CSNbbs

Post-debate Poll:

You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results

I didn't watch the debate, but they seem to be giving credit to Rudy for calling out Ron Paul's stance on the War on Terror.

[quote="georgia_tech_swagger"]Post-debate Poll:

You Decide GOP Primary Poll Results

BTW:

Tommy Thompson 1%
Jim Gilmore 0%
Mitt Romney 17%
Sam Brownback 1%
Ron Paul 13%
Rudy Giuliani 33%
Mike Huckabee 24%
John McCain 2%
Duncan Hunter 4%
Tom Tancredo 5%

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Hardly ownage. Oh, but that's a Boortz poll Reb, hardly scientific. Well, so is any poll out there.

RebelKev Wrote:How is that moonbat owning all? You do realize leftists have teevees, don't you? You do realize that have the innernets, don't you? You do realize they vote, and vote often in online polls, don't you?

Ron Paul is a f'n kook. Didn't see him at the Fairtax rally yesterday either.

He said he supported the fairtax countless times. Hell, when they asked about cutting government spending ... other people talked about specific programs... he said he wanted to start with DEPARTMENTS!! My kinda guy!!!

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I didn't watch the debate, but they seem to be giving credit to Rudy for calling out Ron Paul's stance on the War on Terror.

It was a very very conservative atmosphere, thus Rudy's rebuttal got one of the loudest rounds of applause. Paul got it no worse than partially right, he just didn't have the time to explain in depth. He said our inept foreign policy was responsible for 9/11, and he stuck to that opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was in the "far righty town" that was that debate. In specific, he pointed to the bombing of Iraq when it was under sanctions. I don't think that's the real reason. The real reason was when we got involved with Israel, aiding them and setting them up, technologically at bare minimum, to dominate the region. That won't go over well with Muslims. That REALLLLLLLLLY won't go over well with Islamic Extremists. And that is indeed inept foreign policy, and the US sticking its nose where it didn't belong.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I didn't watch the debate, but they seem to be giving credit to Rudy for calling out Ron Paul's stance on the War on Terror.

It was a very very conservative atmosphere, thus Rudy's rebuttal got one of the loudest rounds of applause. Paul got it no worse than partially right, he just didn't have the time to explain in depth. He said our inept foreign policy was responsible for 9/11, and he stuck to that opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was in the "far righty town" that was that debate. In specific, he pointed to the bombing of Iraq when it was under sanctions. I don't think that's the real reason. The real reason was when we got involved with Israel, aiding them and setting them up, technologically at bare minimum, to dominate the region. That won't go over well with Muslims. That REALLLLLLLLLY won't go over well with Islamic Extremists. And that is indeed inept foreign policy, and the US sticking its nose where it didn't belong.

BS Swag, he said, ON STAGE and in front of millions of people, that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our actions in Iraq. He blamed the victim. he blamed America. No way in hell that kook gets past the nomination process.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:The real reason was when we got involved with Israel, aiding them and setting them up, technologically at bare minimum, to dominate the region. That won't go over well with Muslims. That REALLLLLLLLLY won't go over well with Islamic Extremists. And that is indeed inept foreign policy, and the US sticking its nose where it didn't belong.

BTW, you really should brush up on your history.


BTW again, how'd that issue work out with the Firewall?

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I didn't watch the debate, but they seem to be giving credit to Rudy for calling out Ron Paul's stance on the War on Terror.

It was a very very conservative atmosphere, thus Rudy's rebuttal got one of the loudest rounds of applause. Paul got it no worse than partially right, he just didn't have the time to explain in depth. He said our inept foreign policy was responsible for 9/11, and he stuck to that opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was in the "far righty town" that was that debate. In specific, he pointed to the bombing of Iraq when it was under sanctions. I don't think that's the real reason. The real reason was when we got involved with Israel, aiding them and setting them up, technologically at bare minimum, to dominate the region. That won't go over well with Muslims. That REALLLLLLLLLY won't go over well with Islamic Extremists. And that is indeed inept foreign policy, and the US sticking its nose where it didn't belong.

BS Swag, he said, ON STAGE and in front of millions of people, that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our actions in Iraq. He blamed the victim. he blamed America. No way in hell that kook gets past the nomination process.

Did you read what I said in that paragraph? We agree on what he said. We both agree he's wrong. I, however, still agree that he's correct in principle... he just used the wrong example.

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:The real reason was when we got involved with Israel, aiding them and setting them up, technologically at bare minimum, to dominate the region. That won't go over well with Muslims. That REALLLLLLLLLY won't go over well with Islamic Extremists. And that is indeed inept foreign policy, and the US sticking its nose where it didn't belong.

BTW, you really should brush up on your history.


BTW again, how'd that issue work out with the Firewall?

Up and running again.... still waiting for the Bellsouth DNS change.

And another example of inept foreign policy ... giving Osama truckloads of cash and munitions to fight the Russkies in Afghanistan. Again .... misguided foreign policy and sticking our nose where it did not belong.

And yes, the reason he polls so well is because he does extremely well with moderates, right leaning dems, left leaning republicans, and libertarians. He and Giuliani are the most un-Republican (defining Republican as GWBush-esk) on stage. Consequently, they're the most electable. Barely over a quarter of the people in this country approve of GWBush or the War in Iraq. I'd say it's pretty clear the GOP has lost its ways badly in this department. If you don't at least agree that the War is being managed worse than Mike Tyson's bank account ... we have little to discuss.

lets get something straight, Ron Paul is a kook and may well have been in his final debate after last night. The poll you are citing is un-scientific and the Truthers out there that have no lives are calling in like losers voting for him over and over. Just see how poorly he's doing in scientific polls, I almost wish this loon would become President just so some in this country would learn a thing or two about Politics and reality when he got in office and couldn't do all the stuff he talks about now.


