Ron Paul Wins Debate but Republicans Won't Gamble on Him

casinogamblingweb.com ^ | Sept 6, 2007 | casinogamblingweb.com

[freedomdefender]

Ron Paul clearly won the Republican presidential debate last night held in New Hampshire. Viewers were asked to text in their thoughts on who won the debate, Ron Paul received 34%, Giuliani 17%, all others lower. Fred Thompson who did not appear at the debate was clearly the largest loser as his pro-war stance and republican hard line talking points seem to be not what the people are looking for.

Sean Hannity, Fox News pundit, was clearly upset with the results and deliberately ridiculed Congressman Ron Paul. Although outpacing all other candidates by a 2-1 margin, it was clear that Chris Wallace and Brit Hume had tones of sarcasm when talking of Ron Paul. Giving absolutely no credence to Cong. Paul's responses, they even cut off his answer in a heated exchange between Paul and Huckabee, then declaring that Huckabee won the debate on that point.

Ron Paul demonstrated last night that he is the only Republican candidate that gives any thought to issues and his answers, all others gave stock replies and mostly followed the party line.

[Lovebloggers]

What?

Clinton nation building = his countless “humanitarian” missions (while simultaneously gutting the military).

GWB nation building is in direct response to war. History has proven you have to nation build after war.

[George W. Bush]

I’m not claiming that the polls being conducted on FR have been “spammed”.

They can all be spammed unless you start to use unique identifiers (say a Paypal account but you can have more than one of those, or more than one credit card, or more than one phone number on landline or cellphone). On the web, it's even easier to cheat. You can use multiple accounts, delete cookies between votes, use IP spoofing software to anonymize your true IP address.

Personally, I've never heard of anyone getting away with it here at FR, maybe at most casting 2-3 votes. But there are probably still a few sleeper accounts but not many. Our mods are pretty alert. Let's see, folks can use both home and work computers to vote if they have multiple accounts, very easy. But the ability to rack up a huge number of votes this way is difficult for most people. And JimRob reads his server logs, no doubt noting IP addresses and probably has some Perl code to detect accounts with virtually no activity except for voting on polls. So, of course it can be done. But it would be hard to do and difficult to rack up that many votes without JimRob or JohnRob catching on.

Web polls at many media sites are ridiculously easy to freep (FR's non-member poll is like this). Just delete your cookie, change your IP address if necessary, vote again. Rinse, lather, repeat. UNIX and Linux geeks can write scripts to automate this easily as well. Not that I've detected any indications of anything other than some RP supporter posting about a poll on an RP blog or forum and then a minor Paulian Horde runs over there to "freep" that poll. And then they gloat about it, just like we used to. You know, FR used to be absolutely infamous for destroying poll credibility. The libmedia just hated our activity. So FReepers are hardly in any position to be taken seriously complaining that some Dirty Hippies have gone and ruined some nice little unscientific online poll. I would guess that FreeRepublic deliberately destroyed the credibility of thousands of online polls, perhaps even approaching ten thousand, during the pre-Bush era. There must have been a half-dozen of those threads every day.

[George W. Bush]

I am quite certain that I could walk out my back door with 2 days head start into these Rocky Mountains where I could easily defy any attempt to find me by anyone, including the full resources of the United States Government- and I am within the US borders.

I'm quite certain you're wrong. About Osama as well. You greatly underestimate our technical means to gather intel, and the talents of our troops. I believe that they can get Osama if they concentrate on it and pressure Pakistan hard. Until recently, any concerns over Osama's capture met with almost indifference in official statements. I thought it was very disturbing.

[roamer_1]

You greatly underestimate our techical means to gather intel, and the talents of our troops.

technical means nearly disappear when one does not use electrical transmission devices, as was perfectly proven when OBL figured out they were tracking his sat phone... Thereafter he became very elusive.

Likewise, the military resources being used to find our missing daredevil in the Sierra Madres has turned up nothing- and that is a lovely metallic plane that should be easily detected.

I am not underestimating their abilities- I believe you are underestimating how difficult it is to operate in rugged terrain.

Feel free to reply at your leisure as I am going to catch a wink or two...

Regards,
-Bruce

[KentuckyWoman]

They do not kill us because we are in the Middle East. They kill us because we do not read and believe in the Koran. Ron Paul is a Dhimmi clown that is gradually gaining my disdain because he should know better.

Hmmm...let's see here....how many things or people over HERE went boom before we started building bases (occupying) in the middle east??? ......????? Up until the 1960s (and please don't try and bring up the Barbary pirates) the only nation in the middle east that had done us harm was Israel (see the USS Liberty) and, yet, our government spends BILLIONS of OUR dollars a year supporting them. AIPAC and the like are controlling too many of our policies in the middle east and it gives other middle eastern countries reasons to despise us. Entangling alliances with none??? Does the term blow-back seem familiar? Actions DO have consequences and I'd prefer to lead by example as opposed to this asinine 'making the world safe for democracy (something our founders called the most dangerous form of government they could think of, BTW) through the barrel of a gun. Think about this for a moment...when was the last time some 'islamofascist' blew something up in Switzerland?

[Zman516]

OOOOO! I’m so intimidated!

Your chest-beating grandstanding probably impresses the half-dozen Ron Paul lackeys here at FR, but not me.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance puts him in with the likes of Schumer, Rangel, Pelosi, Murthaforker and the rest of that slime. If you want to climb into bed with that scum...well, it’s your dick.

Don’t give us a chocolate-covered dog turd and tell us its a Tootsie Roll. We aren’t buying it.

OK, go back to your showboating, your toadies are waiting.

RON PAUL: Where left and right moonbats embrace!

[jmeagan]

****I have Paul Weyrich to thank for opening my eyes back in the mid to late 1990’s. He had a Conservative based TV network for several years called National Empowerment Television. Of course even his name draws flames from many in the party because he too called them like he saw them. The nation lost a great Christian Conservative yesterday. He was one who stood with Pay Weyrich and Howard Phillips to bring about a radical change in the nations political direction. We need more Paul’s Weyrichs, James Kennedy’s, and others who have stood up to fight for founders intentions.*******

I still have my NET mug. Yes, Weyrich worked very hard for the Republicans to take over congress, but when they did many of them turned their backs on him. Trent Lott in particular was one of the worse. Once they got in power, they wanted to “govern” in a way that would keep them in power, not do the right thing.

[jmeagan]

******Again, someone trying to compare Ru Paul with Ronald Reagan. I’m not buying that this text poll was not spammed. There is no way this wackjob who lost control of his own emotions during a televised debate would garner 34% of the text polling for a Presidential debate. Common sense is all anyone needs to see this fact.*****

Oh, come on now. Most people who watch these debates have already made up their minds about who they are going to vote for, and usually no single sound bite is going to change their minds. Sometimes, there is a defining moment. Like when Ford claimed that eastern Europe was not under communist domination.

That debate had the highest audience of any recent debate. We know that none of the other candidates are generating much enthusiasm from the supporters, so most of the increase in viewer ship has to have come from recent converts to Ron Paul’s camp. If they are going to give up their time making signs, passing out fliers, etc. then of course they are going to text in their vote for him.

[SoldierDad]

Thanks for this post to me. Your information was very informative, and hopefully lays to rest the other poster’s accusation against me.

[George W. Bush]

Don't mention it. A lot of people don't understand the nature of these, the variety of methods for spamming them, etc. So I was trying to clear the smoke on the issue, given how often we Friends Of Ron get accused of poll-spamming. Gee, like that's actually a Bad Thing.

FRegards.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> You made me tune in to it [DemocracyNow] tonight.

Welcome to the dark side. I live in Houston, and we have a Pacifica Radio affiliate that carries DemocracyNow, and several dozen other propaganda arms of the Anti-American establishment (including Go Vegan Texas, The Peace Hour, the New Capital Show, the Progressive Forum, an Illegal Immigrant Show, an Arab-American Show, a couple of Black Power and Nation of Islam Shows, and some wacko feminist show called “Women with Wings” ... the vegan and feminist shows are, by far, the funniest of the group).

>> They had some blips of George Schultz on and were trying to get him to say something damaging about GWB’s Mideast policies, especially to dissent on Iraq.

