On the Republican debate
Didn’t watch because, frankly, the party hasn’t said anything I’ve wanted to hear in about six years.
Update: In comments: It was really more of a Vice Presidential debate
Hah!
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 16th, 2007 at 9:41 am
I flipped it on just long enough to hear Ron Paul say that we were to blame for the 9/11 attacks and that they hate us because we attacked them in Iraq.
Put a fork in him…he’s done.
Run Fred Run!
May 16th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Ron Paul hurt himself last night. I did not see anyone on that stage that can win the Presidency.
I like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo but it is Rudy’s show, until big Fred comes. It was really more of a Vice Presidential debate last night.
I hope in the end it is Fred Thompson versus Al Gore. It would be cathartic for the country.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Jorge Arbusto is too dumb to get out of Iraq before the election, so the Democrats will win both Congress and the White House in 2008. The Republicans might as well have held a contest to see which of them can fart the loudest.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Ron Paul did NOT say America was to blame for 9/11 or that we deserved it. If you want to disagree with his critiques on foreign policy, fine, but please criticize him for what he actually said, not a strawman.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
The only person that mildely interesting is Duncan Hunter, but you are right he is still VP material.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
The only person that mildly interesting is Duncan Hunter, but you are right he is still VP material.
Fred Thompson/Duncan Hunter versus Al Gore/Wesley Clark.
Bring it.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Ron Paul did NOT say America was to blame for 9/11 or that we deserved it. If you want to disagree with his critiques on foreign policy, fine, but please criticize him for what he actually said, not a strawman.
I guess that’s a matter of interpreting what he said. I was watching and the impression I got was that he was blaming US foreign policy on the 9/11 attack:
“Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” –Ron Paul
You can scream “straw man” all day long, but my interpretation of that statement…and judging by the crowd’s reaction to Guliani’s reply and the reactions I’ve been seeing around the blogs today, I’m not alone…is that Paul was saying that we caused them to attack us in the way they did.
If that’s not what he meant to say, Guliani gave him an opportunity to retract his statement and he declined to do so.
Strawman? I think not.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
By the way, the NYT has the transcript of the entire debate online here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/us/politics/16repubs-text.html
The exchange in question is on page 15 so you can read the whole thing and reach your own conclusions. Far be it from me to tell anyone else what he meant…I can only tell you the way I interpreted it and I can tell you he lost my potential vote last night. There is no way in heck I’d vote for him after that.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
In a way Ron Paul did say it was American fault for 9/11, seeing it was the policies.
In other words we pissed off the muslims so they attacked us.
Sorry, Ron Paul is a tin foil hat wearing kook.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
some entertainment for junior? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6662213.stm
May 16th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
The real “kooks” are those controlling our government who, while they SAY we’re in a war on terroism” continue an open borders policy and continue to IMPORT Islam into our country.
No, I retract that statement re: “kooks”, actually they are traitors, committing “treason” IF one reads Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution objectively and applies it to current situation.
Right now, about the only guys I wold trust to REVERSE the treason would be Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo. Fred Thomspons weak voting record on immigration doesn’t inspire turst that he would do any different unless he makes a strong statement to the contrary.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Right now, about the only guys I wold trust to REVERSE the treason would be Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo. Fred Thompson’s weak voting record on immigration doesn’t inspire trust that he would do any different unless he makes a strong statement to the contrary.
Hence my logic for the Thompson/Hunter ticket. I like Tom Tancredo but Hunter is from Cali, got to consider all those votes. I think Tancredo would make a great VP also.
Fred needs to step up on several issues and make it clear where he stands. The porous border is a huge security issue.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Fred needs to step up on several issues and make it clear where he stands. The porous border is a huge security issue.
I’m right there with you on that one. Fred isn’t a “perfect” candidate by any stretch of the imagination, but he’s a fine sight better than any of the current “big three”
Neither Hunter nor Tancredo have the “presence” of Fred Thompson and even the scads of apathetic, political ignoramuses who can’t even tell you who the current vice president is would recognize Thompson from his acting career.
As is, the Republican party has little hope to retain the Executive in 2008. Fred Thompson, IMHO, has the best chance of changing that. He’s a candidate that the conservative base can get behind but he also has broad appeal and name recognition amongst the sheep.
I agree with your Thompson/Hunter ticket evaluation.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
By way of example, there are certain parts of NE Philadelphia one does not go wandering about at 2am. Suppose that for some reason, you were to do so and predictably ended up getting mugged. If I were to say ‘See, that’s why you don’t go wandering about NE Philly at 2am’, does that mean I’m saying you deserved to get mugged? Or that you are to blame for the mugging?
That is the point Ron Paul was making: not that US is to blame for 9/11 or that we deserved such an attack, but that by engaging in an interventionist foreign policy we create the situations that terrorist leaders can exploit for their purposes.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
#9,
If Fred Thompson won’t PLEDGE to reverse the treasonous open borders, appeasement and accommodation of illegal immigration and the importation of Islam policy of the Bush Administration, then he’s unfit for office. Any President that refuses to “protect the States against invasion” as the Constitution demands, is criminal derelict.
If I have to guess or wonder about that with Thompson, then NO WAY would I vote for him. I learned my lesson in 2000 when I relunctantly voted for Bush. I didn’t repeat that mistake in 2004 when we had CFR, Skull and Bones, globalist puppets, Bush and Kerry, for the “don’t waste your vote” candidates.
But a lot of supposed conservatives will vote, like the did for Bush, for another of the same thing.
Say it ain’t so, Fred!!
May 16th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
does that mean I’m saying you deserved to get mugged?
No
Or that you are to blame for the mugging?
Yes
If that’s not what you meant, exactly what did you mean?
Even if that’s not what you meant, that’s the way I’d take it.
In the context of you, as a private individual, offering your opinion, it matters little how I take what you say. You know what you mean and my interpretation of it has no impact on you personally.
In the case of a candidate for public office, on the other hand, it is QUITE relevant how other people interpret what they say. Ask George Allen if he’d ever call someone “Macaca” again.
Not only do I interpret what Mr. Paul said as a rationalization of the terrorist attack perpetrated against us, I unequivocally reject the premise that if we would just mind our own business, no one would bother us. Poppycock.
15 minutes in the history book of your choice would disabuse you of that particular utopian fantasy.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Sailorcurt said, “I unequivocally reject the premise that if we would just mind our own business, no one would bother us. Poppycock.”
Great point!
Also, our government should stop allowing and importing those who desire to bother (kill) us…Like the guys who were just caught getting ready to kill our guys at Fort Dix. But the traitors in Washington D.C. keep allowing our enemies to enter and stay in our country. That’s giving “aid and comfort” to our enemy which is TREASON according to the Cosntitution (Article III, Sectin 3) to which they took an oath!!
We’ll get what we deserve if we keep voting for the traitors and failing to remove them from office!
May 16th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Which is why Islamic terrorists are blowing up shit left and right in Finland, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Belgium. Duh.
Sure, there’d always be some people who hate us no matter what…we’ve known that since we recognized Israel in 1948. The problem is that we’re taking a festering sore and pouring gasoline on it. There’ll always be some people that hate our guts–but these days we’re helping those idiots recruit and making millions of people a lot more willing to listen to what they have to say.
The reality though is that if you ignore what we’re doing to encourage the terrorist threat, you’ll never be able to formulate an effective strategy to fight it.
Paul isn’t saying we’re to blame for 9/11, but he is saying that we are to blame for relying on stupid platitudes like “they hate us for our freedom” instead of really understanding what drives these idiots.
1) Support of Israel
2) Support of repressive regimes they don’t like in the Arab world, like SA.
3) Support of secular Arab govts like Jordan and yes, SH.
For the most part, those positions aren’t negotiable, and there will be terrorist minded folk no matter what we do. What Paul needs to say more clearly is that we’re A) doing very little to combat the inevitable terrorists and B) helping them recruit much faster than we’re killing.
Doesn’t anyone remember the NIE last year? The one that made it clear that we’re increasing and not decreasing the threat of terrorism? Or do you think all those terrorism experts at DOD, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. are just making that up for fun?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Rudy Guiliani talked tough last night, but he presided over a “sanctuary city” which gives “aid and comfort” to our enemies. That’s treason!
from: http://www.city-journal.org
“Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to “terrorize people.” Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.”
May 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
immigrants are the enemy?
May 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Illegal immigrants are illegal and the terrorists they SAY are gonna kill us all have been and usually are illegal immigrants, aliens or whatever other synonmous term fits’em.
But the greatest enemies are those we been obliged to trust with power and who let’em in to stay, and thus aid and abet the enemies amongst them…treason according to the Constittuion.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
What SayUncle,
Let’em all in and let Homeland Security’s militarized police sort’em out….according to the Patriot Act?
If you go home and you’ve got “undocumented residents” at your house, are you gonna assume they’re “just good-hearted folks” lookin’ for a home? or a George Bush says about the ones he let’s break into our country…”lookin’ for work”??
May 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Uncle-
I think that Ron W means illegal aliens, based on the portion of the City Journal article that he quotes.
But I agree with a lot of what Ron W says, except for his apparent distrust of Fred.
Fred just wrote a pretty strong article about stemming the tide of illegal aliens.
My guess for the Republican ticket is Thompson/J.C. Watts (who is another fine conservative).
May 16th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
My guess for the Republican ticket is Thompson/J.C. Watts (who is another fine conservative).
Strong ticket Chris. Doesn’t have the numbers of the Thompson/Hunter ticket but another good choice. Either way the VP debate would be very interesting.
On the other side I see Gore/Clark or Clinton/Clark. I don’t see Barry Obama surviving the tender mercies of the Clintons. I don’t think the Clintons can stop the Goracle.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“Which is why Islamic terrorists are blowing up shit left and right in Finland, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Belgium. Duh.”
And Bali, and Holland, and France and Spain, ????????? And The P.I.????? and Nepal ?????? And Chechnia elementary schools??????
Open your damn eyes.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Chris says,
“Fred just wrote a pretty strong article about stemming the tide of illegal aliens.”
Did Fred pledge to REVERSE the Bush policy, ENFORCE the laws of the United States and STOP the invasion of our country? As President, he would have teh Constittuional authority and imperative (Article IV, Section 4) to do so!! As does Bush who REFUSES!!
If so, that’s great!
Straightarrow,
You’re right! So why do you think our government keeps importing Islam into our country….the very group from whence Islamic terrorists come and among whom they can find a community for “aid and comfort”?
I work at a large healthcare facility. Several years ago, I virutally NEVER saw Middle Eastern Muslims, but now I see them here almost daily!
My own surmise is that our government wants an excuse to facilitate their Homeland Security–Patriot Act police state. I would like to be wrong…but I cna’t eally see another motive to sacrifice us on their altars of globlaism and multi-culturalism.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Unfortunatel Ron W. I tend to think that there is logic in your thoughts about the desire for total control as in a Police State. I sincerely hope this is not so, but there don’t appear to be too many other viable explanations.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Well, we are to blame for the 9/11 attacks, or at least our government is. By letting Muslims into our country, we’re playing Russian roulette. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of the most dangerous terrorists are Muslims. Only Muslims are willing to immolate themselves in the course of a terrorist attack.
As far as I know, we’re still admitting thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims on tourist and student visas every year. We’re still admitting them to our flight schools. Our new Democratic president won’t do any more about it than our current sorry excuse for a Republican president has.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
“Our new Democratic president won’t do any more about it than our current sorry excuse for a Republican president has.”
Gringo-Malo, I agree and probably neither would a new Republican President… with the exception of Tancredo or Hunter. But the globalist traitors control and play both ends against the middle…the “middle” being us.