RON PAUL, not Mitt Romney, won the first GOP Debate

Renew America ^ | May 8, 2007 | Chuck Baldwin

[The_Eaglet]

I'm grateful for that, too.

Hunter and Tancredo did a good job making the case for border security in the debate.

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks. I catch Hewitt occasionally.

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, I see, now on a second look - you’ve added Chuck Baldwin to the repeated list.

Now there’s a source to add crediblity to your post...

[trisham]

How many times have we seen this same thing posted, by this same poster? It is taking on the form of spam.

**************

I don't know, but I'm beginning to think that he really, really, really likes Ron Paul. A whole bunch.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

there are many so-called "conservatives" who willingly slither between the rhetorical sheets with the DU "truthers," re: the intellectually bucktoothed assertion that the U.S. government was "the real mastermind" behind 9/11.

Corrected to better reflect reality as we know it here on the planet Earth, and not Fuzzy Happy Bunny Land.

[Irontank]

the intellectually bucktoothed assertion that the U.S. government was "the real mastermind" behind 9/11

Have you heard Ron Paul assert that the US government was the real mastermind behind 9/11?...neither did I. Lets stay focused...is the US government capable of manufacturing reasons to go to war with foreign nations as Ron Paul has asserted? You seem to think not...and if you think not...you don't know your history

[TomB]

Lets stay focused...is the US government capable of manufacturing reasons to go to war with foreign nations as Ron Paul has asserted?

Ron Paul did not say the government was capable, he said the attack "may well occur".

He is not talking hypothetically here, he is making a specific accusation.

[Eclectica]

Ron Paul: Against Iraq War.

MSNBC: Against Iraq War.

He sure is! Ain't it great?

Not if he's allied with MSNBC. :(

[TomB]

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Still waiting.....

[The_Eaglet]

He is no more allied than any of the other debate participants from March 3.

[TomB]

Corrected to better reflect reality as we know it here on the planet Earth, and not Fuzzy Happy Bunny Land.

The more I read the posts of the Paulies, the more they begin to look like the old Pat's Pitchfork Brigade.

[dschapin]

I wasn’t impressed with Ron Paul’s debate performance because it didn’t look like he could actually handle the job of being president. During the debate, he seemed to lecture more than persuade and he couldn’t even make the moderator take him seriously. He didn’t impress as someone who would be taken seriously be foreign leaders such as Vladimir Putin. In a crisis situation where the Russians had to be talked down I would much rather have President Duncan Hunter handling the sitution.

[The_Eaglet]

This is a good compilation of recent TV appearances by Dr. Paul:

NEW Video - Ron Paul GOP Debate REMIX

[KDD]

I know this isn’t going to be too popular of an idea, but I suspect that the poll was skewed by Howard Stern callers. In my opinion, Stern is skewing all TV polls, just like he did with American Idol. In the minds of those jokers, they probably feel like Ron Paul has the least likely chance of winning, so they called in to screw up the MSNBC poll. But that’s just what I suspect. I’m curious to see what happens after the Fox debate.

Wrong!

It was Paris Hilton!

Paris Hilton confesses to rigging polls for Congressman Ron Paul

[unspun]

I tend to ignore posts filled with bold, red, italics, underlines, etc.

I think alot of others likely do, too.

[TomB]

Get those quotes yet?

[The_Eaglet]

Thanks for the laugh.

[KDD]

Go ahead, I'll wait.

I will note again which candidates that you choose to attack and which you choose to defend. For whatever reason, you choose to defend a liberal gun grabbing abortionist like Rudy while attacting a Constitutional conservative like Paul. I draw implications from that action as do others. Now quit bleating at me. You don't like my answer.?.I don't care. Dr. Ron Pauls distrust of government mirrors that of many conservatives.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Newsflash: you have candidates who would secure the border as well as Ron Paul who aren't for surrender. One of them is the guy in my tagline.

Yes, the old 'surrender monkey' canard. Getting pretty tiresome.

What Surrender? The military did it's job.

• The Iraqi military is no longer a serious threat to it's neighbors.
• Saddaam and many of his henchmen are now either plant food or flowing down many sewers in Bagdad.
• The WMD's in Iraq (what were found) aren't a threat to anyone else in the region...if they ever existed in any respectable quantity or condition.

The term is Mission Accomplished, or as we say in this country: Miller Time!

What you refer to is the idea of Winning hearts and minds, a failed strategy from the Vietnam era.

Ron Paul remembers that era well...he was actually there as an Air Force Flight Surgeon, and patched up a few people who were casualties of that failed policy. It's a damned shame that more government officials and elected representatives don't remember.

It's reall simple, YOU DON'T USE THE MILITARY TO:

Win hearts and minds

• The military is supposed to cut out hearts
• The Military is supposed to splatter minds all over the landscape as an abject lesson to those who would presume to mess with our People, Possesions, or national interests.
• The Military waves a finger in the face of the survivors, and says Don't make us come back here again...or else.

Nation Building

• The military exists for the purpose of nation BREAKING.
• Beat up the 'tough kid'
• Break all of his toys
• Swear at a lot of people to make them afraid of what we can do.
• Get the hell out, and go beat up the next tough guy.

Simplistic? Yes. Also a proven strategy for victory.

• We didn't do nation building in Germany, The surviving Germans did.
• We didn't do nation building in Japan, the surviving Japanese did.
• We didn't do nation building in Korea, the South Koreans did

The difference is that the indig populations of THOSE nations were willing to do their building. Apparently the Iraqis are not...not our problem.

Somebody will end up in charge in Iraq when the dust settles, and we WILL buy oil from them. Same as it ever was.

[TomB]

I will note again which candidates that you choose to attack and which you choose to defend. For whatever reason, you choose to defend a liberal gun grabbing abortionist like Rudy while attacting a Constitutional conservative like Paul. I draw implications from that action as do others. Now quit bleating at me. You don't like my answer.?.I don't care. Dr. Ron Pauls distrust of government mirrors that of many conservatives.

Couldn't find anything, huh?

The "for whatever reason" is truth.

How many times did I defend Guiliani? Once. Why? Becuase it was a MSM hit job. You see, unlike you, I'm not a mindless robot who weds his support to someone regardless of the facts. If I think someone is being treated unfairly, I'll say so. And if I think someone is getting a free pass, like Paul and his paranoid delusions, I'll also say so.

I would NEVER support someone who supports abortion and gun conrtol, just as I would NEVER support someone who beleives this adminstration would fake an attack on Iran to justify an invasion or cover up 9-11.