CNN republican presidential debate 6/5 by antimason

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

CNN republican presidential debate 6/5

POSTED BY: ANTIMASON
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 6, 2007 04:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1670
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, June 4, 2007 1:04 PM

so CNN hosted a democratic debate sunday night, which i missed because i was working(luckily the holy day is Saturday). so i studied what little i could find on goodle video/youtube, and heres what i came away with:

-all the democrats, from what i could tell, supported further sanctions on Iran, and none of them would rule out military measures as a last resort. essentially, they have the same objective as the (neo)republicans, that we should be enforcing UN resolutions, and pre-emptive war is still on the table.

-i didnt hear any mention to strict adherence to constitutional principles, our hollow currency(Fed, IRS and the inflation tax), or any new perspective on the war on terror or Iraq.

but the Republicans have their debate coming tomorrow, and i look forward to further exchange on domestic and foreign policy, because i expect Ron Paul to expose some skeletons in the establishments closet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 10:28 AM

ANTIMASON

so whos gonna watch tonights debate?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 10:40 AM

HKCAVALIER

I'm still trying to get the Dems' debate off the web. So far I've found about half of it on YouTube. I might watch the R's debate tonight, but I've found watching the debates so far so dispiriting, and the R's in particular, so very ugly--"I would double the size of Guantanimo!"--that I may put it off, and watch it on YouTube in somewhat more manageable 9 minute chunks.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:04 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm still trying to get the Dems' debate off the web. So far I've found about half of it on YouTube. I might watch the R's debate tonight, but I've found watching the debates so far so dispiriting

I'm an (alomost former)Dem, and I watched the debate, let me recap: Blah, buh blah blaaah, bu blaah bleep bleep, buh blah blah blah!......just kidding. They spoke of healthcare most of the time so I had to take Dramamine...I'm in that business and they're all COMPLETELY full of it on that subject. Hillary actualy appeared to be the most confident. Obama didn't help his image with occasional squirmings in his seat. That guy from Alaska is everyone's grouchy uncle. Dennis Kucinich made the most sense. How would a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket be? Hmmmmm...Dodd and Biden proved how "old school nothing's gonna change" they both really are, Even though Biden attempted a few outbursts of the "something HAS to give" variety, none sounding sincere though. That's just my opinion...no facts really.

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:38 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
How would a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket be?

I've seen a couple of interviews with Kucinich and up to now the most flattering thing I thought of him was: "Wow, what a well-groomed hippie!". For the most part he comes across as so naive and idealistic that he appears detached from reality.

But maybe it's just me.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:55 PM

HKCAVALIER

From what I've seen of this latest Democratic debate, I'm liking it the most so far. There seems to be actual debate and contention, for instance, rather than the bland commercial format of the first debate.

Obama's chance of elections seems to get more and more remote with each appearance. He comes off more and more as an intelligent well-spoken observer--a wonderful characteristic in a writer, but not a President. He would be like the weak king that comes after the cruel, but successful tyrant in some neo-medieval succession--not unlike Carter's Presidency after Nixon. I could see Obama as Secretary of State, easy, but he's gonna have to "come out of his shell" or something to seccure the nomination for President.

My fear of a second Clinton presidency has lessened seeing these debates. Not because I think her chances of winning are lessened, but because I'm reminded of what kind of person she was when her husband was President--a political animal, a survivor and way, way too smart for her own good. She loves politics and she loves power, but I don't think that makes her the anti-Christ. We could do worse than Hilary Clinton.

Biden seems to improve in each debate, but then, I'm really only thinking in terms of him as "a person." I like the man more with each debate, I empathize with his human struggle--don't know what that means for his presidential hopes.

I'm glad Gravel is in the race, but I think he's losing ground. He needs to let at least a little pragmatism seep into his performance at least to the point that he actually provokes the other 9 candidates. Right now, they're all just dismissing him. It's easy to call them all liars, harder to recognize that lying on one level or another goes with the territory and get to the real truth at the heart of things rather than simply taking pot shots at the obvious lies. Leave that to John Stewart, we need a President who can work with his imperfect colleagues in an imperfect system, not just trash them from the moral high-ground.

The rest of 'em have yet to impress me much one way or the other.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 1:45 PM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I've seen a couple of interviews with Kucinich and up to now the most flattering thing I thought of him was: "Wow, what a well-groomed hippie!". For the most part he comes across as so naive and idealistic that he appears detached from reality.

I always thought he resembles a leprechaun

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:54 PM

SERGEANTX

Republicans are scary.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:45 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Republicans are scary.

Well, I missed the first half of the debate tonight, dang it. The big difference between the the Dems and the Repubs for me at these debates is this: while the Dems may seem boring or kinda soft-headed about this or that, non of them come across as raving psychotics the way some of these Republicans do--you know, at least in the rhetoric. I'm talking about the glowering unmitigated militarism, the trance inducing chant of "culture of life" while 100's of thousands die, and that other fetishistic chanting of the holy name of Ronald Reagan.

In short: The Dems seem to be asleep and the Repubs seem to want us to go to sleep. At least the Dems might wake up, but I don't see the Repubs wanting a well-informed, alert electorate any time soon--'cept our Mr. Paul, o'course.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:04 PM

ANTIMASON

well, heres my take on tonights debate:

-CNN chose to perpetuate the media favored "Rudy Mc-Romney" ticket, giving them the majority of airtime. apparently, its the medias role to decide who they want us to choose from.

-besides McCain and the immigration issue, there was little variance on the war, terrorism, or domestic policy ASIDE from Ron Paul, who has been completely shut out of the post-debate CNN commentary. he IS against the war... whether they acknowledge him or not

-Ron Paul was the only one who broke the consensus among the candidates regarding minimizing government spending. consistent with his non-interventionist foreign policy, Paul pointed out the trillion dollar a year war, which Giuliani wants to escalate, and the others are so uncompromising on.

-Giuliani actually said its our DUTY now to nation build! he also was supported by the others in his assertion that a mandatory "data base" to track all Americans is neccessary. Ron Paul is the only one opposed to a national ID card and electronic data base.

-Creationism became a subject, and some encouraging comments were made regarding inalienable rights. i see this as incouraging, i feel it more sincerely with Huckabee and Brownback, but Paul was aswell.. although all the candidates claim some religious belief. Giuliani i am skeptical of. Ron Paul set himself aside though, making the point that we have abandoned principle of just war, reserved for self defense, and have taken on the philosophy of pre-emptive warfare. he directed this at the others, saying it was a "christian principle". i was appreciative of this, because i have made this point many times

and there were some other subjects, but overall a whole lot of rhetoric, almost mindnumbing, and a bunch of ego just emanating from most the guys. Brownback seems like an intelligent guy, but no one will uphold the constitution like Ron Paul. more than anything i noticed that instead of giving his opinion, he always refers to the constitution. IMO you are literally taking a chance with anyone else, because they are very opinionated, and may not hold faithful to the constitution. as far as im concerned, the president is not the decision maker, he swears an oath to uphold the constitution, and i want him to honor that. these other guys are too egotistical

-

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:09 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
MalBadInLatin-

How would a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket be? Hmmmmm

one big drawback is that Kucinich is weak on the 2nd amendment, i believe he is for certain gun restrictions. if we no longer have the right to protection, then its futile to attempt to preserve the other rights. we've lost habeas corpus, we're losing 1st amendment rights daily, but the 2nd amendment may truly be 'the test' whether we're willing to accept socialist authoritarianism. the democratic party IMO is susceptible to socialism because they cater to atheists, which Marx and Lenin admitted was part and parcel to socialism. but then ii believe the constitution is under attack, and think its the more important war for Ron Paul and the rest of us to fight

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 5:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"socialist authoritarianism"

So in your opinion Bush is a socialist authoritarian ? You seem to have got the direction wrong from where this all comes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:24 PM

ANTIMASON

yes. big government IS socialism, and socialism is a neoconservative principle as well. how does Giuliani expect to pay for this nation building that he promotes? Ron Paul said in the debate that we're now spending a trillion dollars a year essentially on our foreign policy. the system perpetuates itself through the 'inflation tax', the printing of fiat money devoid of value. its a real conspiratorial issue that no establishment candidate is willing to risk their candidacy on/ except Ron Paul, because its at the heart of every issue. you get a lot of rhetoric and ego with the others, but you get an actual explanation with RP, and you feel the truth. regarding the constitution, some of us still find the advice of our founders relevant. what we have now is literally the military Industrial complex that congressman Paul mentioned.(on the daily show last night)

the constitution is not compatible with secular, socialist principles.. the two represent a real philosophical dichotomy with eachother. you probably noticed that every republican candidate was of a religious faith, and they all (atleast) campain on conservative, consitutional principles. maintaining the border, national security, minimal spending, free market, pro-life. those beliefs are part of our religious law and tradition, they are inseperable. but the middle east is compromising important principles, because this perceived threat of terrorism has socialist minded people demanding security, which necessitates big government. but before then republicans stood for limited government, as libertarians did, and these are constitutional, religious principles that only Ron Paul has really brought attention to in this manner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA

My my, isn't that interesting...

In spite of our disagreements on other issues, and me not liking you so much, gotta admit we're on exactly the same plank of the ship when it comes to Ron Paul, Antimason - and strangely enough, with Kucinich as well.. I like Kooky and all, but he just doesn't seem to get that you cannot defend liberty with one hand while denying it with the other.

The second amendment is the primary assertive protection of the rest of them, really.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:29 PM

ANTIMASON

here are Ron Pauls segments(minus the second half of the show)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:42 PM

ANTIMASON

heres the second half

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:12 AM

KANEMAN

"chanting of the holy name of Ronald Reagan."

Don't go there...lightning may strike...

That debate was a joke, as were the other ones. They ask Romney, McCain, and Giuliani all the questions. Notice RP got an ovation every time he spoke...problem is it totals 2 min.....Well, I'm pissed off..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:21 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

here are Ron Pauls segments(minus the second half of the show)

I love his answer on gays in the military........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 4:51 AM

KANEMAN

The cool thing about Ron Paul is that he DOESN'T invoke God's name. The only names he invokes are those of the founding fathers who meant for this to be a free country. He consistently votes against his personal preferences when he can't find justification for them in the Constitution, which is why the pro-life people don't support him, even though he is personally pro-life.

You should be a lot more scared of "good-intentioned" politicians and bureaucrats who think they can run everybody's life than of businesses that would have to compete on their own merits if they couldn't buy politicians. The companies that "fight dirty" are the ones who survive through political favors rather than by pleasing their customers. Like Enron, for example. Never could have happened in a free market.-jb

Although he did mention a creator in his gays in the military response........

Love always kaneman

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE