Tonight's Debate

[Justin5 20]

Since my Skins have let me down I'm watching my DVR now.

So far Ron Paul is dead on when it comes to foreign policy. All of the others are ganging up on him. If only more R's would think like him.

*Disclaimer* I am a Democrat who is currently supporting Edwards.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Paul is a republican but like democrats he is big on change and that's what has helped him. I thought he made some good points also . I thought Mit Romney really didn't do that great. McCain stood his ground. Could Fred Thompson look any more excited to have been there. I'm about tired of hearing Giuliani pull up 9/11 and Ronald Reagan.

[WarEagle007 1]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

No doubt you know until Pearl Harbor, the US operated international policy much like what Ron Paul suggests, called isolationism. We believed that since we were so far from the conflict, completely distanced on our own continent away from the conflicts, we would not be a target and the world would fight. We know this is not the case now. And following the Allied victory in WWII, our presence was necessary abroad for stability, reconstruction, aid, and to maintain our interests against another world war. That began with bases in Europe and the Pacific, over time, with other conflicts, bases developed around the world. Most notably now are our bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and South Korea among others. Obvious reasons for the bases in the Middle East come from the many wars launched against Israel, and later with Saddam Hussein’s Hitler-style actions against Kuwait in the 90s, and use of chemical weapons in the 80s. The reason for the unnecessary history lesson is to show that these bases are necessary to the stability of the world, keep rogue powers in check and of course to maintain US interests.

A Middle East without US presence endangers the stability of the region and the very existence of Israel. With Iran’s power, influence, anti-Israeli ideologies, the US must remain there to prevent further aggression against Israel. Muslims hate the Jews, and want the Jews dead. They need a superpower in their court to counter the threat posed its neighbor countries, and the US is that power.

North Korea’s primary goal is the reunification of the Korean Peninsula. The US prevented this with our involvement in fighting off the communists in the Korean War. It is likely that without our presence there, and with the backing of a competing power, the North Korea and their highly touted “Million Man Army” of poor brainwashed souls, that the peninsula would be reunified under North Korea’s terms. North Korea is notorious for the famine and death rampant in that country; and nobody should go through what the huge majority of the population goes through on a daily basis.

Ron Paul seeks to end our affiliations with these countries. He seeks to close the bases which would allow for events to happen that not only counter US interests, but risks destabilizing the world. My job deals heavily with our missile defense forces around the world. North Korea and Iran are some of the biggest threats. We’re not “occupying” these countries as Ron Paul suggests; we are there in their defense because otherwise they would be easily captured. South Korea is a huge economic center and one of the most advanced countries in the world. Middle Eastern countries such as the United Arab Emirates are booming and become some of the most impressive cities in the world. Look up Dubai sometime, the city is amazing and is now home to the world’s tallest building. Without the stabilizing presence of the United States in this area, Iran might seek to end that. And without those bases for my office to serve, I lose my job, as do many others. Also as is said about Paul wanting to let people live their life, well we’re doing just that in preventing other nations from affecting the freedom of other sovereign nations.

There is no way everyone can do everything they want, and that is where basic Libertarian ideology fails. Hands-off approach works in a stable government, but on the international stage it simply is impossible, so, more influential nations must do the work to keep a balance of power. If we had imperialistic desires we wouldn’t allow China or Russia to do what they do because they are the most direct threat to US hegemony.

Not to mention the political implications of a diminished US presence abroad would be extremely harmful to the US, but that is for another post

[Justin5 20]

Ok, after watching the end of the Pit/Jac game I finished watching the Rep. half.

How my opinion of the candidates changed after seeing the debate:

Paul - Way Up

McCain - Way Up

Giuliani - Up

Romney - Down

Huckabee - Way Down

Thompson - Way Down

In order of my preference (if I HAD to pick one):

1. Paul

2. McCain

3. Huckabee

4. Thompson

5. Giuliani

6. Romney

Huckabee made the point to talk about change and promotion of technology BUT!!!! Huckabee is the one most against stem cell research. NOT GOOD in my book. He kept talking in extreme generalizations

Thompson, best I can tell, just doesn't know what is going on. I can't imagine voting for the guy. Doesn't mean I hate him, but what is the reason to WANT him as the President. His entire platform is 'hey, im just a regular guy'. Well sorry, but the President should have some ambition to make the country better.

...now to watch the demo's....

[Justin5 20]

Fair enough. Then we disagree. You make good points though.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

DEMS

Hillary showed her angry side. Not pretty. Don't think it helped.

Obama stayed cool.

Edwards showed he's "a fighter."

Richardson provided comic relief.

REPUGS

Keep pissing Paul off. You'll see him in November.

Mitt-- they don't like you very much.

McCain-- the old guy is still feisty.

Huckabee-- best politician in the bunch.

Fred-- ZZZzzzzz

Rudy-- 9/11, 9/11, 9/11...

[WarEagle007 1]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

[GalensGhost 0]

GG's take (fair and balanced)

First the democrats:

Hillary - Spent most of the time looking like my snobbish pissed off aunt who thinks she's better than everybody else. Zero points.

Edwards - Nice country accent. "If I'uz president." But he seemed too smarmy and didn't have many answers.

Obama - Proved once and for all that he knows the buzzwords and the rhetoric, but hasn't the first clue how to create or implement policy.

The other guy - Was that Horatio Sanz? I miss him on SNL.

Now the Republicans:

Romney - Spooky.

Paul - Complete loon. Somebody needs to take him back to the nursing home. Couldn't be more wrong on foreign policy and relatively clueless when it comes to domestic policy.

McCain - I liked him on Cheers when he played Coach.

Fred - Bored stiff.

Huckabee - Making progress. Goofed up on the "yes we can break oil dependency in 10 years" comment, but otherwise had a strong showing.

Rudy - Calm, cool, concise. Had concrete answers to specific problems. Would do better to back away just a little from the 9-11 flag, but still was clearly the best option on the stage. Did nothing to deter my continued support.

[WarEagle007 1]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

Woah did I hit a nerve somehow? Is it hard for you to accept that our presence abroad is necessary? Your tone is unnecessary, don't be an ass. There's no need for petty remarks. In my civilian position I could very likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan by force or by volunteering. It isn't all military putting their ass on the line out there, my agency has a very large civilian presence across US bases in Iraq.

[WarEagle007 1]

Fair enough. Then we disagree. You make good points though.

Thanks man. I can just as easily see it from Paul's side, I just have a different take. I understand and respect the ideas behind his thoughts, it makes sense, but ultimately assumes that too many people out there are good and trustworthy.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

Woah did I hit a nerve somehow? Is it hard for you to accept that our presence abroad is necessary? Your tone is unnecessary, don't be an ass. There's no need for petty remarks. In my civilian position I could very likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan by force or by volunteering. It isn't all military putting their ass on the line out there, my agency has a very large civilian presence across US bases in Iraq.

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work.

I just don't think your personal career path is a very persuasive foreign policy argument.

[WarEagle007 1]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

Woah did I hit a nerve somehow? Is it hard for you to accept that our presence abroad is necessary? Your tone is unnecessary, don't be an ass. There's no need for petty remarks. In my civilian position I could very likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan by force or by volunteering. It isn't all military putting their ass on the line out there, my agency has a very large civilian presence across US bases in Iraq.

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work.

I just don't think your personal career path is a very persuasive foreign policy argument.

If you would take the time to READ my entire post, you'd see that isn't my argument, it is the reason I feel strongly on the issue. Can you take the time or is it too many words for you?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

Woah did I hit a nerve somehow? Is it hard for you to accept that our presence abroad is necessary? Your tone is unnecessary, don't be an ass. There's no need for petty remarks. In my civilian position I could very likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan by force or by volunteering. It isn't all military putting their ass on the line out there, my agency has a very large civilian presence across US bases in Iraq.

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work.

I just don't think your personal career path is a very persuasive foreign policy argument.

If you would take the time to READ my entire post, you'd see that isn't my argument, it is the reason I feel strongly on the issue. Can you take the time or is it too many words for you?

No, I read the whole thing. I also read what you led with-- "the reason [you] feel strongly on this issue."

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

The Dems were entertaining to watch especially Hillary. "The biggest change will be when there is a woman president". I seriously doubt it will be her.

Obama stayed cool but I thought his statement about Sunni-Shi'a coming to agreements because the Democrats won the Senate in 06 was stupid. I didn't think that many people over there owned tv's.

I'm tired of hearing Edwards talk about fighting for the middle class and speaking those who don't have a voice. That coming from a guy who spend $400 on a haircut.

Here's my list:

DEMS:

1. Obama

2. Edwards

3. Hillary

REPS:

1. My Sig

2. McCain

3. Paul

4. Thompson

5. Giuliani

6. Romney

[RunInRed 16,492]

Rudy-- 9/11, 9/11, 9/11...

Do you guys remember this one liner from Biden awhile back...classic:

"Rudy Giuliani. There's only three things he mentions in a sentence -- a noun, a verb, and 9/11"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6rh-u7FBjc

[WarEagle007 1]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

Woah did I hit a nerve somehow? Is it hard for you to accept that our presence abroad is necessary? Your tone is unnecessary, don't be an ass. There's no need for petty remarks. In my civilian position I could very likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan by force or by volunteering. It isn't all military putting their ass on the line out there, my agency has a very large civilian presence across US bases in Iraq.

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work.

I just don't think your personal career path is a very persuasive foreign policy argument.

If you would take the time to READ my entire post, you'd see that isn't my argument, it is the reason I feel strongly on the issue. Can you take the time or is it too many words for you?

No, I read the whole thing. I also read what you led with-- "the reason [you] feel strongly on this issue."

Well I'm sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have personal reasons. That's kinda like writing off a woman's argument on abortion if she says she feels strongly on it because she's capable of giving birth.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Ron Paul dead on with foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work. Why? Well, in short, his weak defense policies.

Sorry, but what's best for you professionally doesn't particularly move me in this regard. If you feel so strongly, quit your job and enlist.

Did you even read my post? I work in direct support of the military.

That's great. Now put your ass on the line.

Woah did I hit a nerve somehow? Is it hard for you to accept that our presence abroad is necessary? Your tone is unnecessary, don't be an ass. There's no need for petty remarks. In my civilian position I could very likely be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan by force or by volunteering. It isn't all military putting their ass on the line out there, my agency has a very large civilian presence across US bases in Iraq.

For me personally, I'm strong on defense. Obviously given my profession, defense is extremely important to me and is my top issue. Ron Paul getting elected as President would more than likely mean the end of my job, and a lot of other jobs in my line of work.

I just don't think your personal career path is a very persuasive foreign policy argument.

If you would take the time to READ my entire post, you'd see that isn't my argument, it is the reason I feel strongly on the issue. Can you take the time or is it too many words for you?

No, I read the whole thing. I also read what you led with-- "the reason [you] feel strongly on this issue."

Well I'm sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to have personal reasons. That's kinda like writing off a woman's argument on abortion if she says she feels strongly on it because she's capable of giving birth.

Bad analogy. Your immediate economic condition may drive your foreign policy views. Don't expect others to find those "personal reasons" so persuasive.