Last Night’s GOP Debate

Loading

Couple good examples from the GOP debate last night. The resident nutcase, Ron Paul, makes a fool of himself once again:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y16qaURj7n4[/youtube]

Santorum did well in describing the threat of Iran, Ron Paul….just a nut. As I’ve written about in years past, I like his economic ideas but the man is just a loser when it comes to foreign policy. No air force? WTF! Neither did al-Qaeda.

No way I would ever support the man because of his foreign policy beliefs.

Here Pawlenty and Bachmann go at each other a bit. Michelle handled herself well:

She also got this curious question by Byron York:

The Bible tells wives to be submissive to their husbands. If she were president, would that apply to Michele Bachmann?

In Thursday’s Republican debate in Iowa, the Minnesota congresswoman was asked if she would be submissive to her husband.

Bachmann, the only woman in the Republican presidential field, says she interprets “submission” to mean “respect.”

She said she respects her husband, calling him a “wonderful, godly man and a great father.” And she says he respects and loves her, too.

The question by conservative columnist Byron York drew boos from the audience.

I’m not so sure it should of been booed. On its face it seems like a petty “gotcha” kind of question but the issue is out there and she got to answer it, and did very well I think.

Skye put up her grades for the candidates:

Romney: A – He is riding his Golden Child status, that will change with Perry in the race.
Pawlenty C
Bachmann: A+
Santorum: B
Gingrich: B
Cain: D
Huntsman: F
Paul: F

Can’t dispute her scores much. Bachmann started out with a campaign slogan but got better as the debate went on and most definitely schooled Pawlenty every time he went after her. Cain was pretty much ignored. Santorum did pretty well. Romney? Hate to say it but out of this bunch he seems to be the most capable and ready to take over the White House. We’ll see once Perry gets in.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I liked what Paul had to say about Rick Perry when he stated that maybe he wasn’t up to the challenge of the debate. Newt Gingrinch, who I don’t care for, won the debate. He bitch slapped Chris Wallace(and the press in general) rightfully so after Wallace kept throwing his National Inquirer snide questions out. Wallace looked intent on drawing the debate into Pawlenty and Bachmann. It appeared that all he wanted was for the two of them to go at it. He knew full well that pawlenty had to show some spunk and he apparently does not like Bachmann. Santorum did very well with the very little time he was given. Romney did well. And it appeared that Fox was trying to help out Huntsman who got more questions than Santorum, etc.

I wish the Newtster hadn’t screwed himself up earlier in the year. The man is brilliant and made everyone else up there including the golden boy of the moment look like school kids, all except Michelle.

Why is it if there is a woman running for a high office, everyone, friend or foe attacks. The Dems did it to Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro, something they will never admit to but is fact! The Reps are just as bad. Michelle not only held her own, but reminded everyone that mouthing off about standing on principle and then following through are two different things! Brilliant! Act according to your word.

Ron Paul is also a fraud. He has had a number of earmarks that he proposed and knowing they would pass anyway, voted against them just so he could say he’s never voted for them.

Curt you can’t really believe that Ron Paul made a fool of himself again? He was the ONLY candidate last night whose positions conformed to the Constitution. Now you and Skye may have given the man a failing grade but I and many others feel differently. See here. I would even say a majority are starting to feel as I do.

Ron Paul is off in left field somewhere. I was very disappointed in him. I do not like Newt, but I felt he did better than all the rest of the men. Michelle stood her ground and answered all the questions asked of her in a ladylike and intelligent fashion. If I had to vote today, it would be Michelle.

@Madalyn: Left field huh? He disappointed you?

