GOP debate- 10/9/07- MSNBC

[Evanescence]

More of the same...

Ron Paul getting mocked, political talk etc etc..

My biggest pet pieve was that they let guilianni talk PAST his 30 seconds....almost another full minute, but yet they cut everyone else off !!!!!!!!

Just more of the same....:confused:

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Just more of the same....:confused:

Yup.

Except there was a big difference... Thompson was in it. Though his substance was more of the same.

Also... why would a president consult with attorneys before going to war??? I loved Ron Paul's faceslap to all those who said they'd go to war without the approval of congress.

And Giggliani's accidental slip was interesting. When he was responding the this whole dependency on oil issue, and he says "well if it wasn't for the oil, Iran wouldn't be much of an issue" (paraphrasing, will correct when a transcript comes available). Oops.... I thought it was all about terrorism and keeping us Americans safe...

[cheewiee]

Yup.

Except there was a big difference... Thompson was in it. Though his substance was more of the same.

Also... why would a president consult with attorneys before going to war??? I loved Ron Paul's faceslap to all those who said they'd go to war without the approval of congress.

And Giggliani's accidental slip was interesting. When he was responding the this whole dependency on oil issue, and he says "well if it wasn't for the oil, Iran wouldn't be much of an issue" (paraphrasing, will correct when a transcript comes available). Oops.... I thought it was all about terrorism and keeping us Americans safe...

The oil America consumes fuels the war against her.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

This is what Giggliani actually said:


I think Iran would be a lot more of a paper tiger if we were more energy independent


source (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/NEWS02/71009073)

and this was Romneys absurd answer to a good question:


Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?


ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat.

[Valpo]

if it were not for the oil that Iran has, it wouldnt have the power or influence over terroriists. terrorists need funds too, and if iran were broke, hence w/o oil, terrorism probably wouldn t be much of an issue.

And I think Romney was alluding to attorneys specializing in interpretation of the Constitution. Not saying that's the right way to go, but I'm pretty sure that is what he was saying.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

if it were not for the oil that Iran has, it wouldnt have the power or influence over terroriists. terrorists need funds too, and if iran were broke, hence w/o oil, terrorism probably wouldn t be much of an issue.


ah! now I see. I must have been interpreting it the wrong way then.

[mat1583]

What's sad is when you have Republicans up there laughing at Ron Paul's responses...which have a good basis in traditional republican views that presidents such as Reagan and Eisenhower leaned heavily on.

Here's an awesome article by NY Time's Thomas Friedman: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

He recently visited Auburn University and a few other colleges to speak on various issues. He brings up some really good points.

-washboard

[Evanescence]

Ron Paul is far too honest and righteous to be that crowd. They scoffed quietly at his stance on the Federal Reserve...which IS the problem and is un-constitutional....and was placed there with sinister motives.

If he would get in...which he won't, he'd be bumped off by the elitists that run this country. Guilianni will get the nod from the Rep party...he's close with Bush and the Bush family has enormous influence in the party.

The whole thing is a sham and a scam....

[mat1583]

Ron Paul is far too honest and righteous to be that crowd. They scoffed quietly at his stance on the Federal Reserve...which IS the problem and is un-constitutional....and was placed there with sinister motives.

If he would get in...which he won't, he'd be bumped off by the elitists that run this country. Guilianni will get the nod from the Rep party...he's close with Bush and the Bush family has enormous influence in the party.

The whole thing is a sham and a scam....

C'mon, we gotta make the glass half full, not empty :)

RP is seriously gaining some steam and getting his name out there. $5 mil in the last quarter, and $1 mil of that in 5 days! I had a chat with my boss this morning. He said he's seen more signs about RP than any other candidate...and they aren't even manufactured signs, just stuff like "Who is Ron Paul" written on cars with window markers. It's really amazing how much grass roots support is springing up.

The key to Ron Paul winning is just spreading the message of freedom to people you know.

Heck, even if he doesn't win, I'm not going to give up on letting people know where our nation is headed if people don't realize what's happening to their so-called 'freedoms'.

-washboard

[Evanescence]

C'mon, we gotta make the glass half full, not empty :)

RP is seriously gaining some steam and getting his name out there. $5 mil in the last quarter, and $1 mil of that in 5 days! I had a chat with my boss this morning. He said he's seen more signs about RP than any other candidate...and they aren't even manufactured signs, just stuff like "Who is Ron Paul" written on cars with window markers. It's really amazing how much grass roots support is springing up.

The key to Ron Paul winning is just spreading the message of freedom to people you know.

Heck, even if he doesn't win, I'm not going to give up on letting people know where our nation is headed if people don't realize what's happening to their so-called 'freedoms'.

-washboard

Amen and I hope he does it !!!!!!!!!!

[clemsontigers23]

What's sad is when you have Republicans up there laughing at Ron Paul's responses...which have a good basis in traditional republican views that presidents such as Reagan and Eisenhower leaned heavily on.

Here's an awesome article by NY Time's Thomas Friedman: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

He recently visited Auburn University and a few other colleges to speak on various issues. He brings up some really good points.

-washboard

I've also snickered at Ron Paul quite a few times. He sounds ridiculous.

[mat1583]

I've also snickered at Ron Paul quite a few times. He sounds ridiculous.

Thanks for the useless post, bro. Why don't you elaborate?

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

Thanks for the useless post, bro. Why don't you elaborate?

-washboard

Well, I'm pretty sure I already have in the past, but his beliefs that we should abolish nearly every government agency in existence, even agencies such as UNICEF, Welfare, and Medicare. I thought those were pretty funny, but if he gets elected then it becomes scary.

Also, he has been known to advocate some crazy conspiracy theories.

[in hiding]

Well, I'm pretty sure I already have in the past, but his beliefs that we should abolish nearly every government agency in existence, even agencies such as UNICEF, Welfare, and Medicare. I thought those were pretty funny, but if he gets elected then it becomes scary.

Also, he has been known to advocate some crazy conspiracy theories.

he wants to abolish the federal gov't agencies, NOT the state agencies. And he has supported some initiatives to help poor families and housing. You know it would be much easier on people if you would read what he says, not what others tell you he says. I suggest this site http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ if you actually want to learn what he says. You should be able to find everything he's ever said or written on any topic and see his reasons for his positions. Unicef isn't a governmental agency. What you don't seem to understand is that he wants to give more power to the states and less to the federal gov't. But I guess since you want the federal govt in our lives as much as possible dictating every thing we can and can't do I can see why you wouldn't want to read about his views and think about issues...it's much more convenient to not have to. The govt is so convoluted and complicated that you think you cant survive without them. Well people have survived long before our tax code was 16000 pages long and the laws were so convoluted. What's wrong with simplifying things and taking power away from the govt and giving it to the people?
Besides if he's elected everything on his agenda won't pass, but hopefully we'll at least start working towards some of those things.

and what conspiracy theories has he advocated?

[mat1583]

Well, I'm pretty sure I already have in the past, but his beliefs that we should abolish nearly every government agency in existence, even agencies such as UNICEF, Welfare, and Medicare. I thought those were pretty funny, but if he gets elected then it becomes scary.

Have you ever even considered the reasons for getting rid of welfare or at least a MAJOR reform? Welfare reform is a bipartisan stance. Either way, there are some very good reasons for getting rid of it. Because of welfare and medicare, we live in a culture of entitlement - a very dangerous situation for us economically. It is one of the main reasons we have so much trouble with illegal immigration. Not only own citizens think they are entitled to free education, but illegal immigrants know how to work the system to receive those entitlements as well.


Also, he has been known to advocate some crazy conspiracy theories.
Which ones?

-washboard

[clemsontigers23]

Which ones?

-washboard

9/11 conspiracy comes to mind.

[mat1583]

9/11 conspiracy comes to mind.

You know nothing about Ron Paul then. Multiple times on national television he has denied having any association with the 9-11 truthers. Just do a search on google or YuoTube. He even voted to send troops to Afghanistan! Seriously, you need to educate yourself and honestly try researching something before you spread more fallacies. :rolleyes:

-washboard

[Evanescence]

9/11 conspiracy comes to mind.

Gee, imagine that..???

An intelligent, educated, seasoned politician that doesn't believe the official story of 911???

Hmmm....imagine that....:cool:

[Evanescence]

You know nothing about Ron Paul then. Multiple times on national television he has denied having any association with the 9-11 truthers. Just do a search on google or YuoTube. He even voted to send troops to Afghanistan! Seriously, you need to educate yourself and honestly try researching something before you spread more fallacies. :rolleyes:

-washboard

Not entirely true...there have been snippets of his skeptism...

Fact is though, that it would hurt his campaign if he said anything...just like the others that are remaining silent. I am sure its common knowledge in Washington, just like it is among the NYC Fire dept and police. One was recently quoted in saying,.."We all know it was an inside job but we can't lose our jobs over it. we have families ya know. Others have come forth with their testimonies only to be fired immediately. We all know what happened that day and it isn't what we were told. But, for the sake of our jobs....we need to remain silent. Its a damn shame..."

This was a NYC Fire CHIEF....25 year veteran....

Imagine that...

[mat1583]

Not entirely true...there have been snippets of his skeptism...



Oh bologna. Give me a break. He's been asked the question numerous times. He voted TO GO TO AFGHANISTAN for crying out loud, and has repeatedly said the terrorists were Saudi's. Please stop derailing threads by spewing this 9-11 conspiracy theory stuff. It's getting old quickly.

-washboard

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he believes 9/11 was caused by blowback, just as the 9/11 commission concluded. He's never said otherwise. But Alex Jones and all the other truthers have no problem endorsing him because he wants to stop what they believe (the Alex Jones crowd) was set up by the US with false flags. Though Paul wants the same objective (to end this war), his beliefs on the whole matter are distant from being conspiracies.

[Evanescence]

I doubt that...but thats what he'll say...its all political. I mean come on, John Kerry admitted Buld 7 was a controled demolition.....and others have slipped things as well. Its been happening...

I'm not spewing anything..and I have put feelers out to see if indeed Paul has mentioned anything. Perhaps he didn't but I think most of Washington knows/suspects what happened.

I'm not going to bore anyone with details, but the tide is turning in this war. The war against the American people and the Tyrannical, Elitist Govt thats been manipulating us for the past 50 years. More and more is coming out about 911 and other operations....and more and more people are opening their eyes and asking questions.

Questions like why GWB refused to testify for the 911 commission...and finally spoke with them, with Cheney in tow...the two of them NOT under oath and NOT recorded....

Ahhh..so many coincidences...so little excuses....

[in hiding]

Ahhh..so many coincidences...so little excuses....

So now, the inevitable question: if terrorists didn't cause 9/11, who did? Remember that there are in fact two towers. Two minus one is one; one& one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors. That's nine-one-one. Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks..Evanescence ;) And one and two with 911 and you get 914! Drop the 4 and it's 91! Exactly the score Evanescence got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11! Who has the most to gain from 9/11?! Evanescence! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell?! Evanescence! you almost got away with it

adapted from a cartoon

[sandyandporter]

So now, the inevitable question: if terrorists didn't cause 9/11, who did? Remember that there are in fact two towers. Two minus one is one; one& one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors. That's nine-one-one. Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks..Evanescence ;) And one and two with 911 and you get 914! Drop the 4 and it's 91! Exactly the score Evanescence got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11! Who has the most to gain from 9/11?! Evanescence! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell?! Evanescence! you almost got away with it


ROFL!!!

It's so clear to me now!

[Evanescence]

So now, the inevitable question: if terrorists didn't cause 9/11, who did? Remember that there are in fact two towers. Two minus one is one; one& one - 11; two minus one is one; one one, and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors. That's nine-one-one. Nine-eleven. And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12, which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks..Evanescence ;) And one and two with 911 and you get 914! Drop the 4 and it's 91! Exactly the score Evanescence got on his spelling test twelve days after 9/11! Who has the most to gain from 9/11?! Evanescence! Who was nowhere to be found the morning the towers fell?! Evanescence! you almost got away with it

adapted from a cartoon

lol...

Sorry I'm already being investigated.....but not for that...;)

Maybe you can ask Cheney. He had the motive and intent....his antics at Norad on 911, are just coincidence though...:rolleyes:

[in hiding]

lol...

Sorry I'm already being investigated.....but not for that...;)

Maybe you can ask Cheney. He had the motive and intent....his antics at Norad on 911, are just coincidence though...:rolleyes:

the government 9-11 conspiracies are actually perpetuated by the government to keep people preoccupied.

[clemsontigers23]

You know nothing about Ron Paul then. Multiple times on national television he has denied having any association with the 9-11 truthers. Just do a search on google or YuoTube. He even voted to send troops to Afghanistan! Seriously, you need to educate yourself and honestly try researching something before you spread more fallacies. :rolleyes:

-washboard

If he said he believed in it, he would be laughed out of the building and the campaign. He's a politician too...he knows how it works, and I doubt he's as honest as you think he is.

[rossid]

How did Huckabee do?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

If he said he believed in it, he would be laughed out of the building and the campaign. He's a politician too...he knows how it works, and I doubt he's as honest as you think he is.

So if he's never said that he believed in the 9/11 conspiracy.. then where are you getting your sources to claim that he does? I'm curious because I'm willing to listen, but sources are essential (as I've learned the hard way haha!).

Here (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/) you'll find almost every single radio interview and speech he's done. There's some Alex Jones interviews among the many many others.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

How did Huckabee do?

He did significantly better than Rudy McRomney.

[clemsontigers23]

He did significantly better than Rudy McRomney.

Not surprised. I wish Huckabee would get it.

[rossid]

Not surprised. I wish Huckabee would get it.What does he need to get?

[Evanescence]

watch it'll never happen....Giglianni is tight with the Bushs who have ultimate say in the Rep party....that trumps anything...

Same with Dems. Guess who is tight with them? Yep, mostly do to her husband...Hillary. It'd be insane to give her the nod but I am sure it'll be...

[mat1583]

If he said he believed in it, he would be laughed out of the building and the campaign. He's a politician too...he knows how it works, and I doubt he's as honest as you think he is.

He has suggested that we could be better off without the IRS, welfare, etc etc. His views are so 'radical' to most of the conservatives he's debating that I doubt he'd hide anything like that if he actually believed it...and he's never said he does in the first place. Once again I will say HE VOTED TO GO TO AFGHANISTAN!!!.

If he believes in less government spending, wants to pull out from Iraq, then why on earth would he vote to go to Afghanistan if he believed our own government set up 9-11? It's ridiculous to suggest on one hand he believes our government set up 9-11 and then on the other that he voted to send troops to Afghanistan, while at the same time preaching about less gov't spending and non-interventionism.

Plus, he must be an honest man to be an OB/GYN and married to his wife for over 50 years. ;)

Not only is he an honest man, but he is a man of principle. He has voted consistently since he first started his career as a 'politician' in the 1970's. There is NO inconsistency in his views, as his voting record has continually proven.

“You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.” - John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988 (about Ron Paul).

-washboard

[in hiding]

If he said he believed in it, he would be laughed out of the building and the campaign. He's a politician too...he knows how it works, and I doubt he's as honest as you think he is.

so you can read his mind and you know what he really thinks but has never said? that's impressive.

[Evanescence]

If he believes in less government spending, wants to pull out from Iraq, then why on earth would he vote to go to Afghanistan if he believed our own government set up 9-11? It's ridiculous to suggest on one hand he believes our government set up 9-11 and then on the other that he voted to send troops to Afghanistan, while at the same time preaching about less gov't spending and non-interventionism.


Mat, you and I agree on a lot of things, but this seems to be the most uneducated things you've ever said...or that anyone would suggest. Think about it.

We went to war with Afganistan just a few months after 911....what 2-3 months. The various anomolies and coincidences that raise serious questions on 911 didn't fully surface for 2-3 YEARS. Heck it took 2-3 years for the official inquiry to take place and they are STILL investigating things. this feet dragging perpetrated by the President is DOCUMENTED and was discussed in Congress.

Whether you believe in a 911 coverup or grand scheme or not, you would have to admit that its taken years for this stuff to syrface...and indeed it is almost every day.

I won't get back into this but the fact is that people believed the official story right away, so our politicians ALSO believed this, thus they voted their conscience. Only now, 5-6 years later have things REALLY surfaced and people began to question the official story AND in fact our leaders have slipped up a time or two on video. Rummy, Gigilani and J. Kerry are 3 that come to mind.

Ron paul was just liekt he rest of us. he didn't know any better and believed the offical story. Right now, he may not be open about 911 or maybe he doesn't believe in a 911 coverup at all. Either way, he's been tight lip...and thats just smart business and politics.

[mat1583]

Ron paul was just liekt he rest of us. he didn't know any better and believed the offical story. Right now, he may not be open about 911 or maybe he doesn't believe in a 911 coverup at all. Either way, he's been tight lip...and thats just smart business and politics.

What do you mean tight lip? I've never seen or heard anything that would indicate that he believes in that 9-11 conspiracy theory at all. You can question his honesty all day long if you want, but that doesn't make your case any stronger. The case is that he has constantly distanced himself from the 9-11 truth movement, the conspiracy theories, and has reiterated the blowback theory that we were attacked because we meddled in the affairs of other countries too much.

My point is that the whole idea behind 9-11 truth is that our gov't carried out the attacks somehow to have a reason to go to Iraq. Ron Paul was against going to Iraq from the beginning (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm ), and would have no reason to cover up gov't involvement in 9-11. Not only that, but RP advocates a more transparent gov't- one that doesn't seek to hide so many secrets.

You have let all this conspiracy theory stuff cloud your mind so much that you think every single politician is in on it and all out to dupe our society. By saying that Ron Paul is trying to cover up something, you are calling him a liar and a hypocrite, and the exact opposite of someone who cares so much about our freedom.

-washboard

[Evanescence]

What do you mean tight lip? I've never seen or heard anything that would indicate that he believes in that 9-11 conspiracy theory at all. You can question his honesty all day long if you want, but that doesn't make your case any stronger. The case is that he has constantly distanced himself from the 9-11 truth movement, the conspiracy theories, and has reiterated the blowback theory that we were attacked because we meddled in the affairs of other countries too much.

My point is that the whole idea behind 9-11 truth is that our gov't carried out the attacks somehow to have a reason to go to Iraq. Ron Paul was against going to Iraq from the beginning (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr090402.htm ), and would have no reason to cover up gov't involvement in 9-11. Not only that, but RP advocates a more transparent gov't- one that doesn't seek to hide so many secrets.

You have let all this conspiracy theory stuff cloud your mind so much that you think every single politician is in on it and all out to dupe our society. By saying that Ron Paul is trying to cover up something, you are calling him a liar and a hypocrite, and the exact opposite of someone who cares so much about our freedom.

-washboard

Dude, I never said that Ron Paul was dis-honest...in fact check the posts I made...I said he was probably the MOST honest. I'm not ttry to question his credibility either.

AND, I don't think eveyr politician is a crook...and that they're all in on this etc etc. Most DO have questionable ethics....but I don't think that they all know about a 911 coverup. The big wheels ...the elites, like Kerry, Kennedy, mccain might....or might know a litlle, and they keep tight lip.

This stuff ain't rocket science and it doesn't take long to see theres a HUGE movement out there....no matter what you think of them. However, a politician would commit suicide by coming out...and they won't. So, IF Ron Paul does believe in SOME kind of 911 coverup ...on some level, he would never be so dumb to come out with it.

Again, you make the statement about him being against going to Iraq. Well, yeah thats true but again, the 911 evidence has only surfaced on a large level in the past 2-3 years...POST Iraq invasion. The same with Afganistan.

True, most Truthers believe that the 911 false-flag attack was to get us into Iraq and Afganistan, but the truth is that thats really just the tip of the iceberg in many circles. There are numerous factors and theories on it...from the aspestos (sp) issue at the WTC, to Larry Silverstein's leases to Iraq and the oil to tighteing of security on a worldwide scale. The list goes on and on.

Fact is, our past and future hinges on 911....its the catalyst to our New World today. So, with all the dozens of anomlies and coincidences and questionable things related to it, we should have the right to press the issue and demand real answers. Finger pointing and surmising doesn't do anything as most of it can be easily explained or scoffed at. But, a genuine, non-partial, independent inquiry where people are made to answer real questions and ALL things and testimonies are looked at will get to the bottom of things.

As for Ron Paul. I think he's a great righteous man and have no idea what he thinks of 911. I hope he continues to gain steam, but as I said before, Guiliiani will get the nod becuase of his ties and conections within the party. Same with Hillary. I'd almost bet on it.

I'm off to NC so i can't/wont respond to this anymore. Have a good weekend ya'll !!!!!!!!!!!!

E :cool:

[mat1583]

Dude, I never said that Ron Paul was dis-honest...in fact check the posts I made...I said he was probably the MOST honest. I'm not ttry to question his credibility either.


This is why I originally responded about it. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant about it...

Not entirely true...there have been snippets of his skeptism...



Either way, I don't care to discuss the 9/11 truth stuff anymore in this thread, so I'm not going to respond to what I think about the rest of your post (whether good or bad)

-washboard