I heard Schultz on last night - and he is officially the only remotely conservative individual I’ve EVER heard on the show (the previous “most conservative” guest was the illustrious John Conyers, who said the House impeachment wasn’t feasible). And, I did not fail to note that Goodman played only recordings of Schultz’s interview at Stanford ... Schultz apparently took the microphone off and left mid-interview, and refused to come on the show live the following morning, as he had originally intended. Like most people, Schultz had probably not previously heard of the subversive and obnoxious Miss Goodman.

>> The many mentions of Stanford made me wonder if most of her regular guests are Stanford academics, obviously, Lefties.

She was broadcasting from Stanford yesterday because of the previous evening’s forum with Schultz and the Stanford Professor ... she normally broadcasts out of an abandoned firehouse (literally) in New York.

Most of her guests are obscure left-wing professors, militant left-wing activists, or international anti-American personalities. Recent interviewees have included Ward Churchill, leftist Professor Robert Jensen, Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel, Cindy Sheehan, former U.S. Attorney General and impeachment-monkey Ramsey Clark, etc.

Jimmy Carter will be appearing on DemocracyNow on Monday. Amy Goodman a worthless shred of human debris.

>> Anyway, then they had some Lefty guy, Ehrlich, who wrote some enviroblather, probably some hortisodomy treatise, looked like a pervert.

I wouldn’t know what he looks like. I prefer to listen to, not watch, Democracy Now ... Amy Goodman could use a shower and a visit to the Clinique counter (as Limbaugh says ... feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society).

Ehrlich, as I understand it, is one of these wackos that believes mankind is a virus infecting the planet ... and, thus, that the survival of the Earth depends on the mandatory reduction of the human population.

>> But in fact, we have shown little interest in apprehending Bin Laden. He will be on TV again in a few days, celebrating that he killed 3,000 of us and promising even more.

I agree with you here. We haven’t done enough to capture Osama. This fact, however, cannot and does not negate the necessity of the broader War on Terror - including actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

>> With our borders wide open, I don’t know why anyone thinks we’re especially safe.

Again - I agree. Border security is essential. But, again, this does not negate the necessity of a broad international intervention in the War on Terror. Border security and aggressive overseas confrontation of terrorism are not mutually exclusive.

>> One of the major problems with “we’ll fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” (a loony mantra) is that we already have a lot of them over here and no control over our borders or more than a basic grasp of who is or is not a budding terrorist, either self-radicalized or acting on Osama’s orders.

That “loony mantra” has kept various terrorist organizations distracted in Iraq and Afghanistan for six full years since 9-11, and, thus far, unable to carry out an attack on American shores. Seems to be working.

>> Failing to make capture/trial/execution of Osama and his top henchmen a priority (or even a serious goal) has been an irrational policy for a war on terror.

I agree, to an extent. The War on Terror cannot and should not be exclusively focused on capturing one man ... if killed, Osama can and will be replaced. The War on Terror is about destroying the finances, safe harbors, friendly governments, infrastructure and capabilities of a vast terrorist network based in the Middle East so that it becomes fully incapable of sustaining itself. Symbolically, we should do more to capture Osama ... logistically, we must do FAR more than simply chase one man.

>> And you don’t let Osama and his top lieutentants kill 3,000 people and show up regularly on TV bragging about it and promising to kill more of us.

Agreed ... we should capture him, interrogate him until he cries (which will make a nice little propaganda film), then kill him - publicly and preferably painfully. I fail to see why this means we should withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East - as Ron Paul suggested.

>> Our very presence on the Arabian peninsula does, in fact, help Osama to recruit followers.

The War on Terror does not create terrorists ... it exposes them. Our tactics drawing out terrorists and their sympathizers is not a bad thing. In fact, its kind of the whole point ... we want to know who and where these people are.

>> BTW, you included Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran in your list of countries on the Arabian peninsula. That’s inaccurate.

Sloppy wordsmanship on my part, to be sure. In my defense, however, Ron Paul used the opportunity of a question regarding the War in Iraq to make his statement regarding the Arabian Peninsula ...

[From Debate Transcript]
MR. WALLACE: “Congressman Paul, your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out. What about, though, trying to minimize the bloodbath that would certainly occur if we pull out in a hurry? ...”