You know that topix poll I posted isn’t the only one out there, here’s one from MSNBC

http://politics.newsvine.com/_news/2011/08/11/7350500-who-do-you-think-won-the-gop-presidential-candidates-debate

and another poll;

http://vortexeffect.net/2011/08/11/poll-who-do-you-think-won-the-fox-news-ames-republican-debate/

and yet another poll,

http://online.worldmag.com/2011/08/11/online-poll-who-won-thursday%E2%80%99s-gop-debate-in-iowa/

Yahoo and Fox both had post debate polls as well but they took them down when Paul won them both. Ron Paul had the best reaction from the crowds and every poll I have seen shows him as the clear cut winner. I don’t know which debate y’all were watching but it doesn’t seem to be the same one I was watching.

If anyone has access to a poll that doesn’t show Ron Paul as the winner I would really appreciate seeing it.

@Hard Right: Fraud? I don’t think so. Yes, it’s a gimmick. But it’s a clear enough position: ‘I don’t think this bill is a good one, but if you’re going to pass it I’m going to make sure Texas gets its share.’. Nothing fraudulent there. Lot of people who hate Paul for his foreign policy views seem to want to dump on him for all sorts of other, minor stuff.

So many good points came out of the debate.

I learn a lot of history by listening to Ron Paul.
Unfortunately for him we cannot travel back in time and fix stuff that way.
If we had a working time machine he would be my man.

I somehow was out of the room when Michelle finished her answer about headship and being president.
A man being ”head over a women,” does NOT apply to her way of making business (work) decisions.
Anyone who has read the Proverb of Lemuel on the Good Wife knows that.
(It is a Hebrew poem that goes through the Hebrew alphabet stanza by stanza.)
Found at Proverbs 31:10-31 a good wife can own her own business, run it herself, buy property herself, etc.

Newt, as he pointed out, used to run the House of Representatives.
He knows how to run it.
Maybe he needs to be back IN the House because no one there seems to know how to run it anymore.

Tim P. made me think of al Qaeda, in that they are BOTH tone deaf.
(Not in any other way.)
Either he’s too this or he’s too that.
Doesn’t he have a non-Yes Man around him to tell him honestly how he comes across?

Herman Cain’s mouth can be his best friend or his worst enemy.
He’s got a fine mind but a president needs to have his mouth in check 100%, make that 110% of the time.

Jon (not JoHn) Hunstman clued me in that he used to be somebody.
A sailboat in an unfavorable wind can tack back and forth and eventually get where it needs to go.
I guess Jon could too.
But can America afford to wait?

I am sorry to say I am boycotting this blog because of YOUR OPNION CURT!

@ Poppa_T
Look, I like Ron Paul and I tend to lean libertarian, but when Bret Baier followed up and asked him how he would get his sound monetary policy through a divided congress, he looked like a deer in the headlights. Libertarians have great ideas, but a lot of the ideas are cop-outs. The government should not be involved in marriage. Ok, it sounds great and I tend to agree. But we would have to change contract law for just about everything on the books. Sound monetary policy, let’s do it! How? We gonna go to the gold standard and have another FDR-style executive order banning the hoarding of gold? Strip our military down to parade rest? History has taught us that this isn’t a very good idea. Can we make defense cuts? Yeah, I no longer think we need an Air Force base on Thule Greenland. I’m sure there are other bases out there that are cold war relics. I would like to see Ron Paul as Secretary of Treasury though. He would destroy the Fed if the President let him.

@Curtis Hooper:

Help me understand this…

You’ve commented a grand total of twice on this blog…and you are now boycotting this blog because Curt dares to have an opinion that is different than yours?

Wow…I stand in absolute awe of your open mindedness.

@Poppa – Just because I don’ t think Ron Paul would make a good president has nothing to do with how other people feel. I stated my opinion and I stand by it. He left me feeling cold…..cold as in “just isn’t the guy I would want to see get the nomination”. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. My opinion, my voice, even if it conflicts with your way of thinking. As far as I know (unless Obama has really done it this time), this is still America and I can have my voice heard and I can have my very own opinion even if it differs from yours. I never once said anyone was wrong if they thought that Ron Paul did a good job in the debate or if he “won” polls. Polls will never influence my way of thinking. I still stand by what I said. Ron Paul in my opinion is NOT the man/woman for the job.

Ron Paul got some strong and positive audience reactions for a man who made a fool of himself. His comments regarding our absurd level of military spending and our involvement in an endless succession of foreign wars brought loud applause and cheers–if I remember correctly, the strongest positive responses of the evening.

Audience reactions to statements reflecting the lingering neoconservative determination to bring about a military confrontation with Iran were the exact opposite.

Republicans might want to take note of the fact that the wind has definitely shifted. The American public has had it with discretionary wars, and will be wary of the case building that usually precedes them. In addition, it’s obvious to the public that involving the United States in another war would be diametrically opposed to any intention to reduce debt and deficits.

I’ve always liked Ron Paul, even though I frequently disagree with his positions. He’s always struck me as a straightforward person who says what he’s really thinking. From the perspective of a democrat, it puzzles me that he doesn’t get more Tea Party support.

@Sid:

I have to ask: have you ever lived in Ron Paul’s district or worked for his campaign in years past? Because if you have, you would see how Dr. Paul has changed. He has become a 1938 isolationist (yes, I know Dr. Paul perfers to call himself a non-interventionalist but that is simply a play on words.)

Twenty years ago, Dr. Paul ran on two things: term limits and no pork. When it came time for him to step down after the two terms he claimed he would serve and then leave, he ran again, violating his own pricipals. And as to the pork? He didn’t mind bringing home the bacon for his district, in bills he knew would pass when he authored them, but did a head fake by voting against his own bills, knowing they already had the votes to pass.

I had a [fairly] long conversation with Dr. Paul after 9-11. He thinks that the reason Muslims are attacking the U.S. is because we have troops in Saudi Arabia and that 9-11 was really the fault of U.S. foreign policy. While he may be strong in criticism against the Fed, he seems to know little of history and how Europe was threatened by the Muslim hordes who tried to push Shi’ria all the way to Vienna. Or are you not aware of the symbolism of the September 11th date?

How is Paul right about Perry? Do you think being governor of a state of 25 million is some easy task? Gee, its so much lesser than being one of over 400 Congressmen, right? When Ron Paul walks the dangerous Texas/Mexico border, with a side arm strapped to his hip, instead of riding his bicyle runnning red lights, as he does when he is home, perhaps he can talk about Perry not being ready for prime time, until then, he needs to shut the hell up. Ron Paul is the only Texas Republican Congressman that has NOT visitied the border.

Curtis, you might be seriously limited in the number of blogs you read in the future, if criticism of Paul is your criteria.

We have political debates to get to know the candidates; the analysis is open to debate, so why deprive us of your learned opinions. You will influence no one by stomping off the playground like a child in a snit. Put forth your opinions and support them; otherwise, you look like a thin skinned wimp with plenty of emotion and no intellect. That is the type of unreasoned behavior we expect from most Liberals.

I didn’t even think that Rommi had a pair until we saw that controntation in one of his campaign speeches. And I think that he was the winner, but don’t like him at all. Pawlenti was horrible. Bachmmann was ok. I am wondering how many women who have been brutally raped, and ganged raped and their families, husbands, boyfriends would agree with him that the unborn baby is the real victim. We were rooting for the Newt with his refusal to be politically correct. I just wish that he would have showed more spunk and common sense at the first of his campaign. And Cain could have done much better, but it now appears that he has been brow beaten into submission by the press. Huntsman was/is pathetic. And Ron Paul? The guy is smart. no doubt about it. But common sense? I don’t think so. He was embarrassing with his beliefs on isolationism. He would have fit right in back in 1914, and 1939. especially 1939 when the isolationits and their beliefs nearly led to all of us speaking German, and using chop sticks to eat with.

@Greg:

Ron Paulbots are young, mostly college kids, that have never earned a pay check and still rely on Mommie and Daddy to pay their bills. They are the ones that stand in line for hours to get tickets to the debates.

Paul doesn’t get TEA party support because he has turned into a lunatic. Twenty years ago, he wasn’t like that.

