The character of America changed fundamentally after the Korean War as we became increasingly militaristic in the face of communism. But eventually the Cold War with the USSR ended peacefully. The most interesting viewpoint that any candidate brought to your event last night was Ron Paul's willingness to re-examine defense spending levels in the context of current threats and missions. But CBS News whiffed it. Can't we please have some debate on that?
The character of America changed fundamentally after the Korean War as we became increasingly militaristic in the face of communism. But eventually the Cold War with the USSR ended peacefully. The most interesting viewpoint that any candidate brought to your event last night was Ron Paul's willingness to re-examine defense spending levels in the context of current threats and missions. But CBS News whiffed it. Can't we please have some debate on that?
Sad. Perry seemed to be either debating under the influence or unprepared. If some of these candidates' ideas are adopted, many people are going to be in the same position as lots of the worst-off in countries we send aid to. Still, there aren't any really bright spots here from a humanitarian point of view, other than two or three brave enough to state that they still do not believe that waterboarding is anything less than torture. And, although no one mentioned it, didn't John McCain himself say he lied when he was tortured so he wouldn't have to give up secrets and could still get his torturers to stop? That would be proof enough that torture doesn't necessarily result in intelligence. All in all, drama, humor, science fiction....everything for a perfect Saturday.
The only Man on that stage that really has a firm grasp of what AMERICA and THE CONSTITUTION stand for is Dr. Ron Paul. It seemed like a covert tradgity to silence the one man that truly stands for what the majority of Americans believe in. I hope that everyone out there will learn more about Dr. Paul and the great things that he can do for America and her real interest. Not the interests of the main stream media and all their propoganda!!!
Ron Paul certainly is on the right page for internal financial issues. Unfortunately his view of isolation is not realistic in the world economy and world of terrorism we face. However it is agreed that Scott certainly played up the front runners giving many of the others that I want to get to know better, including Ron Paul a disadvantage with reduced exposure and number of questions to answer. It was not a balanced debate by the moderators.
The media doesn't want anyone else to hear Ron Paul...but I think their plan just backfired on them. They just lit a huge fire under the Ron Paul supporter's butts! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
CBS News has disgraced itself in the irresponsible manner in which it managed the debate yesterday. Its editors are perhaps the only ones who know for sure why they purposefully silenced the word of Dr. Ron Paul, and surely the American People are the poorer for it. One can only hope that the American People will seek and obtain the information they need from other sources, bypassing the dinosaur bought-and-paid-for media prostitutes and therewith vote to close the doors of the anachronism that is CBS News.
I haven't yet seen the debate - and I look forward to watching, but I have asked the Paul campaign two questions and they have not responded, meaning they probably have no answer. Let's see if anyone here does.
Question #1: suppose we pull back all our troops to America (do we maintain skeletal forces anywhere?). Who's going to fill the power vacuum? Or do you honestly believe that the bad guys in Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and North Korea are going to follow that lead and do likewise, thereby ushering in a utopian heaven on Earth?
Question #2: If Iran starts a war with Israel, what would the Paul Administration do? Or do you honestly believe that Iran WON'T start a war because all the sudden they're going to like Dr. Paul and say, "Well gee whiz - American's changed; maybe we can too. Now we love Israel and the Jews so much, we'd like to share a lox and bagel with them?
If the world is going to remain a dangerous place, even with President Paul saying we're going to be oh so sweet and nice (squeek!), what would a President Paul say to my 2 questions?
I can't speak for Ron Paul but I will try to answer your questions.
Question 1: You don't need troops around the world to have power. We would be better to have all our troops at home and when something goes down then we send our troops to fix the problem and bring them back home not leave them in small groups around the world. Also we would be more safe if we had all our troops in the US to protect us from any attack that may come our way. We are in a war that can't be won and we are not making the world a safer place so why waste our money staying around the world?
Question 2: No one said Iran is not going to attack Israel but it's not like we are making Israel any safer having our troops there, if Iran attacks Israel they are going to do it no matter where we are in the world so why not save our troops and keep them at home till something goes down.
You really should read what Ron Paul is for before trying to have other people answer for Ron Paul.
@clearyatoff-the-cliff: Israel has nukes, and if Iran gets nukes, they will be in the same mutual-assured-destruction stalemate that we and Russia are in, or that Pakistan and India are in. This is not so bad, as it actually reduces the chance of war.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
I voted for Ron Paul because he wants exit strategy & balanced budgets and less cronie gov't capitalism and Fed Reserve audit
The establishment & Israel firsters are afraid !
Question #1: suppose we pull back all our troops to America (do we maintain skeletal forces anywhere?). Who's going to fill the power vacuum? Or do you honestly believe that the bad guys in Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and North Korea are going to follow that lead and do likewise, thereby ushering in a utopian heaven on Earth?
Question #2: If Iran starts a war with Israel, what would the Paul Administration do? Or do you honestly believe that Iran WON'T start a war because all the sudden they're going to like Dr. Paul and say, "Well gee whiz - American's changed; maybe we can too. Now we love Israel and the Jews so much, we'd like to share a lox and bagel with them?
If the world is going to remain a dangerous place, even with President Paul saying we're going to be oh so sweet and nice (squeek!), what would a President Paul say to my 2 questions?
Question 1: You don't need troops around the world to have power. We would be better to have all our troops at home and when something goes down then we send our troops to fix the problem and bring them back home not leave them in small groups around the world. Also we would be more safe if we had all our troops in the US to protect us from any attack that may come our way. We are in a war that can't be won and we are not making the world a safer place so why waste our money staying around the world?
Question 2: No one said Iran is not going to attack Israel but it's not like we are making Israel any safer having our troops there, if Iran attacks Israel they are going to do it no matter where we are in the world so why not save our troops and keep them at home till something goes down.
You really should read what Ron Paul is for before trying to have other people answer for Ron Paul.