we are free from foreign oil. Until we are free from that we have to be involved in the world if we want our economy to continue growing.

other economies rely on foreign oil and grow....they use us to protect their interests.....tell me what do we get in return for that service....

[Pale Rider]

other economies rely on foreign oil and grow....they use us to protect their interests.....tell me what do we get in return for that service....

Aaaah, I can answer that.... 'a kick in the teeth.'

[red states rule]

Aaaah, I can answer that.... 'a kick in the teeth.'

and a knife in the back and a sucker punch every now and then

[avatar4321]

other economies rely on foreign oil and grow....they use us to protect their interests.....tell me what do we get in return for that service....

i know. we get crap. if we cant go energy independent before we try a non-interventionist policy, we would watch the world economy collapse overnight. and you will see everyone fighting over those resources.

[Pale Rider]

i know. we get crap. if we cant go energy independent before we try a non-interventionist policy, we would watch the world economy collapse overnight. and you will see everyone fighting over those resources.

I'd be happier with that scenario than the one we have now. Then we'd have the whole world kicking rag head ass and this terrorist bull shit would be over.

[Black Lance]

I do not hate anyone PR

I see him as a joke that long ago ceased to be funny. I do not agree with his making excuses for the 9-11 attacks for one

If he had his way Saddam would still be in power, still funding terrorist groups, and still firing on our aircraft

Tells me alot about him right there

He wasn't making excuses for the attacks. He was making the vital, and accurate, point that the 9-11 attacks represent, in part, a reprisal effort for various acts of intervention that the US has staged in the Middle East. See Iran.

The argument that invading Iraq was neccessary to conduct the war on terrorism has, in my opinion, never been anything more than rhetoric. The terrorist organizations we are trying to destroy have cells in countries around the world and do not need to operate out of any specific nation or territory. Stationing a massive ground force in Iraq has not only been an extremely costly operation from a financial perspective, but it has also left American and coalition troops vulnerable to attack on the ground. Given the nature of terrorist cells, these organizations are best opposed through a strong intelligence service and air force. Sending large numbers of men and women to occupy Iraq simply was not, and still is not, the best way to confront an enemy whose numbers are very limited, and whose sole advantage is anonymity.

[red states rule]

He wasn't making excuses for the attacks. He was making the vital, and accurate, point that the 9-11 attacks represent, in part, a reprisal effort for various acts of intervention that the US has staged in the Middle East. See Iran.

The argument that invading Iraq was neccessary to conduct the war on terrorism has, in my opinion, never been anything more than rhetoric. The terrorist organizations we are trying to destroy have cells in countries around the world and do not need to operate out of any specific nation or territory. Stationing a massive ground force in Iraq has not only been an extremely costly operation from a financial perspective, but it has also left American and coalition troops vulnerable to attack on the ground. Given the nature of terrorist cells, these organizations are best opposed through a strong intelligence service and air force. Sending large numbers of men and women to occupy Iraq simply was not, and still is not, the best way to confront an enemy whose numbers are very limited, and whose sole advantage is anonymity.

As far as I know, we were not in Iraq on 9-11. So lets have Paul tell us what the US did to deserve the first WTC attack. Or the USS Cole. Or our Embassies blown to bits

BTW, it would seem AQ has been all but run out of Iraq - seems the troops were able to cope to the nature of terror cells

[Black Lance]

As far as I know, we were not in Iraq on 9-11. So lets have Paul tell us what the US did to deserve the first WTC attack. Or the USS Cole. Or our Embassies blown to bits

First, Paul's argument isn't that "we deserved it". Rather his position, as I understand it, is that the 9/11 attacks have to be understood in part to be a reprisal for various military and covert operations the United States took in the Middle East well-prior to the events you mention. Among these would be the Gulf War, supporting Israel, stationing US troops in Lebanon, and the 1979 coup in Iran.

Even if you don't care about any of this, Paul's support for reducing US military operations overseas simply makes good policy sense. The US simply does not have enough interests in the ME to justify our massive level of involvement in that region. With half of the money we are currently spending on military operations in the ME we could easily out-bid any other nation on the oil market, including the Chinese. Our presence in Japan and South Korea is a financial and military burden that does nothing except allow those countries to piggy-back off our protective shield and divert capital into their own domestic economies, thereby undermining our own.



BTW, it would seem AQ has been all but run out of Iraq - seems the troops were able to cope to the nature of terror cells

According to whom? I'm currently serving in the military, so I don't get to follow all the latest headlines, but I have yet to hear of any report suggesting that AQ has ceased to operate in Iraq. Nor would it really matter much in the grand scheme of things if they have. An AQ centered inside Syria or Iran is just as dangerous as an AQ centered in Iraq.

[Dilloduck]

First, Paul's argument isn't that "we deserved it". Rather his position, as I understand it, is that the 9/11 attacks have to be understood in part to be a reprisal for various military and covert operations the United States took in the Middle East well-prior to the events you mention. Among these would be the Gulf War, supporting Israel, stationing US troops in Lebanon, and the 1979 coup in Iran.

Even if you don't care about any of this, Paul's support for reducing US military operations overseas simply makes good policy sense. The US simply does not have enough interests in the ME to justify our massive level of involvement in that region. With half of the money we are currently spending on military operations in the ME we could easily out-bid any other nation on the oil market, including the Chinese. Our presence in Japan and South Korea is a financial and military burden that does nothing except allow those countries to piggy-back off our protective shield and divert capital into their own domestic economies, thereby undermining our own.



According to whom? I'm currently serving in the military, so I don't get to follow all the latest headlines, but I have yet to hear of any report suggesting that AQ has ceased to operate in Iraq. Nor would it really matter much in the grand scheme of things if they have. An AQ centered inside Syria or Iran is just as dangerous as an AQ centered in Iraq.

and THAT is the best reason I can think of ( along with keeping the oil flowing ) to keep American military presence in Iraq.

[Black Lance]

and THAT is the best reason I can think of ( along with keeping the oil flowing ) to keep American military presence in Iraq.

You seem to have missed this part,



An AQ centered inside Syria or Iran is just as dangerous as an AQ centered in Iraq.


There is no wisdom in tying up massive amounts of our economic and military resources in a single country when the problem is fundamentally multi-national.

[Kathianne]

You seem to have missed this part,



There is no wisdom in tying up massive amounts of our economic and military resources in a single country when the problem is fundamentally multi-national.

I think his point would be that if we have an Iraq presence, there is a buffer and in the ME, proximity is 1/2 the battle.