If you don’t realize the threat that Iran poses to not just Israel, the only democracy in the region, but to us, you are delusional. Do you even have a clue what a nuclear Iran would mean? We already had one president who ignored the writing on the wall in Iran. How did that work out?

Greg, do you consider Libya and Yemen discretionary wars or inevitable conflicts.

The correct attitude toward entering into any foreign war should be reluctance. The United States should get involved only when there’s a compelling reason that’s good enough to overcome that reluctance. I don’t think that’s an isolationist view.

@Skookum, #19:

Once you’ve involved yourself you’re no longer free to exercise that discretion. If you’re asking whether or not I think those two particular examples represent mistakes, I’ll have to say that at this point I honestly don’t know. Rightly or wrongly, Ron Paul would probably be able to answer immediately.

@retire05:

Do you even have a clue what a nuclear Iran would mean?

If they pursue that course, they will officially add themselves to the list of nations that are potential nuclear targets. The United States has had a 66-year head start on them.

I think that a war with Iran would be just about enough to finally ruin the United States at this point in time. My attitude about obvious neoconservative intentions is influenced more by that single concern than by any other consideration. I think war with Iran is a bigger immediate existential threat to the United States than Iran with a bomb. In my opinion, we simply can’t afford to add a war with Iran to our present troubles.

@Aqua: Yes, he did get caught flat footed for a second there but I urge you to take a second look at his response and the reaction he got from the audience once he completed his answer.

The question you refer to is between the 1 and 2 minute marks. Libertarian ideals are not cop-outs, Repubs and Dems just try to make them seem that way because if we are ever successful in implementing them they would strip both parties of the power they currently enjoy.

As for us having to change contract law if the government got out of the marriage business, well you’re just going to have to enplane that to me. Let me ask you this, what does the Government granting a license actually mean? It means that they (the government) are granting you permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. The government initially established marriage licensing laws to prevent the intermingling of the races, mainly because most people thought that mixed marriages were immoral and they thought that they could legislate their morality on to others. Now they are using it as a means to compel the majority to accept as legitimate behavior that most of us still believe to be immoral. They are once again attempting to legislate morality, it never works, a marriage is a covenant between the people getting married and GOD, not two or three or four people and the government! Get the government out of the marriage business and change the law as needed.

How do we get back to a sound monetary policy? Simple, strip from congress it authority to borrow money. Allow competing currencies to be introduced, allow the citizens to turn down federal reserve notes (FRN’s) as payment for debt. Set an exchange rate for silver coins and FRN’s and adjust it as necessary. Outlaw fractional reserve banking, require all banks to maintain full liquidity at all times. There are many ways of doing this the important thing is that it gets done. As long as we continue to accept a fiat currency as legal tender we, and our children’s children, will stay in debt bondage to a bunch of international bankers that look upon the concept of individual liberty with disdain.

As for history’s teachings, why don’t you tell me what you think history has taught you concerning standing armies and wars of aggression and then I’ll tell you what it has taught me.

Ron Paul’s supporters stack the polls. He’ll win every time. You honestly can’t believe that after his performance last night, he’d receive 44% of the vote, or whatever it was. I like Paul on domestic fiscal issues. I like that he wants to abolish the Fed. But, his immigration and foreign policy would be a disaster for this country.

Newt won the debate last night and did make everyone else look 2nd tier. He has a realness and an engaging style, and brings new ideas to the debate. I wish he wouldn’t venture out and say weird things about Ryan’s budget, man-made global warming, etc. I want to like Newt but he’s such an imperfect candidate. Romney and Bachmann are looking very presidential and will probably be there in the end. I think Perry will surprise a lot of people in that he isn’t what the believers are making him out to be. He’ll scare people who are wary of the “Religious Right” with his outward Christianity — he doesn’t come off as secular as Romney, and won’t carry favor as much with independents.

At the end of the day, the truest conservative on stage will always be Bachmann, so she’ll get my vote. I hope she can survive the onslaught.