REP. PAUL: “... Yes, I would leave, I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don’t want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”
[End Transcript]

It was Ron Paul, not I, that originally conflated the Arabian Peninsula and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul was asked about troops in Iraq, and answered that we should not only abandon Iraq and Afghanistan ... but that entire region of the globe including the “Arabian peninsula”.

However, I should’ve been more clear.

>> So I think you may have misunderstood that portion of the debate.

I did not misunderstand, I merely worded my response poorly. Paul clearly advocates withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire Arabian Peninsula (perhaps the entire Middle East?). I simply shouldn’t have implied (or expressly stated) that the Iraq and Afghanistan were actually part of the Arabian peninsula. My mistake - but the thrust of my argument remains unchanged by this correction.

>> Paul advocating closing most bases around the world and bringing troops home as a better foreign policy and a necessary measure to overcome the ever-growing government and to help pay for the Boomer retirement and escalating medical costs, infrastructure needs, yes, he does certainly advocate it.

Small-government conservatism is about removing governmental intervention from areas where the government was never intended to intervene - it is about the limitation of government power to the enumerated powers of the Constitution. However, national defense and national security are among the Constitutionally justifiable responsibilities of the federal government ... these are areas where the government is not only allowed to be involved, it it CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED to be involved.

Small government conservatism is not about having the federal government skirt its responsibility to defend this nation from foriegn threats.

Additionally - the argument that we should abandon the War on Terror in order to “help pay” for “escalating medical costs”, social welfare and the retirement of Baby Boomers is so laughable as to not even require a response. This would be tantamount to the government ignoring its Constitutional obligations to national defense in favor of ridiculous nanny-state programs and retirement plans.

The government is not a retirement plan or a medical insurer ... it is, however, Constitutionally responsible for the national defense.

>> If you don’t like the choice offered, that of America as a global policeman and welfare agency vs. being good neighbors and trading partners, then don’t vote for Ron Paul.

Rest assured, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Ron Paul. However, what intrigues me about this sentence is the implication that we are “bad neighbors” because we engage in military action in defense of our national security. We did not start this war, but we will finish it. Perhaps those who now bear the wrath of our military were the “bad neighbors”.

This is not about trade or being neighborly, it is about the federal government observing that its highest responsibility is to national security.

>> What puzzles me is when people demand no choices or options in foreign policy and especially its relation to domestic policy, let alone such hosility that they are offered any choice.

I do not demand “no choices”. The nation has a political party which espouses the exact rhetorical nonsense that Ron Paul does ... the Democratic Party. Each and every Democrat candidate would agree with every word of Paul’s foreign policy stances.

What I do demand is a Republican nominee that reasonably represents conservative opinion on foreign affairs. Ron Paul does not. If Americans want a weak anti-war candidate, the Republican Party isn’t the place to look.

>> I think I’ve yet to hear of any communist supporting Ron Paul. They’re pretty decimated and pathetic from what little I’ve seen. No doubt we do have some Democrats, my wild guess is 10% to 15%, not so terrible unless you thought Reagan should have rejected his Reagan Democrats to get a landslide.

There have been some RAVE reviews of Ron Paul on DU - an anti-American and entirely socialist website.

As for your “Reagan Democrats” argument ... Reagan also had the traditional conservative support. Reagan espoused traditional conservative values on both domestic and foreign policy. Paul, on the other hand, is capturing Democrat and leftist support, not by espousing traditional conservatism ... but by alienating the very Reagan conservatives that were so essential to Reagan’s victory.

“Reagan Democrats” are entirely irrelevant without the support of the Reagan Republicans ... and, according to any scientific poll, Paul is not connecting with Reagan Republicans at all.

>>> Ron Paul and his supporters are no less dangerous than Hillary Clinton, Amy Goodman or the dirty hippies that support her.

>> Fine. Vote for Hitlery then.

I’d no more cast a vote for Hillary Clinton than I would for Ron Paul. The nomination of Ron Paul (however improbable) would send me to a third party for the first time in my life.

H

[George W. Bush]

... the vegan and feminist shows are, by far, the funniest of the group

From what I saw, you must have a very dry and wry sense of humor. Wackos, Lefties, people who hate life and anyone that doesn't share their little Lefty fetishes. They're contrarians and attention-whores, like a lot of the PBS/NPR types. Only worse.

She was broadcasting from Stanford yesterday because of the previous evening’s forum with Schultz and the Stanford Professor ... she normally broadcasts out of an abandoned firehouse (literally) in New York.

She took over the old Ghostbusters headquarters? LOL.

... Amy Goodman could use a shower and a visit to the Clinique counter (as Limbaugh says ... feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society).

She looked dumpy and mentally ill to me. Sounded very depressed. I wondered how many psychiatric drugs she's on.

She'll die young.

I agree with you here. We haven’t done enough to capture Osama. This fact, however, cannot and does not negate the necessity of the broader War on Terror - including actions in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sorry, I have a thing for mass murderers. Letting him die peacefully does not sit well with me.

It was Ron Paul, not I, that originally conflated the Arabian Peninsula and the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul was asked about troops in Iraq, and answered that we should not only abandon Iraq and Afghanistan ... but that entire region of the globe including the “Arabian peninsula”. However, I should’ve been more clear.

Well, I think your explanation is a little too convenient. I did wonder how many people failed to appreciate the geography, what RP was trying to say about the general consensus that our presence in Saudi was highly provocative. Good grief, he did everything but quote Wolfowitz, the Great Neocon himself. LOL. Again, there is simply nothing controversial about Ron Paul saying it. Unless it's unfair for him to quote administration officials and the CIA and the 9/11 Commission. Which would be a weird standard.

That “loony mantra” has kept various terrorist organizations distracted in Iraq and Afghanistan for six full years since 9-11, and, thus far, unable to carry out an attack on American shores. Seems to be working.

I see. And so you will reverse your position if they strike us again on 9/11 along with the release of Osama's new video? Yeah, I thought not. You have to forgive me, I have a thing about slogans and mantras. Usually, they're horribly flawed. Or just dumb.

The War on Terror does not create terrorists ... it exposes them. Our tactics drawing out terrorists and their sympathizers is not a bad thing. In fact, its kind of the whole point ... we want to know who and where these people are.

We haven't made the faintest dent in their population base of over a billion and growing. That's billion. With a 'B'.

Rest assured, I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Ron Paul. However, what intrigues me about this sentence is the implication that we are “bad neighbors” because we engage in military action in defense of our national security. We did not start this war, but we will finish it. Perhaps those who now bear the wrath of our military were the “bad neighbors”.

Not intended that way. But our actions have increased suspicions of us in the madly conspiratorial Arab countries. It plays into the hands of the radical clerics and Osama's recruiters.

I do not demand “no choices”. The nation has a political party which espouses the exact rhetorical nonsense that Ron Paul does ... the Democratic Party. Each and every Democrat candidate would agree with every word of Paul’s foreign policy stances.

There are signs the Dems are scared of RP's positions. He goes much further than they do. They, like the GOP, merely aspire to be the dominant party of big-government. And Ron Paul not only challenges big-government at every turn, a threat to both parties' ambitions, he's taken on sacred cows like all foreign aid programs, the United Nations, and even pointed the finger directly at the Saudis for terrorism in Iraq and for 9/11. I'm surprised the other candidates didn't stampede off the stage. Clearly, they were very nervous about it.

You should Tivo or tape these. If you watch closely, Ron Paul really does make them nervous and puts them on the defensive in many ways. Every one of them.

There's more to that fiery little baby doctor than you give credit for. IMHO.

What I do demand is a Republican nominee that reasonably represents conservative opinion on foreign affairs. Ron Paul does not. If Americans want a weak anti-war candidate, the Republican Party isn’t the place to look.

I'm a conservative. I want an anti-globalist whose only interest in nationbuilding is right here in America. You might have a talking point with me if I actually thought we were any safer now than we were on 9/11. I think we might be less safe actually.

There have been some RAVE reviews of Ron Paul on DU - an anti-American and entirely socialist website.

I rarely read other sites unless someone else posts about them. I seldom read them for even a half-hour. FreeRepublic is my home online, my only forum.

As for your “Reagan Democrats” argument ... Reagan also had the traditional conservative support. Reagan espoused traditional conservative values on both domestic and foreign policy. Paul, on the other hand, is capturing Democrat and leftist support, not by espousing traditional conservatism ... but by alienating the very Reagan conservatives that were so essential to Reagan’s victory.

yada-yada. We could sling talking points on this but neither of us is going to budge. And maybe there's too much arguing over the Great Reagan these days. I think he'd probably tell us we have to find our own way, stick with principles, avoid tempting compromises or quick fixes.

I’d no more cast a vote for Hillary Clinton than I would for Ron Paul. The nomination of Ron Paul (however improbable) would send me to a third party for the first time in my life.

Again, we close in agreement. Hitlery is out of the question. For me, so is the leftwing mayor.

I've copied/pasted/typed so much, I can't even bear to proofread. I have to go do some work, back this evening.

[SoldierDad]

LOL. FRegards to you.

[SoldierDad]

As my son would respond to a post such as yours as he (along with several other of our family members) are serving in Iraq as I speak - W/E. Remember, you started this issue by accusing me of making a claim that I did not make. When you are ready to come down off of your pedestal and have a serious discussion let me know. Until then, don’t bother me with your inane comments anymore. I’m no longer in the mood to tolerate or respond to them. Have a nice day.

[SoldierDad]

Thanks for the ping

[SoldierDad]

What? Oh, my!! I’m so shocked!! People skewing the poll numbers in favor of RP? Is that possible? /sarc

Thanks for an enlightening post. Wonder how this will be received by RP supporters?

[cva66snipe]

Yes there is, when he sounds like Amos McCoy shouting at Pepino!

Lincoln sounding like a sqeaky wheel but that didn't seem to bother his chances any.

[cva66snipe]

Would you immediately bring every military member back within the borders of the US and bring every one of our vessels around the world back to American anchorages? That is what Ron Paul advocates. That would be the beacon of doom for our nation.

I don't think he actually means that especially about Naval Forces. Having a Naval force within reach of U.S. interest makes sense. But we are highly overextended in all military resources world wide. That is mainly due to Baby Sitting other nations. We need a Two carrier group presence in the MED and at least one West Pac Carrier group deployed at all times. That does not mean we have to go running to wipe some third world nations sitter every time they dirty a diaper though.

Radical Islam can be handled one of two ways neither of which is our current policy. We can use Plan A and level major Islamic nations such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc and set them back a hundred years. Or there is plan B. Plan B would be using the Constitutional means of issuing Letters of Marque and /or Reprisals against Radical Islamic Leadership. That very act which was made a prohibition by an E.O. issued by Bush Mentor Gerald R Ford started us on the path to state sponsored terrorism. Plan C which is where we are today.

We can continue fighting limited battles with insane R.O.E.'s causing the Court Martial of Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines in record numbers placing them in Damned if you do Damned if you don't situations while Bush, Rummy, and Gates, have sat back sucking their thumbs. Where is the outrage in the GOP Congress over this? They are too busy kissing Bush's bottom side to be bothered over that issue it seems to me. Bush has about made anyone not want to enlist. He has done significant harm to our reserves programs as well. On military planning he is a DUNCE. What's worse is he appoints the same to advise him meaning the old Nixon/Ford policy makers.

We can fight like that till our grandkids grand children are fighting that war but here is the problem. The Radical Islamic factions will reproduce offspring future replacement faster than we can take them out. Personally I vote for Plan B with unrestrained prejudice. If Ron Paul takes us into a DECLARED WAR he will do no less. You will not see a kinder gentler war. He understands what war is and that is why he is raising the roof over it. Iraq is Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Part 2 with LBJ the second as commander in chief.

We should give Iraq 90 days notice either get your act together or we level any and all infrastructure which may be capable of being converted to military use that includes power plants, communications, bridges, air strips, and any factories.

We have a threat much closer to home in our own backyard going unchecked that within a few years may make Iraq look great in comparison. The man is China's Sock Puppet they are using to consolidate Central American nations for future use.

We can handle keeping M.E. nations access to our nation limited. A well armed citizen population is our greatest defense against terrorism. But unless we act fast we will not be able to handle the combined forces of Hugo Chavez who is much more ruthless than Castro or Saddam ever dared be. That man can march armies to us by land. The M.E. can not.