Further, he not long ago on the House Floor said if Iran attacked the US they didn't really attack us we would attack ourselves to make case for war....he is a senile old kook. Video:

http://minx.cc/?post=225943


further, its interesting people that call themselves "Libertarians" are supporting someone against Free Trade and Open Borders, two central tenants of Libertarinism

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:And another example of inept foreign policy ... giving Osama truckloads of cash and munitions to fight the Russkies in Afghanistan. Again .... misguided foreign policy and sticking our nose where it did not belong.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (at least until my enemy is defeated).

Foreign policy in today's world is so far and away more complex than being able to be reduced to hindsight's 20/20. Was FDR misguided in allying with Stalin in WWII? By your standard absolutley.

If history has proved one thing, it's that isolationism isn't the right answer for this country.

Dealing with policy in the world today many times is, like it or not, dealing with the present and hoping for the future. Do you really think anyone had any clue that when we aided the mujahadine that they'd turn on us? No. But how many people understood what a real and gathering threat the USSR was? Most everyone.

as for Debate itself, I continue to be impressed with Romney as a debater, I would like to see Duncan Hunter as next Sec. of Defense and Mike Huckabee had the line of the night.

Also, FoxNews showed why they are so superior to MSNBC, I was thinking this last night and then NRO goes and puts a compare/contrast video of the two debates up.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=...gyM2M0M2E=

:owned:

look up the Northern Alliance, we were much more aligned with them during the coldwar than any back channel mujahadeen support. The Northern Alliance was pro-American and pro-Reagan, so much so the Taliban had their Leader assassainated via suicide mission right before 9/11, the two events were related. Taliban(AQ) and the Northern Alliance are/were enemies.


the Fortress America stuff is so absurd in the modern world of Technology and a Global Economy, we are in unchartered waters historically. Ideologies use to start in one location and gradually spread to others, many times by the time they got to that location it was 100's of years later and the original source of it the ideology was dead, the Internet and modern world completely changes that.

the easy way isn't always the best way.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:And another example of inept foreign policy ... giving Osama truckloads of cash and munitions to fight the Russkies in Afghanistan. Again .... misguided foreign policy and sticking our nose where it did not belong.

Again with the history, Swag. We didn't know who the hell Bin Laden was when the Mujahadeen was fighting the Soviet Union. Stop listening to moonbat talking points.

GGniner Wrote:as for Debate itself, I continue to be impressed with Romney as a debater, I would like to see Duncan Hunter as next Sec. of Defense and Mike Huckabee had the line of the night.

Also, FoxNews showed why they are so superior to MSNBC, I was thinking this last night and then NRO goes and puts a compare/contrast video of the two debates up.

I might have to wind up supporting another candidate from Hope, Ar. (Not to be confused with I might have to support, yet another candidate from Hope, Ar.) lmfao


As for Fox News, check this out:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/f...hp?t=99959

;-)

I like Huckabee, just not sure if he can win. the main thing is nominating someone that can win, even if that means pragmaticism(Rudy).

I'm still not sure if Fred Thompson didn't win yesterday with his Michael Moore putdown(with a cigar in his mouth)...but the John Edwards joke was great and Rudy really put down Paul which got as much applause as the Huckabee line

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:And another example of inept foreign policy ... giving Osama truckloads of cash and munitions to fight the Russkies in Afghanistan. Again .... misguided foreign policy and sticking our nose where it did not belong.

The United States never gave any money to bin Laden or any other foreign fighters in Afghanistan. The CIA did give money to Pakistan's intelligence agencies to distribute to Afghani rebels, but even this money didn't go to foreign fighters. Not a good example to exhibit that you're a good student of history.

RebelKev Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:I didn't watch the debate, but they seem to be giving credit to Rudy for calling out Ron Paul's stance on the War on Terror.

It was a very very conservative atmosphere, thus Rudy's rebuttal got one of the loudest rounds of applause. Paul got it no worse than partially right, he just didn't have the time to explain in depth. He said our inept foreign policy was responsible for 9/11, and he stuck to that opinion, regardless of how unpopular it was in the "far righty town" that was that debate. In specific, he pointed to the bombing of Iraq when it was under sanctions. I don't think that's the real reason. The real reason was when we got involved with Israel, aiding them and setting them up, technologically at bare minimum, to dominate the region. That won't go over well with Muslims. That REALLLLLLLLLY won't go over well with Islamic Extremists. And that is indeed inept foreign policy, and the US sticking its nose where it didn't belong.

BS Swag, he said, ON STAGE and in front of millions of people, that we were attacked on 9/11 because of our actions in Iraq. He blamed the victim. he blamed America. No way in hell that kook gets past the nomination process.

Thats a pretty shallow analysis.

He's not blaming the victim... he's taking an objective view to help explain why something happened.

Look, if you go to some shady gas station in a bad neighborhood late at night, over and over again, and eventually you get mugged, you should learn a lesson from that. It isn't blaming the victim to suggest that. Its common sense. Your approach would be to keep going back to that gas station at 2am again and again after getting mugged. And if you got mugged again and someone suggested -- "what the hell were you doing there?" you would say, "hey, don't blame the victim!"

Paul was absolutely a hundred percent dead on. Its not a normative analysis, on what is right or moral, its a positive analysis, based on objective rationality. Conservatives have gone way overboard in constantly favoring normative analysis. Paul comes from a traditional, positive framework that has always, until Bush, been supreme in the Republican party.

And Rudy suggesting "As someone who lived through 9/11...."

FFS. How long is he going to pretend that being in NY on 9/11 gives him some insight into our foreign policy?

Its a disgrace.