@bbartlog:

Funny, I figured a Paulbot would toss out that BS line.
Sorry, but someone who claims to want to cut federal spending, then throws their own pork into it is a fraud. Not to mention he has boasted of never voting for an earmark. Ronulan talking points don’t fly with me, so spare me the pathetic justifications.

As for dems and war- They screamed about how we need to focus on Afghanistan. Then when it came time to do so, they couldn’t wait to cut and run! I don’t give a rat’s patootie what they say about national defense because they don’t care about defending the country.

@Madalyn: I’m sorry…. when you said Paul disappointed you I thought you meant that you had higher expectations for him and his performance disappointed you, if you just don’t like him and won’t support him for personal reasons then there is not a lot to discuss. We can agree to disagree, I respect an honest opinion.

I thought he pulled off a big win and every poll I have seen supported my opinion which is why Curt’s post surprised me so much.

I would like to say something to Curt and to retire05 and hard right, when you refer to those of us who support Ron Paul as “Paulbots” or with other derogatory names you are doing the same thing Liberals and RINO’s do when they refer to members of the TEA party as “teabaggers”. Think about it.

Now I can’t speak for the rest of the “Paulbots” but as for myself I was probably serving in the Corps about the same time you were Curt , 1st MAW from 82-86, and his opinions concerning ALL of our current wars mirror my own. So you can both take your derogatory name calling and….anyway I’m still waiting for anyone to show me 1 poll that shows anyone besides Paul winning that debate.

@Poppa_T:

#1, the federal government is NOT in the marriage business. There is NO federal marriage license, those licenses being issued by the county in which a person lives.

#2, no, marriage licenses were NOT first issued to prevent interracial marriages. I am always amazed at how little people actually know about the history of marriage licenses and why they were issued, you included.

You say we cannot legislate morality. Then we cannot make laws against murder, rape, robbery, child molestation or drug dealing since every one of those acts hold a immoral value. If you want to remove morality from our laws, you are going to get anarchy in return.

@Hard Right, #24:

I don’t give a rat’s patootie what they say about national defense because they don’t care about defending the country.

Democrats realize that it can sometimes be as important to defend the country from its own war-makers as from external threats. There are those who want and will work toward a war with Iran. They represent a present danger to the United States.

@Poppa_T:

“Paulbot” is NOT a sexual perjorative. Teabagger is.

But I find it hilarious that people like you, who have never had a conversation with Dr. Paul, seem to support him. At one time, I knocked on every door in my small town of 4,600, campaigning for Dr. Paul. But he left me a long time ago with his insanity. Claiming that the Muslims hate us because we “occupy” their land, is pure insanity.

No, Ron Paul did not win the debate last night. Just because his supporters spam the polls, as they did in ’08, doesn’t mean that he won the debate.

@Poppa_T:

I’m still waiting for anyone to show me 1 poll that shows anyone besides Paul winning that debate. …

Pols that cannot be spammed take longer than the less than 24 hours since the debate.
Give it a couple of days.

Bachmann did well, much better than Palin who was too afraid to get in the fight.

@ Poppa_T
Marriage:
I said I tend to agree with the libertarian position on marriage. But I do have some problems with it. Marriage is a contract and if that contract is not recognized by the state, how can it be adjudicated by the state. If it cannot be adjudicated by the state, how are disputes resolved. Who gets custody of the children when a marriage has ended? How are inheritance rights resolved? The only way I can see this happening is changing the way a marriage is performed if a marriage license is done away with. You have the bride, the groom, the person performing the ceremony, and his and her lawyers to draw up a contract?
Monetary Policy:
I read the von Mises Institute website about once a week. I’m all for doing something with the Fed. Shutting it down immediately might not be the right move, but phasing it out might work. Allowing other currencies to compete? The US dollar is the world reserve currency. If for some reason it were no longer the world reserve currency, the price for everything imported into the US (which is just about everything today) would go up. I’m not so sure that is a good idea. I do back the plans of the individual States minting their own silver and gold coins.
Standing Armies:
After WWI, the US went into an isolationist posture. WWII would have lasted half as long had that not happened. There is no way to predict what the world would look like if that had happened, but I can imagine. The Russians would not have gained as much power. No Red Scare, no Korean War, no Vietnam War. There is no way to know for sure, but I would love to see the Monte Carlo simulations. This doesn’t mean I agree with the US being the world’s policemen, but I like having a strong, very strong defense. You might call Iraq a “war of agression,” I call it brilliant military strategy. I believe it was a logical solution to Afghanistan. So, I’m interested in hearing about our “wars of agression.”

