GOP debate, Sep07

Who was most impressive?

  • Total voters
    22
"Neather,
Elephants dont impress me. They are just a blind follower to Bush and not to mention Bush also ran their party into the mud. I am more inclined to and favor the Democrats."

Well you might want to google Ron Paul my friend.


I thought Ron Paul did the best of course.

At least half of the American public are against the war now, no other republican will win unless something "bad happens"... period.
 
Ecofarm said:
Clinton's "cut and run" in Somalia is still, today, to blame. Just ask bin-laden. You're gonna have to bump up the Bush blame period to at least 2015.
Click to expand...

Daddy Bush got us into Somalia and Clinton, under pressure from many Republicans, got us out. What's next - blame Clinton for Ruby Ridge? I wonder how many of the current batch of GOP Presidential candiates endorse the floor speeches quoted below.

GOP Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, speech on the Senate floor October 6, 1993

I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.
Click to expand...

GOP Sen. Dirk Kempthorne, speech on the Senate floor, October 6, 1993

Mr. President, the mission is accomplished in Somalia. The humanitarian aid has been delivered to those who were starving. The mission is not nation building, which is what now is being foisted upon the American people. The United States has no interest in the civil war in Somalia and as this young soldier told me, if the Somalis are now healthy enough to be fighting us, then it is absolutely time that we go home. . . It is time for the Senate of the United States to get on with the debate, to get on with the vote, and to get the American troops home.
Click to expand...

GOP Minority Leader Sen. Robert Dole, Senate speech, October 5, 1993

I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with--I do not know how many Members were there--45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close. . . .
Click to expand...

GOP Sen. Jesse Helms, Senate floor speech October 6, 1993:

All of which means that I support the able Senator from West Virginia--who, by the way, was born in North Carolina--Senator Robert C. Byrd, and others in efforts to bring an end to this tragic situation. The United States did its best to deliver aid and assistance to the victims of chaos in Somalia as promised by George Bush last December.

But now we find ourselves involved there in a brutal war, in an urban environment, with the hands of our young soldiers tied behind their backs, under the command of a cumbersome U.N. bureaucracy, and fighting Somalia because we tried to extend helping hands to the starving people of that far-off land. Mr. President, the United States has no constitutional authority, as I see it, to sacrifice U.S. soldiers to Boutros-Ghali's vision of multilateral peacemaking. Again, I share the view of Senator Byrd that the time to get out is now.
Click to expand...

President Clinton's speech, on October 8, 1993, arguing against withdrawal

And make no mistake about it, if we were to leave Somalia tomorrow, other nations would leave, too. Chaos would resume, the relief effort would stop and starvation soon would return. That knowledge has led us to continue our mission. . . .

If we leave them now, those embers will reignite into flames and people will die again. If we stay a short while longer and do the right things, we've got a reasonable chance of cooling off the embers and getting other firefighters to take our place. . .

So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: "Because things get difficult, you don't cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution." . . .

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.
Click to expand...
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/who-wanted-to-cut-and-run-from-somalia.html
 
Amin001 said:
Well you might want to google Ron Paul my friend.
Click to expand...
To me, Ron Paul is just another Republican. It's not like he has anything to offer for the Democrats. During presidential elections, I am loyal to the Democrats only.
 
If I were a Republican I would be voting for Ron Paul. Hell depending on who the Dems throw up if Paul won the nomination I might even vote for him in the General.
 
CivGeneral said:
To me, Ron Paul is just another Republican. It's not like he has anything to offer for the Democrats. During presidential elections, I am loyal to the Democrats only.
Click to expand...

Then gtf off this thread. I would like to discuss THE DEBATE OF SEP07. Not your adolescent political opinion. Frankly, your loyality to democrats comforts me as an economic conservative.

And Jolly, noone gives a crap about your 1993 quotes, at least paraphrase them and then put them in spoilers. As a member of the battalion who should have supported "task force ranger", I hold Clinton responsible for Black Hawk Down and the ensueing decline of respect for the US military. Our orders to fly got cancelled post-pentagon. Clinton displayed cowardice not witnessed since JFK's Bay of Pigs.

Now can we PLEASE discuss the debate ...

Moderator Action: Flaming. It's not your business to attack people.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
JollyRoger said:
I think Rudy held his own enough that he won't be dislodged as the frontrunner. He made a pass at McCain, so maybe that will be his VP choice.
Click to expand...

Seriously? I think Rudy has been de-throned by the impact of "sanctuary city" criticism.

I can definately see McCain as a VP candidate. He will add credential to any P candidate.

How about as a P candidate: McCain/ VP Paul?
 
Ron Paul's foreign policy makes me nervous. He sounds like a good candidate, but I'm wondering what would happen to the Iraqis should he take office. Huckabee beat him pretty well in the debate on that topic.
 
Ecofarm said:
I can definately see McCain as a VP candidate. He will add credential to any candidate.
Click to expand...
And what can McCain add to the table as a VP canidate. I am very curious to hear what he has to bring forward.
 