[cva66snipe]

But in fact, we have shown little interest in apprehending Bin Laden. He will be on TV again in a few days, celebrating that he killed 3,000 of us and promising even more. With our borders wide open, I don't know why anyone thinks we're especially safe. One of the major problems with "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" (a loony mantra) is that we already have a lot of them over here and no control over our borders or more than a basic grasp of who is or is not a budding terrorist, either self-radicalized or acting on Osama's orders.

With Bin Laden we have made a very major mistake by falling into the very trap the Soviets did with him. I own goats. The quickest way to give yourself a heart attack and accomplish nothing is to chase them around ridges and mountains. Once spooked you likely will not get close enough for a good shot.

When USSR fell who came back out in the open? He came out because he wasn't being chased. Now if you want to control a goat you use another one to bring them in for you or a dog the goat was raised with. Meaning our guys will likely not get him. This is no knock on the abilities of America's Finest but the fact is they stick out like sore thumbs.

We need to back off and our leaders shut up. POTUS needs to approach congress in closed session and have a bounty placed on his head and hire locals or Soldiers of Fortune who can blend in accordingly. Billions will be saved and results are far more likely.

I do not believe once a person is determined {due to their behavior} to be a threat to the U.S. any warning to them is needed. The less the better. Reagan dealt with Qaddafi in such a manner. Israel dealt with Saddam's Nuclear program in such a manner.

I also agree we need out of the Arabian peninsula with the obvious exception of a Naval presence to secure shipping through the Suez. One other point. Reagan began one Naval policy I do not support. Carriers should not transit the Suez at least not at our current fleet level. This began again in 1981 but we had a much larger Naval Force.

Some how, some way though we must refocus our defense efforts closer to home. Our backyard is wide open for all. We also need to reopen Rosie Roads NAS.

The wall needs to be built on our Mexican Border first then build the hi-tech wall to enforce it. Yes some ranchers land will be taken in the process. It might even mean we loose a half mile to Mexico. Better a half mile than a nation IMO. This is actually a clear example of the proper use of Eminent Domain. If some Corporation wanted to put Condo's there Bush nor congress would blink an eye if Rancher Jones land was taken away nor would they care. After the southern one is built we need to look at our northern border but I think Canada will be a far more reasonable neighbor on border security.

I said it once in this thread and I'll say it again. The only way to end terrorist attacks in the USA is to let the terrorist know we personally are armed. The most successful anti-terrorist action took place on 9/11 by a few persons determined not to go down without a fight. They understood the government wasn't coming to help them. Had the airlines been in charge of their security with full rights to arm their crews and refuse service to anyone then 9/11 may never have happened. That is the answer.

National Security should not come at the expense of surrendering our rights and freedoms. Our rights and freedoms should be the very reason no nation wishes to even go there. If someone is breaking into my home the nearest deputy may be 15 minutes away. I keep a sidearm loaded in a quick and easy to access place and it does not have a trigger lock :>} At least two of the person in the Fox News debate would have no problem in their minds trying to take that right away. Sadly they have a sizable following by some calling themselves Conservative. I think Ron Paul is the one most likely to help secure our future.

[cva66snipe]

I still have my NET mug. Yes, Weyrich worked very hard for the Republicans to take over congress, but when they did many of them turned their backs on him. Trent Lott in particular was one of the worse. Once they got in power, they wanted to “govern” in a way that would keep them in power, not do the right thing.

Remember how mad Weyrich used to get over Lott? But he was all too soon proven right about him. I wish that station hadn't gotten busted up into a NEOCON and DEM lovefest. When America's Voice took over after Weyrich was forced out I couldn't stomach it. If I wanted to see Ellen Ratner, Bob Beckel, or Larry Flynt, I could have changed channels. I do miss The Next Revolution even though sometimes they were over my head. Lind and Kenna were brilliant. So was John Lofton's show "It's only politics". I think I have a VHS somewhere of him interviewing James Carville. One of the most hilarious events I've ever seen on TV :>}

It looks like Lind's predictions about Cultural Warfare are fixing to come true. We're fixing to be in for a very rough ride indeed.