As for Dr. Paul’s response after being caught flat-footed; he stumbled. And some of the Paul supporters in the audience would have cheered if he had read his laundry list.

@Greg:

Oh yeah greg, you so love America (roll eyes).
I notice you dodged the Afghanistan fact I mentioned.

Little FYI, America and Israel are going to have to deal with Iran whether or not we want to and delaying the inevitable will only insure a greater loss of life…not that you care.

Like I said, the left isn’t willing to protect America in any way, shape, or form. If they were they wouldn’t be pushing socialism and the castration of our military.

If the US hadn’t stupidly gotten involved in WW1 there wouldn’t have been a WW2.

@Hard Right, #32:

Like I said, the left isn’t willing to protect America in any way, shape, or form. If they were they wouldn’t be pushing socialism and the castration of our military.

I served a year in Vietnam during a 3-year voluntary enlistment. Where were you? Where were the GWB administration boys? Where were the pro-war right-wing pundits?

Not alive yet genius. Sadly you’ve become a full blown marxist and are trying to destroy America from within. Way to go.

@retire05: My friend you are mistaken,

#1 The Federal Government put itself into marriage business when slick Willie signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 96 limiting who the States could or could not issue marriage licenses to.

#2 In Colonial America most of the colonies only required parental permission and public notice for a marriage to be considered lawful. By the mid 19th century most state laws concerning marriage were enacted as miscegenation laws to prevent mixed blood marriages, fact.

Now as for legislating morality, murder, rape, robbery, child molestation or drug dealing, as I’m sure you can see all but one of your examples concern violating another individuals unalienable rights. If you’re a drug dealer or if you’re getting married you are not infringing on the liberty of anyone else. But my thoughts concerning the war on drugs is another matter.

@ retire05, I never said calling someone a “paulbot” was a sexual pejorative, I said it was derogatory, and it is. By calling me that you are implying that I am a mindless automaton, a blind unthinking follower and I take exception to your words.

Now if I understand you, you have become disillusioned with Dr. Paul. Hey, I can understand that. I have been disappointed by many politicians as well. Now I understand that he is not perfect and that he may have done some things that turned you against him. No, I have never meet him so I don’t have your first hand experience to base my judgement about him on but to the best of my knowledge there has only been ONE person who made through this circus we call life without sinning and I hold no man to his standard. But Dr. Paul is the one who most accurately reflects my beliefs so I must support him.

@ Aqua, My friend the State does not have to be a partner in a contract in order for it adjudicate it. If you and I sign a contract between ourselves for me to mow your lawn once a week in return for something and either of us fail to keep our end of the bargain then we go in front of a Judge to seek a ruling. We don’t have to seek permission from the State to enter into the contract, we just do it!

Monetary policy, when I said we should allow competing currencies I was referring to something like this not the Peso or the Euro. And no the US dollar is not the world’s reserve currency, the Federal Reserve Note is the reserve currency and only because it is mandated by law as legal tender for all debts public AND private. I just want the word “private” taken out of there.

retire05, when I see the writing that there are SPECIAL OPERATION, BY SPECIAL OPS
in 75 countries, of this now smaller WORLD,
WHEN YOU READ THAT THE ARAB SPRING has OBAMA SIGNATURE IN EVERY ONE OF THE REVOLTS,
WHEN DID YOU SEE A PREVIOUS PRESIDENT publicly talk of having ordered to kill an opponant by sending the SEALS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO DO THE JOB SECRETLY.
WHEN DID YOU HEAR A PRESIDENT TELL ISRAEL WHAT HE MUST RELINQUISH to serve terrorist neighbord ‘s request, when did you hear the chief of the UN DECIDE TO KEEP THE SPECIALS OPS IN OPERATION CLANDESTINES
AFTER REMOVING THE WHOLE ARMY. OF ALL THE COUNTRIES INVOLVED,
LEAVING THE EXPERTS SPECIAL OPS VULNERABLE TO FIGHT AN INSANE WAR THAT IS NOT A REAL WAR, IT’S TO SERVE A AGENDA OF THE LEADER OF THAT COUNTRY,
which will restrain the troups to a neutral point of impossibility to exterminate the ennemies and the one helping the ennemies.
now 75 countries, did I say, yes I did,
remember the story of a war where one WHOLE ARMY, was completly encircle
SO SUBTLE AND SWIFTLY WITH A PLAN WELL THOUGHT, WELL REHEARSE,
AND THE WHOLE ARMY VAINQUISH SURROUNDED, NO WHERE TO RETREAT,
THE NAPOLEON who thought he knew it all had his troups decimated in faster pace than all his victorys which where for nothing and all lost,
now the FRENCH are playing the game and even send an ambassader at the begining of the LIBYA revolt,
they got the AMERICAN TO START AND BRITAIN FOLLOW THE FOOLS OF UN POWER,
NEXT AFRICA.ON THEIR AGENDA and Iran is helping it suit their agenda to destroy ISRAEL,
AND AND AND.

@Poppa_T:

#1) If the DOMA limited states to who they could issue marriage licenses to, then clearly Massachussets, California and a number of other states are in violation of federal law. Except, that is NOT what DOMA did.

#1) I suggest you do more diligent research. Hint: the early American colony called New Holland/17th century.

You can stick with Ron Paul if you want. He is a lunatic when it comes to foreign policy. He didn’t used to be that way. And he never sticks to his word, like how he would only serve two terms because he believed in term limits or how he would never seek pork for his district, he did. I understand most pols go back on their word, but those are two biggies to me.

Now, perhaps you have no more respect for marriage than to view it as a simple contract. I view it as much more than that.

Ron Paul is not only isolationist -to-the-nth-degree on foreign policy, he also bases his crazy policy on inaccuracies.

At the debate Ron Paul said:
“All these trade sanctions!…This is why we still don’t have a trade relationship with Cuba!”

HISTORY LESSON for all who agree with Ron Paul.
According to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. has transacted almost $4 billion in trade with Cuba over the past decade.
Up until two years ago the U.S. served as Stalinist Cuba’s biggest food supplier and fifth biggest import partner.
Also the U.S. has been Castro-controlled Cuba’s biggest donor of humanitarian aid, including medicine and medical supplies for decades.

The Cuba ”embargo” actually states that Cuba MUST pay in CASH for agricultual goods from the USA.
No US Taxpayer money can be used at all.

Cuba is so poor that it compares unfavorably with Somalia!
Standard & Poor’s refuses to even rate it.

@Ivan: You said:

If the US hadn’t stupidly gotten involved in WW1 there wouldnâ’t have been a WW2.

Elaborate.
.
.

@ Poppa_T

Aqua, My friend the State does not have to be a partner in a contract in order for it adjudicate it. If you and I sign a contract between ourselves for me to mow your lawn once a week in return for something and either of us fail to keep our end of the bargain then we go in front of a Judge to seek a ruling. We don’t have to seek permission from the State to enter into the contract, we just do it!

Yeah, and I’m ok with that. I pretty much said the same thing. Marriages would be performed with his and her lawyers. A lot of things have to change. Family health insurance is tied to a marriage license, income taxes, adoption, most death benefits, and various other things require a marriage license. Things would have to change. For this reason, I believe it is disingenuous to merely say government should not be involved with marriage.
I have been slowly buying gold and silver, mainly silver since gold is so high. I will definitely look into the Chambersburg Liberty Dollar. It really doesn’t matter what the name is, it’s silver. As I said in my statement above, I support the States that are taking steps to mint their own gold and silver coins.

@ Greg

I served a year in Vietnam during a 3-year voluntary enlistment.

I didn’t know you served Greg. In all seriousness, thanks for your service.

Where were the GWB administration boys? Where were the pro-war right-wing pundits?

Dubya was in the guard. You can consider that a coward’s way out if you would like, but he served. Clinton on the other hand didn’t even try that route, he just conned his way out of the draft with the help of some influential friends.

Romney has not yet publicly been debated and discussed his Mass. health care.
But, when Perry makes his jump into the arena, I think the time will come for such a debate/discussion.

FORBES’ writer Avik Roy thinks so, too.
He has gone through the numbers and made some interesting comparisons/contrasts.

If you’re most concerned about runaway government spending, Perry is the clear winner.
If the rising cost of health insurance is your primary worry, Perry wins there too.
On the other hand, if universal coverage is your bailiwick, Romney comes out far ahead.

Read through this article for the details.

Lots of descriptive graphs, too.

@Nan G: It says the URL is not valid.

@Hard Right, #32:

Little FYI, America and Israel are going to have to deal with Iran whether or not we want to and delaying the inevitable will only insure a greater loss of life…not that you care.

Maybe we can finance the the invasion and occupation by borrowing another trillion or so from China.

@another vet:

Try this list of Roy’s stories.
You will have to scan down.
http://blogs.forbes.com/aroy/

Maybe I did it wrong, this is the direct link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/08/12/rick-perrys-texas-vs-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-the-health-statistics-almanac/

If neither of these works, go to Forbes main page and wait for the ad to play.
Then scan down for article by Roy, click his name and scan down from that.

Whew!

GREG, ON 45,
they have to talk, but the way OBAMA talks doesn’t jive with ISRAEL,
THEY JUST DON’T
TRUST HIS ALLEGIANCE TO HIS COUNTRY;S ALLYS, SO
THE TALK would be base on mistrust. where money doesn’t talk anymore.
he has broken the tread himself, and was frustrated to be rebuff, so he figured another way around to get what he ask from them,
the ARAB SPRING PLAN. WHICH IS a logic thought
for anyone to have

@Nan G: It worked. There were some very interesting articles in there. Thanks.

Hard Right re #35 You weren’t born when Greg and I served in V.N.? You’re mighty crotchety for such a young punk.LOL When did you serve?

Semper Fi

Aye #11 and Curt #12: Maybe Curtis perused the FA archives and clicked onto the Ron Paul category. 😉

@Poppa_T #25:

I would like to say something to Curt and to retire05 and hard right, when you refer to those of us who support Ron Paul as “Paulbots” or with other derogatory names you are doing the same thing Liberals and RINO’s do when they refer to members of the TEA party as “teabaggers”. Think about it.

You think those commonly referred to as RINOs (like John McCain and Mitt Romney) accept that as a descriptive label for themselves? Or as a derogatory insult?

I guess you weren’t around in ’08 when we had all sorts of colorful names for Paul Bearers:

This post is for all the Rononymous commenters, Paulbots, Paul Pots, Paul Reverists, Ronulans, and even the reasonable Ron Paul supporters out there

I’d say just shrug it off. No disrespect intended toward you or Bbartlog (who was around back then and challenged the barbs against Ron Paul, intelligently and calmly) personally. But if the man invites ridicule, he should be ridiculed. And where the man deserves some praise, he’s welcomed to receive it.

Oh boy, did we have some fun times with drive-by Ron Paul blog commenters back in ’08…..inspired some pretty good anti-Paul posts, some substantive and others gratuitous.