Ecofarm said:
Seriously? I think Rudy has been de-throned by the impact of "sanctuary city" criticism.
Click to expand...
Not enough people care about that issue.
Ecofarm said:
I can definately see McCain as a VP candidate. He will add credential to any candidate.
Click to expand...
Maybe in 2000, but today he is basically not taken seriously by most people. I think the Rudy and Huckabee were complimenting him in order to pick up the dozen or so voters that still support McCain when they have to find a new candidate when he drops out.
Ecofarm said:
How about as a P candidate: McCain/ VP Paul?
Click to expand...
To me, that's just flipping the Perot/Stockdale ticket from 1992 around. Might be an entertaining 3rd ticket, but wouldn't pick up a single electoral vote.
 
I don't see people rallying behind Huckabee "under god". That part of the pledge of allegiance was added in 1956 as a reaction to American nationalism following WW2. It really has no place in our pledge. Further, Huck's argument that the Iraqi occupation is a matter of "honor" is pathetic. We cannot fix it, only the Iraqi people can, while we wait. American honor can only be validated by the Iraqi people, continued occupation does not serve US "honor".

I think Huck is unelectable as Pres; however, Paul has a grip on classic (non-interventionist) conservatives and libertarians, and he really must be considered as a viable VP candidate.
 
Ecofarm said:
I don't see people rallying behind Huckabee "under god". That part of the pledge of allegiance was added in 1956 as a reaction to American nationalism following WW2.
Click to expand...
Actualy, the "Under God" part was added during the Cold War to separate the United States from the Godless Communist Russians.

Ecofarm said:
Further, Huck's argument that the Iraqi occupation is a matter of "honor" is pathetic. We cannot fix it, only the Iraqi people can, while we wait. American honor can only be validated by the Iraqi people, continued occupation does not serve US "honor".
Click to expand...
I am inclined to agree that the Iraqi occupation is quite low and unfixable. By now, the Iraqis should have things gotten under control.

PS, Can someone get Ecofarm to unignore me so that I can tell him that I am sorry for spamming his thread with political hatred and willing to discuss this topic?
 
Ecofarm said:
Some may have heard, there was a debate last night.

I think Ron did the best (even if he could not control a near hysterical tone of voice on occasion). If he was an imperialist, I might campaign for him. His "screw the a-rabs" attitude is simply too uncaring/selfish.

Mitt looked pretty and spoke well, but did not impress me.

Rudy is a greasy, fake tan, wrinkled old bastard (who will not shut up about turning NY into a supposed paradise). He's really starting to piss me off.
Click to expand...

I think the poll is fatally flawed. Ron Paul really has no place in it, especially if Huckabee and McCain are excluded.

I think McCain did the best. He appeared both clear and presidential, and the other candidates seemed eager to quote him to support their positions. The focus group that was on immediately after the debate seemed to agree with me.

In response to your post, I'm amazed that you rated Mitt Romney and Ron Paul as having done the best. Mitt Romney looked much less presidential tha he has in the past, especially when questioned about his equivocation of his son's campaign work and soldiers. Ron Paul did very poorly in his altercation with Huckabee and looked like a fool when he was accused of "taking his marching orders from Al Qaeada." In fact, I'd say Ron Paul was one of the worst performers of the night, coming off even less well than he has in previous debates.
 
My basis for including Ron in a ticket is to secure the libertarian and non-interventionist (read: cut and run) conservative votes. Basically, the libertarian and conservative + moderate anti-war vote. It's either that or a woman or a black... any ticket can use a minority representative and the GOP is pure white male (well, there is some question about Rudy - he's the other token on stage). I really do not see a clear frontrunner yet.
 
Ecofarm said:
My basis for including Ron in a ticket is to secure the libertarian and non-interventionist (read: cut and run) conservative votes. Basically, the libertarian and conservative + moderate anti-war vote. It's either that or a woman or a black... any ticket can use a minority representative and the GOP is pure white male (well, there is some question about Rudy - he's the other token on stage). I really do not see a clear frontrunner yet.
Click to expand...
First of all, apologies for the threadjack. Now thats out of the way.

What would Ron Paul bring into the presidency? Also, what makes Ron Paul stand out from the rest of the Republican Canidates in your opinion?
 
Ecofarm said:
My basis for including Ron in a ticket is to secure the libertarian and non-interventionist (read: cut and run) conservative votes. Basically, the libertarian and conservative + moderate anti-war vote. It's either that or a woman or a black... any ticket can use a minority representative and the GOP is pure white male (well, there is some question about Rudy - he's the other token on stage). I really do not see a clear frontrunner yet.
Click to expand...

I've never really understood the idea of including someone as your VP choice to get votes from another segment of the population... the election is for president, not VP.

CivGeneral said:
Also, what makes Ron Paul stand out from the rest of the Republican Canidates in your opinion?
Click to expand...

I can answer that, I think.

He's absolutely nothing like the rest of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom