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.

[SoCon]

Yeah, and Giuliani’s social policies are more similar to Clinton/Kucinich, yet that doesn’t stop neocons from voting for him. I guess abortion and illegal immigration aren’t important issues these days. How sad.

Everyone who considers Ron Paul a traitor/liberal/nazi/etc: you need to do some hard thinking about what conservatism MEANS. Russell Kirk would be rolling in his grave if he knew the Republican party was nothing more than a collection of socially liberal war hawks and libertarian Milton Friedmaniacs.

[Lions Gate]

Paul’s comments about the U.S. to blame for Islamic facism were way too over the top for me. I couldn’t support him in a primary but would vote for him or anyone else over Hillary.

That leaves us with Thompson, Huckabee, Hunter, and Tancredo. At the end of the day, Thompson will likely be the nominee.

[Vanbasten]

“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.”

WTH

Ron Paul’s answers are stock replies, they’re just from the democrat party not the republican party.

[presidio9]

Why are you posting editorials from “casinogamblingweb.com” to this website? Of COURSE they thought the libertarian candidate won.

[devolve]

Ron Paul 2008


Because they won't let Cindy Sheehan debate on acid

[George W. Bush]

I don’t even know how to Text so I could not vote last night. I tried but I could not figure it out on my phone...

Just ask any local Ron Paul MeetUp member for some help. We'll very quickly demonstrate how it's done with your phone. LOL.

[Gads, I just kill me.]

[rattrap]

The other 20% is pimping books or steaks.

[pissant]

Neocon is a meaningless term. Rummy is Paul’s age and has been a conservative all of his life. GWB is from an old school blue blood GOP family. Cheney is about as conservative a vice president, and life long republican, as we’ve had in decades. None of these men are “neocons” and they are the architects of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the ongoing WOT. Neocon is a code word for jew - meaning Wolfowitz and Pearle - who had a minor role in making the decision to wage war. Paul is spewing nonsense on this subject. What would be the honorable and sane thing to do, would be to say “I opposed this war and I would not support any new pre-emptive wars. But now that we are there we have to win it”. Instead he raves like a moonbat.

[beezdotcom]

I wonder what their views are on nuclear physics and space aliens?

I don't know about them, but I _WOULD_ trust an English bookie on such matters...they'll give odds on just about anything, and they're usually smart with their money.

[End Times Crusader]

Correction: His foreign policy is closer to George Bush as candidate in 2000, when he rejected Clintonian "nation building." Now, Bush is attempting Clintonian "nation building" in Iraq. Hillary supports him - no surprise, since "nation building" is a Democrat/Clintonian concept - while Paul opposes. Paul is closer to the old Bush/old Republican position. He's also closer to the old Republican position on spending and government(he wants less of both; Bush has given us more of both).

After 9/11, everything changed.

[George W. Bush]

So why did we take out Iraq who was the enemy of Iran?

Well, that was after we were friends and allies with Saddam and Iraq. And that was after we were friends and allies of Iran. Somewhere in there, we were friends and allies with Osama before we became kind of enemies. And also there's that thing where we had to invade Panama to arrest another former friend and ally, Noriega...<sigh>

You know, it's hard to find good friends. These horrible backward people are always so suspicious of our noble intent.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Yeah, and Giuliani’s social policies are more similar to Clinton/Kucinich, yet that doesn’t stop neocons from voting for him. I guess abortion and illegal immigration aren’t important issues these days. How sad.

Given the choice between a socially liberal Republican with a full understanding of the War on Terror, or a socially conservative coward who remains far more likely to get us killed ... I’ll take the social liberal.

Rudy Giuliani is not my candidate of choice ... but he is rock-solid on foreign policy, national security, criminal justice and tax policy. His election may threaten a few of my pet social issues ... but will not threaten the further survival of the country. He would not leave our foreign policy decisions up to the whims and demands of those who executed 3,000 citizens at the WTC.

Ron Paul remains the only current Republican candidate whose nomination would force me to abandon the Republican Party.

H

[SnakeDoctor]

>> Well, that was after we were friends and allies with Saddam and Iraq. And that was after we were friends and allies of Iran. Somewhere in there, we were friends and allies with Osama before we became kind of enemies. And also there's that thing where we had to invade Panama to arrest another former friend and ally, Noriega... I'm sure I've heard this argument before ... oh, yeah - it was from perpetual traitor and anti-american fascist Amy Goodman on her left-wing nutjob radioshow DemocracyNow!. Amy, is that you? I remain more conviced than ever that the Ron Paul movement is simply a bunch of Kossacks and DUers that have meandered over here and gotten screennames. H

[SnakeDoctor]

Not sure what happened to the formatting on that post.

H

[untrained skeptic]

It’s not that Republicans won’t gamble on him. The problem is that Republicans don’t support him.

[katana]

He was a cheerleader for invading Iraq, and it's now been shown to be a mistake.

I am not a fan of Sean Hannity, but the "it's been shown to be a mistake" remark is, IMHO, very premature. It presumes a knowledge of what the situation would be like if Saddam were still in power and providing training and safe haven to Al Qaida, Libya was still operating their WMD project, and Iran were not facing a couple hundred thousand US troops and sailors on all sides.

I keep thinking that the same "it's hopeless" logic could easily have been applied to every war this country has fought. The battles of Long Island (Revolution), Canada (1812), the first three plus years of the Civil War, Guadalcanal, and the Pusan perimeter (Korea) were all either disasters or very near misses.

[George W. Bush]

I don’t mind Fox making money off the poll. That doesn’t alter the poll, although your point about youth being the largest group of texters may have merit.

Well, I can't prove they're making money. Undoubtedly, they're trying to connect with that youth demographic and cater to their interests, being the most lucrative advertising demographic. Probably the money that FNC might be making is a pittance compared to the advertising and demographic info to be marketed. After all, when you text your choice to FNC, you're telling them who you favor for president, a valuable bit of biographical info. And how do we know they can do this? Because they're blocking repeat callers and using a database to exclude phones already used to call. I'm kind of surprised FReepers don't realize these and some other implications.

It’s been my opinion that Paul did have moments of brilliance, and I’ve been saying so. Pointing out that Saudi Arabia is a problem is a good thing to do. Saudi Arabia should be on notice that we know what is going on and don’t appreciate it.

Did you also notice that not long after Ron Paul started criticizing Bush for letting Osama go and taught many Americans what Waziristan is that suddenly the Bush administration started talking tough to Pakistan and some raids into Waziristan followed very shortly?

Is Ron Paul pressuring these folks? In small ways, in ways that make them uncomfortable. You could almost see the uncertainty and squirming on the stage last night from the other candidates when he started talking about the Saudis.

I tell you, it's high time some American politician points the finger directly at the Saudis! Before their little jihadis kill any more of our soldiers in Baghdad. Before they kill another 3,000 Americans here at home and the Saudis say "Oopsie" and offer us another check.

[George W. Bush]

I'm sure I've heard this argument before ... oh, yeah - it was from perpetual traitor...blah-blah-blah...I remain more conviced than ever that the Ron Paul movement is simply a bunch of Kossacks and DUers that have meandered over here and gotten screennames.

Your problem is that so many of us Dirty Hippies got here eight years ago, carefully establishing our deep cover as conservatives, all the while waiting for the Great Awakening of the glorious Ron Paul Revolution, planned by the CFR for decades (unknown even to Ron Paul!), all part of our Evil Plan.

And you show up here with your few months of signup time and some Dirty Hippie scoffs at you, perhaps even posts sarcastically in your general direction. It's so unfair. Really.

FWIW, I only get NPR via radio, never listen to it, only Rush OTA along with Levin podcast. I think there's something on satellite called FreeSpeechTV in the 9400 channels and it might have connection with these DemocracyNow people but they're all nutjobs. I do have a friend that watches them all the time, very liberal guy. He called me last night, trying to figure out some bilge about the Jena 6 they were playing. In the end, he wanted to throw the book at the perps, I ended up saying that knocking someone to the ground, giving him a concussion, then kicking him with your sneakers doesn't merit 50 years in prison, whatever the race of the victim or perps. But I didn't turn the channel on and actually watch it, just Wiki'd it. We must have spent over an hour on it. I discovered he once got beat up for no reason by three guys of another race and he is still very very angry about it, liberal Dem that he is. You know the old saying that a liberal is a conservative who just hasn't gotten mugged yet...

I hope I didn't ruin your little Reds-under-the-bed thing you had going. But you can still obsess over the evils of Dirty Hippies if you like. Seems like a harmless hobby if you don't shoot them.

[cva66snipe]

Don't gamble on those other candidates!

Well Mitt didn't impress me. John McCain reminded me of kids choosing up baseball teams telling Rudy pick me pick me. If I hear Rudy say one more time how he ruled over NYC I'll barf. The man needs to change parties and be done with it the Gun grabbing liberal he really is. Rudy shows us the depths to which the GOP has fallen. Fred was too busy kissing up to Hollywood and playing movie star to show up. Announcing intent on a variety show is not in my opinion presidential. But then Fred is not presidential material. He wasn't even a good senator. I don't care for Brownback. Huckabee needs to stay with his first profession. That leaves Paul, Tancredo, and Hunter which is the only three listed in order which I will give a vote for in the general election.

I like the way Ron Paul handled himself last night. He has some fire to him something this nation especially the GOP has not seen in many years. He handle Fox News Republican Neo Con Apologist Hannity real well also. He didn't let Chris Wallace put words in his mouth and that reminded me a lot of Reagan. Ron Paul won the poll because he won the debate. Despite the obvious limits for exposure imposed on him he used his time very wisely and was too the point. When he speaks you know where he stands.

[o_zarkman44]

I believe, at the time, Iraq was stronger and had pretty much beat back Iran for the time being. Also developing WMD and proceeding with nukes, Iraq was ignoring UN inspection orders, Iraq had already invaded Kuwait and lobbed rockets into Saudi and Israel. What else?? Oh harboring terrorists like Abu Nedal and Zarcowwie.

So Iran has greatly benefitted because of higher oil prices that has allowed it’s economy to rebuild after 2 decades of war with Iraq which is no longer the enemy. Now the enemy is the great satan.
Iran has benefitted by not having to arm itsself and secure it’s borders with Iraq for the past 16 years. Instead they have had extra money to arm the Taliban and Hamas and AlQueda, while developing it’s own nuclear program.

Go ahead, pass the buck. Iran is THE regional state sponsor of terrorism. Iran also knows a collapse of Iraq and Basra and the oil is theirs. So why not promote civil war with outside instigators?

History will dictate if what we did was the right thing.
History will also judge us severely if we don’t finish the job and win the war on terror on their home front.
You should be grateful the terrorists are concentrating on running us out from their homeland rather than setting off car bombs in Times Square or crashing planes into whatever in the battlefield of their choosing..