Republican Debate: Send in the Clowns

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-08-2011, 15:59
Ronin13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

and to be honest, Obamao has more than doubled our hostile involvement on the international scene, not saying one is better or worse than the other, but that but that one is no better than the other.

I Don't believe bad foreign policies have a party affiliation, really.

want an extreme foreign policy?

I Say we stop paying anyone "Aid" unless you have stood with us 100% against our enemy. None of this "We sent 4 nursing station tents." Crap
Get hostile with us? We do REALLY well at making Large Bombs and allot of them... They are cheaper than Trucks, tanks and the Lives of our soldiers. Carpet Bombing policies in now effect.

Borders closed. Have a visa? Welcome!
You Don't? You are invading the Sovereign Nation of the United States and are subject to deadly force without further provocation.

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/...plause_gif.gif
09-08-2011, 16:02
Bailey Guns

OK...that I pretty much understand. But there's a simple fix for that whether, as president, you're a R or D.

Define the mission for military commanders:

"General. Country X is a direct threat to the security and safety of the United States. Take your troops and make them not a threat to the United States. As soon as you've done that, bring your troops home and report back to me when you're done."
Reassure your military commanders that you support them:
"Mr President. You do understand in order to do that I'm going to have to break stuff and hurt people? Maybe innocent people?"

"Yes, General. I understand. Go break stuff and hurt people and report back to me as soon as you've accomplished the mission. Let me know if you need anything else to accomplish your task."
If only it worked like that in real life. That's how easy it would be to make the US the safest country in the world.
09-08-2011, 16:04
Bailey Guns

Now...Ron Paul will NOT make us safer. He's said he would immediately bring ALL troops home from overseas and close all our overseas bases.

That's a disaster in the making.

I don't need to know anything else about Ron Paul.
09-08-2011, 16:39
tonantius

I took a candidate policy test at this URL:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

You get a percentage correlation with each candidate and they give you references. My results were:

90% Newt
88% Santorum

I never thought I was that close to Santorum. I think I will look at him more closely.

I agree that Newt is not electable, but he would make a good candidate for a cabinet position.
09-08-2011, 16:46
alxone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

No...I wasn't sure what you meant. I'm thinking you don't really believe Newt has a realistic shot at the nomination...neither do I. But, stranger things have happened and it is still too early to know what might happen over the next several months.

yes sir ^this
09-08-2011, 16:50
Bailey Guns

Mine came up:

Newt 95%
Santorum 89%

Not too surprising.
09-08-2011, 17:00
Byte Stryke

Newt Ftw!
09-08-2011, 18:00
jmg8550

All of you Ron Paul supporters need to read some books from people who were there, and were both leading troops and were also ground level troops. They were also privy to high level intel that was at one point classified.

Here are some that come to mind:
American Soldier; General Tommy Franks
Seal Team Six, Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper; Howard E. Wasdin
Lone Survivor; Marcus Luttrell

These books will help you further understand why we were/are there and maybe, just maybe, make you think before you keep spewing the typical Ron Paul rhetoric. All I hear from you all is the same thing over and over again.

Do some research, learn from people who were actually there before running your mouth about Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there, or why are we still there. There absolutely is good being accomplished there and the people want/need our help. We helped Germany rebuild after we defeated them in WWII, and it took until 1980 to do so.

Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?
09-09-2011, 00:35
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmg8550

Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?

Because running Libertarian is a sure way to not be elected. Perhaps you should read All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren.
09-09-2011, 03:30
mcantar18c

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmg8550

All of you Ron Paul supporters need to read some books from people who were there, and were both leading troops and were also ground level troops. They were also privy to high level intel that was at one point classified.

Here are some that come to mind:
American Soldier; General Tommy Franks
Seal Team Six, Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper; Howard E. Wasdin
Lone Survivor; Marcus Luttrell

These books will help you further understand why we were/are there and maybe, just maybe, make you think before you keep spewing the typical Ron Paul rhetoric. All I hear from you all is the same thing over and over again.

Do some research, learn from people who were actually there before running your mouth about Iraq and Afghanistan and why we are there, or why are we still there. There absolutely is good being accomplished there and the people want/need our help. We helped Germany rebuild after we defeated them in WWII, and it took until 1980 to do so.

Ron Paul's foreign policies are disastrous and naive. And if he's so proud to be Libertarian, why won't he run under that party?

Amen to all of the above, and in response to the bold...
I would support staying in Afghanistan and raining hell on them for the next 100 years for revenge for what happened on that mission.
RIP Danny Dietz.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page