Looks like most people thought Ron Paul won the South Carolina debate

Paul is absolutely ridiculous when it comes to his misunderstanding for the terrorist attacks on the US.

Does he actually think that attempts to attack us would stop if he implemented his demented foreign policy?

Paul is dangerous and crazy.

 

Wierd there was a ton of cheering at the end.

So the idea that if another country sanctioned us or bombed us or killed our scientists that we wouldnt be pissed?
Sounds like common sense to me. Here i was thinking that Republicans pushed relgious values but do unto others is something to boo?

 

Sounds extremely logical, but it is understandable how right wing extremists and supremacists (both one in the same) wouldn't understand. Bunch of rude bastards heckle him and he is lost and unable to articulate? Really???
　
So basically what you are saying is 4 more years of more of the same as long as the ni(*)(*)er isn’t in charge?? Pathetic!

 

I realize that many voters are pathetically superficial and politically ignorant.

And your 'facts' to make that latter assumption are...?

 

Actually he is insuring that they cannot attack us here and that we will not be sitting ducks on their soil to be attacked either. Pretty obvious who the delusional party is here. He is also ready, willing, and able to react to an attack, by going after the source of the attack, just like he wanted to do after 911.

 

Ron Paul's "golden rule" psychobabble and his naive willingness to "work with" the Pakistanis to apprehend or kill Bin Laden are a big time fail, BuckNaked. While I do agree with Paul on some of his foreign policy positions, the breathtaking cluelessness he exhibited last night will forever prevent him from obtaining the GOP nomination.

And where have I heard that "Candidate X is our only hope" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) before?

 

Ron Paul has been saying the same things for decades. Obama came out of nowhere and his skin color helped.... Never mind Mccain was bad enough but Palin???

 

Not from me, I was telling people he was a corporate crony from the get go. It was going to be Bush Part 2 and he certainly didn't let me down. Romney or Newt either one, Bush Part III!

 

And one of the main reasons we'll probably wind up with Bush Part III is Ron Paul's own fatal foreign policy flaws (such as the "Blame America" bull(*)(*)(*)(*) he was peddling last night). He's only wrecking his own credibility and viability as a candidate with that cluelessness.

It would be nice to see a Libertarian with a realistic view of the world beyond our shores running for president, but Ron Paul obviously isn't that man...

 

Republicans may in fact acknowledge that Jesus is the son of god, but they really don't care about anything he may have said while he was alive.

I would argue that if you put Christ on that stage, next to newt and Romney, his foreign policy would get boo'd as well.

 

Got you. You make allies by bombing them.

Genius!

 

Here's the entire debate guys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBR...xt=C39b9cb2UDOEgsToPDskK1ORdr2vH5o2xGff9TOevY

 

Paul will stand up to any legitimate threat, and attack it head on, without all the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)footing around. Just like he does and has stood up to the rank and file politicians who regularly vote themselves raises and give favors to their money people despite their faux promises to make a difference or fix the problems we already are having a hard time dealing with, only to make matters worse.
　
As I said before, he will not get his way on every issue, but he will shake up the status quo to get the USA back on the right track of true recovery. I think that is what scares the hell out of most of the Romney/Newt disciples. He’s not going to play favorites or run interference/damage control for the rich/elites class war agenda or their divide & conquer strategy like the other corporate owned sock puppets have and will continue to do. I can see why it scares the hell out of most of you.

 

No, you kill your enemies by bombing them.

That's another faceplant RP made last night - his hyperbole about endlessly bombing everyone was worthy of the derisive response it received from the audience.

Genius!

 

And where are your statistics on the number of US 'enemies' that have been killed by bombing Pakistan?

And what is the basis for determining that they were 'enemies' of America?

Also, what are the numbers on the number of non-'enemies' that were also killed in those bombings?

 

It's good to remove your enemies and all but with what the other candidates were thinking, its the same as just marching into any given country and dropping bombs there. Only more chaos awaits if we do that.

 

But you create more enemies by bombing and killing defenseless people.

Or starving them to force our ideals on them.

 

My one fact would be that I agree with your first sentence here, although it doesn't include everyone.

 

It's funny how you think Ron Paul scares the hell out of anyone, but you all like to think you're "dangerous", don't you?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like to think that Paul would stand up to legitimate threats and attack them head on, but his comments last night certainly didn't inspire much confidence, as the audience's response revealed. His "blame America" nonsense might play well with the Apologizer in Chief's crowd, but it's not going to win him the GOP nomination...

 

Our civilian and military leadership is aware of that, which is why our country has developed "smart" systems and munitions to avoid the killing of innocent civilian non-combatants.

I'm curious, who are these people we are allegedly starving to impose our own ideals on them? We probably export more food aid than any other nation on the planet...

 

　
　
You are panicked over the aspect of Paul as president. It shows.
　
　
　

　
　
He will. It's called sanity. And I understand why you don't recognize it since you are obviously one of the sadistic more of the same crowd. The answer will not come from the two party scam. Think outside the box for just one election.

 

Now if we only had "smart voters " to elect "smart politicians" to
work to keep America energy efficient and prosperous we wouldn't NEED to fight for oil over there.
Ever wonder why we never talk much about Africa...instead of a tiny IRAN ?

We have the energy here..Drill baby drill !

 

Thanks for posting this. About all the way through it. I still support Paul, even through the boos. We don't need more wars. Not to mention the fact, we don't respect others sovereignty, which is easy when your the biggest kid on the block, but stuff like that will haunt us one day when we're not. Those Arabs don't forget. I know sometimes you got to say (*)(*)(*)(*) it and kill a target, and Osama was one of those times. I just am dealing with the fact with any other on the stage, or Obama, we go to war with Iran. I'm sick of hearing the others talk about Israel. They talk about Israel more than America. Paul needs to be more decisive with his words and not ramble in future debates answering a question. Newt was by far the most textbook presidential. Romney just seems like the politician everyone hates. If didn't have my eyes open, I would want Newt of the status quo. I can't understand why the "do-what-your-tolds" support Romney at all. But I still leave it wanting Paul, the rest is more of the same.

 

By now it should be clear to anyone that claims of a surgical or a precise war are no more than the kind of excuses which the guilty always give to deflect blame elsewhere. The destruction of Iraq was near total and it was criminal. The fact that Baghdad was not carpet bombed by B-52s does not mean that the civilian population was not attacked and killed. On top of the massive bombing, we have now a new kind of war: bomb now, die later. The precision bombs which did manage to hit their targets destroyed precisely the life-sustaining economic infrastructure without which Iraqis would soon die from disease and malnutrition. George Bush's remark on February 6, 1991, that the air strikes have "been fantastically accurate" can only mean that the destruction of the civilian economic infrastructure was, indeed, the desired target and that the U.S. either made no distinction between military and civilian targets or defined the military area in such a broad manner as to include much civilian property. In both cases, it is a war crime. http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm

What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan.
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

Libya? they are ZERO threat to our national security. We had no problem bombing them...to free them.


"For every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant," he said. "I don't go to count how many Taliban are killed. I go to count how many children, women, innocent people, are killed."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/us-drone-strikes-pakistan-waziristan

But hey, in the new empire what does it matter if we treat other worse than what we would like to be treated, what does it matter if we attack a people that can not defend themselves against us nor ever attacked us.

 

LOL - You should be doing two shows a night in Vegas.

If he doesn't blame America he might. Of course, he'll never get the chance to prove it one way or the other.

I recognize that you're good with the gratuitous ad hominem sandbox antics, but that's not going to win you any debates, much less a presidential election. If anyone needs to think outside the box, it's the Paulbots who think RP is infallible. Last night's debate should have been a wake up call...