McCain is done...has been for a long time...tonight he just stuck a fork in himself as far as I am concerned....it is so over.
Tancredo did not do well...and I am going to have to listen again later to his agreeing with the surge or if he voted against it or what, I asked others if they heard that or if I just misunderstood at the beginning of the debate, it surprised me.
it would be a mistake for Fred to put McCain the passive aggressive undermining show hog in any position other than as an ambassador to somewhere far away.
The McSenator is so far down, it doesn't matter anymore. His position on the scamnesty bill was his last act of self-destruction. He's toast, essentially.
Now the MSM is going to have to find another favorite RINO to push, so at the last minute they can pull the rug out from under them just as were planning to do with McCain.
BTW-Watching McCain tonight reminded me of one of the characters played by Tim Conway on the old Carroll Burnett show.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Now that would be a good thing! High falutin' McCain has been no friend to conservatives working for lower taxes and a better judiciary... illegal immigration is an annoyance to his majesty.
convince him that his best chances is to change parties and win the Democrat primaries...Someone mentioned in the other thread that McCain and Ron Paul would make a great dem ticket (not that I can see these two getting along though...what I am thinking...McCain is like Clinton, if he wins the President seat he will pick an Al Gore as vp, because he doesn't want to be out-staged...at least President Bush was man enough to get Cheney to run with him. )
"Opposing the Iraq war from the beginning, along with opposing a wide variety of Republican domestic pork, does not make one a Democrat..."
But, in the case of Ron Paul, it does mean you're a few fries short of a happy meal. In his case, instead of "birds of a feather flocking together", we can say "moonbats with wings of leather flock together". I sure hope he doesn't win the Presidency. We need him to dedicate his time to figuring out what REALLY happened on 9/11.....
Way to make not even one coherent argument. Did you even read the Reason piece? Any replies to that, instead of all the impotent name-calling??? And what really happened on 9/11 was exactly what libertarian Muslims warned us about before that day, like it or not, as ye sow so shall ye reap. And I love the ass-kicking we're seeing once-again in the online polls (CNN already closed their comments sections, too) in spite of the news media's harumphing. Were it any other Republican candidate, the NB masthead would be in a tizzy, and we all know it. JMR
Sarc, opposing the war from the beginning is the wrong direction for America. Once battle has been joined, it is America's best interests to prevail. While I too opposed opening a front in Iraq, I also oppose losing there. Ron Paul thinks this is acceptable.
We didn't start the war, Al Qaeda did. OBL declared war on the US back in the '90s and Clinton was too stupid to notice. I am entirely in favor of wiping out both Al Qaeda and anyone who actively supports Al Qaeda or its allied terror groups. They are religious fanatics and will never make any peace you can trust.
Ron Paul is on the wrong side of the issue right now.
At least this isn't 100% name-calling, so I can respond.
1. Like it or not, we started the Iraq part of this war, and you, me, Colin Powell, & Ron were all right about that. Saying so doesn't get US troops killed, keeping them there -- essentially as targets with an ill-defined mission of policing what looks more and more like a civil war -- does. (You've already seen my "Iraq is 3 countries, not one" rant, so I'll skip that as if included.) There's no way Iraq as 1 country or 3 is ever gonna look nearly as much like "victory" in the next 5 years as it did when they finally got Saddam. The American people -- even the war-supporters -- seemed to understand that obviousity, even as American politicians didn't. We've already lost (the money) in many ways.
2. Try playing 2 games of chess, on the clock, against 2 opponents you consider mediocre sometime. Not many people -- certainly not many politicians -- have done that, but I have. It's not easy, and you find things out about your own game that you might not have discovered otherwise. The idea that Ron Paul somehow wants peace with Al Qaeda is belied by his vote FOR the Afghanistan war. People like me know he wanted to actually kill Osama, not just make noise and then divide our efforts. Now our military is stretched in ways that make it look to me like Iran's gonna have nukes and China's gonna have Taiwan whenever they want it. Of course, China could also stop the Iraq war on a dime, simply by cutting off their borrowing of USD, which is gonna happen eventually someday even if we ignore it now. Has China's borrowing been mentioned, even once, in the "debates"? I didn't notice if so.
3. Most importantly, Ron's on the right side of spending in ways the other candidates can't come close-to, and that remains obvious with his fans, who are tired of holding our noses and voting for liars on the subject of spending. We mean to do something about it this time even if, at times, we have to be a bit rough on behalf of our grandkids. Think about it as our fight for the unborn.... JMR
I won't discuss the spending issue because I think Paul is on the right side of that.
We aren't prosecuting this war. That is the real problem. We are strategically on the offensive. That is good. That means Al Qaeda and the rest of those scum are responding to our initiatives and I think its the main reason we haven't seen another catastrophic terror attack. But tactically, we are on the defensive in Iraq. This is whay 70% of our casualties are occurring. We let the terrorists initiate the action at a time and place of their choosing most of the time. Not only is this "surge" good, it isn't big enough by half. The surge represents tactical initiative, WE choose the time and place. This enemy isn't good enough to take this by half. Notice that as soon as the surge began, Moqtada Al Sadr fled into hiding and the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was promptly killed in Anbar province? Al Sadr has returned. We need to go all out to kill him. His Mahdi army has already fractured and the part that calls itself the "Noble" Mahdi Army is close to flipping sides.
Our military isn't stretched nearly as thin as you think. Ask yourself this question: Where is the VIII Corps, the heart of the army that won the 1st Gulf War? One division of it, the old 2nd Armored reflagged as 3 Infantry is in the current war. Where is the rest of it? It is sitting here stateside, much of it in ready reserve. I think VII Corps together with a the necessary support units is powerful enough to defeat the entire Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Ahmadinejad knows it. He merely thinks the political will to use it does not exist, and he is right about this.
Bush did his best early to allay the fears of Iraqi's that we were some ruthless marauding horde from hell. This was the wrong approach.
Before the first shots were fired we were touting our intent to rebuild Iraq in our own image.
War is supposed to be hell! We should have promised our enemy nothing.
Let them come to us begging for help after we've kicked sh!t out of them, but don't tell them all they have to do is ride out the storm and the money would pour in.
Iraqis flipped a coin in deciding who would be in charge after we dumped Hussein, and didn't see much sense in fighting on our side, because we failed to choose a side.
The Iraqi poeple wre never the enemy. Terrorists were, and therefore, so was Saddam and his sons. They hve supported terrorism against the U.S., even if they had nothing direct to do with 9/11.
Sarc,
I can respect that Ron Paul was against Iraq from the beginning. I can even admit that he may have been right. But my beef with him is his wanting us out before we are through. We are there now, and we need to win. The war against terrorism is taking place, for the most part, in Iraq now. We cannot lose. We already have Pelosi and Reid saying we have lost the war. We don't need one of our own candidates saying it in unison. I simply feel our troops deserve the support of the entire nation at this point, and when they are done, that would be the time for " I told you so's".
Many Iraqi people were, and are, the enemy. My point is that we made no attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Had we chosen a side early, the other could either fight or come across.
Still think we tried too hard to make war look beautiful to the Iraqi people. But that's in the past. Still think we could be more ruthless. Truth be told, we probably are getting that way already.
Those Iraqis loyal to saddam were definitely the enemy. I think too many "regular" citizens of Iraq were too scared, and many still are, to openly side with us.
I would agree with you that political correctness has NO place in war. I haven't ever liked p.c. as it makes us way too soft.
PC is dangerous...but most people fall for it because they confuse the need to respect each other as needing to be PC. You can disagree...even be at war with, and still be respectful. However, with PC you aren't allowed to ACT, and thereby its dangerous.
Agreed. but the worst thing about p.c. is that it is defined by the left. Somehow, they got to make the rules as to what can be said or done and what is not allowed. Methinks the msm may have had something to do with that.
Only if we play by their rules. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Their new religion is still Global Warming, not Climate Change. Wrong is still wrong, not an alternate life-style. Abortion is still murder.
If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
I completely agree. In my personal life, I am absolutely not p.c. Problem is, too many conservative leaders seem to backpedal when called politacally incorrect or worse by the media and the left. I think and overwhelming majority on this site would love to be the ones being interviewed by these morons so that we could get our message out the way we want to. No giving in, No talk of compromise on those things we consider dear to us. We need someone representing our country who will tell it like it is no matter who gets offended.
This would get into the phrase "mistakes were made". I am sooooooo tired of hearing those words out of republicans' mouths. Alberto Gonzales damn near made me puke when he said that in regard to the firing of EIGHT U.S. attorneys. F-that. Every president has that option, whether or not it is 8 or all of them. Clinton's firings were certainly more politically motivated than these.
"Our military isn't stretched nearly as thin as you think"
As a two tour vet of Iraq, I can personally tell you that the Army is stretched thinner than most would believe. For units second tour we were about 33 people short of meeting 90% strength, but Uncle Sam said we had to go because we were needed that bad. How do you solve a manning problem of that magnitue? (btw, our unit at 100% strength is around 180 Soldiers) We had to take on 34 Soldiers from another post to augment our numbers. These were Soldiers who were home for less than a year and all volunteered to go back. My unit at the time had ten months home after our first year in Baghdad. My squad at full strength was to be 10 Soldiers. I deployed with nine and due to losses (non-combat but rather illness or squads that were worse off than mine took some of my Soldiers) I brought home a squad of seven total. My platoon was supposed to have three full squads for 30 Soldiers, we had around 22. That meant that we could only perform 2/3 of our assigned missions with the Iraqi Police. This tale is in no way unique. It is the rule rather than the exception. Our Army cannot maintain these rotations, even stop-loss cannot keep enough Soldiers in to fill the ranks. That is the real reason why the Army extended all tours to 15 months instead of 12. I say that if you want to win and win fast, send everyone now. There are so many Soldiers who are hiding in their training jobs or support sections who have never deployed, but their primary job is one of the combat skills. Shut down all schools except for basic training and start deploying those trainers and all of their support elements and finish this war the right way.
First of all, thanks for your service. We could not have this argument without it, in the end, and many of us who opposed the Iraq adventure (while in my case advocating Saddam's "termination with extreme prejudice" even back when the USA was stupid-enough to support his brutal-back-then-too dictatorship) understand that well.
I'm often in the position you're in right now, with people telling me things like, "we can't and won't totally defund (insert offensive federal agency) no matter what's the right thing to do." You may well be right about military success, but you're about as unlikely to get a retroactive US application of the Powell Doctrine as I am to get PBS 100%-defunded tomorrow. Also, I'm unsure what different people mean by "win" for the USA in the case of Iraq, especially now that Saddam's gone and they have elections. Since I consider Iraq 3 countries, I'd call a "win" a slow and peaceful divorce into 3-nations, but current US policy wants a single state just like under Saddam, and IMO that's going to require a very strong and very large government (just like Saddam's). I tend to oppose large governments for Iraqis or Americans, so once-again I'm on the "wrong" side. I'd be interested in your definition of "win," though, as it probably differs substantially from mine.
Finally, I'd like to address the cloaked portion of my post above, where (to dead silence...) I asserted that red China -- or perhaps we should call her "green China" these days in terms of money-not-pollution -- has complete fiscal control of US Iraq war policy. This is because both countries are currently addicted to a monetary situation which seems extremely-unlikely to last to this money-geek. China wants to someday take over Taiwon, and they're patient people, but my money's on them doing that during my lifetime. Whenever the takeover happens, it's likely to cause severe fiscal shocks worldwide, and I'd prefer to see it happening with a "ready" rather than "stretched" US military in whatever President's pocket. Iran's another issue, but Iran does not have the marriage to the US dollar that China enjoys, and that marriage makes China in effect a behind the scenes player in Iraq policy. Do you really think China would fill that role without discussing their eventual plans to retake Taiwon with the US on the sly? I don't. JMR
IMO a win in Iraq is when the people can lead a "normal" life i.e. going shopping at a market without fear of being bombed. Plain and simple. While working with the Iraqi police, there was one sentiment that struck me as odd at first but later, after months working with them, I saw their point. The consensus was that Iraq needs a strong leader to tell them how to live. Saddam did this through fear rather than respect, but the point is that the Iraqi people want to be told by someone they respect, either forced or earned, how to live. The three state idea is hard because that would displace too many people. Breaking the country up by regional states would be somewhat less painful but the Iraqi's are stubborn. Many cling to the old ways. Their is much hate between the Sunni and Shia, but for the most part they use religion as an excuse. Tribal leaders are the key. Many units there saw this a couple of years ago and started intiating their own programs to work more on the local level as opposed to the federal government. Their success is just now starting to be seen in the outlying villages where the Sheiks are now starting to work with US forces and run out the insurgents from their towns. There must be strong partnerships with the local leaders to qwell the violence. Baghdad, on the other hand, must be locked down with curfews, more check points and constant patrols. Marshal law must be enacted. In 2003 there was a curfew of 10 PM to 5 AM, but we lifted it so as to not make the locals mad. The response to lifting the curfew was more roadside bombs being placed under cover of night and the insurgents were able to move more freeley in the town. It was not uncommon for a car carrying AIF (anit-Iraqi forces) to strike at what was a peaceful village during the night. Our leaders do not wish to offend anyone in this politically correct world, but to save lives (our and Iraqi) there is little choice.
Thank you for your service. I wish we did not need to ask it of you.
I see you support my thinking that we should go all out to win and then get out as opposed to this driving about posing as targets for anyone in Iraq that has a mind to shoot a gun or plant a bomb. This is the value of tactical initiative to reduce casualties.
We have the force to win, just not the political will to use it.
This war shares something in common with Vietnam. Its rules of engagement are political, not military and its casualties are military, not political. Were the consequence of permitting Al Qaeda to win not so catastrophic, I would support getting our people out of there.
There is also a matter of honor here. Through their widespread cooperation with us, and with our drect military support, the Kurds in Iraq are now semi-autonomous and more or less self-goverrning for the first time in centuries, a situation they want greatly to continue. To simply withdraw and leave them hanging is an enormous breach of faith with people who have become ever more staunch allies.
Like Ron Perot's, er, Paul's view of foreign policy, I find yours to be a bit limited. I regards to China, you, like many, think of a takeover of Taiwan in mostly military terms, i.e., Big China takes Small Taiwan. If that were the case, Taiwan would already be gone. The Chinese know that while the US huffs and puffs about Taiwan, there's really no way that the US could defend Taiwan without engaging in a wide-open war with China, and they've learned this through two great lessons: Korea and Vietnam.
The reason that China has not invaded Taiwan is that there would be no gain for them in doing so. All of the economic powers of Taiwan would leave long before the first Chinese soldier ever set foot on the beach, and what would China be left with? An island population of broke people who require a significant amount of resources to support... which is the last thing China needs.
The reclaiming of Hong Kong was an important precedent for the Chinese as they realized that leaving the city a capitalist enterprise held terrific benefits for them, despite all the Communist dogma. The Chinese got the city back, didn't add many drains to their economy, and gained financially by not using force. This will be the model for Taiwan. There will be no shooting, no severe financial shocks, and no more disturbance than when Hong Kong changed hands.
Jay, thanks for the insight into troop levels in Iraq, but my question to everyone is "why does this matter?" When I was in the Navy back in the 1980's, we never deployed with 100% of anything. Most of the time, out of nine aircraft, three or four would be fully mission capable, two or so would be highly degraded, two would be used for practicing landings and take-offs, and one would be the "Hangar Queen" that we used for spare parts. Any squadron that deployed with even 50% full-up aircraft was blessed! We also never had 100% of our manpower requirements in the five years I was in a squadron, the three years I was at a shore station, and the year I was on a carrier. If we had 75% we considered ourselves lucky.
Yet, despite having all these shortages, we always overcame them and got the mission done. There were times we had to cut up soda cans and glue them to our sonobuoys to keep them working longer, but they worked. There was never any whining about "we can't finish the mission without more buoys!", we just adapted to the situation. There was also never any talk of being "stretched too thin" either. When the Soviets countered Reagan's deployment of Minutemen missiles to Europe by flooding the North Atlantic with missile submarines, we responded to the new threat with the same forces used to track just one sub. It meant going for long periods without sleep, violating crew rest requirements, changing tactics, etc. But never once did I ever hear anyone say "we're stretched too thin", just "get out there and get it done!" Liberals never gave a damn about readiness issues until a war they didn't like broke out and they needed something to beat up on Bush with.
The only thing on a carrier that comes in squadrons of 9 is the S-3. Your Navy experience is little different than conditions were in the early 70's. In fact, it is no different that I can see. The job got done back then. It got done in your day. It gets done today. We always wondered how but it always got done.
If you've ever talked to any of the WWII vets you will hear much the same from them too. There was never enough of anything but they always found a way.
Sadly things have not changed since the 1970's. When I was a young platoon leader in 1985-86 my Bradley Platoon was supposed to have 36 soldiers. Twelve of them to man the vehicles and 24 to dismount and fight on the ground as classic infantrymen.
What I really had was 13 soldiers. It used to be humorous when I would give the command "Dismount Left" and all four ramps would drop and one lone soldier carrying a radio, M-203, and humping the Dragon would come staggering out.
The situation only got worse when Billy Clinton whacked the last two divisions (24ID and 2AD).
Things have traditionally not improved until just before deployment. Desert Storm - my unit was brought up to 110% strength the week before deploying. Same thing for post 9/11 and then in Iraq.
24ID is now in reserve spread across two or three states. I think parts of it are based in Kentucky and Tenn. 2AD wasn't dissolved. It was re-flagged as 4 ID.
Jay, you think thats streached, you should try deploying in a LRRPS team, with 12 slots, and only 3 people. Our entire LRRPS platoon only had 9 personel. I have seen company size elements in the field with fewer than 50 troops, and a 2nd Lt. as company comander. In combat zones, it is a fact of life, you never have the troops to fill the slots and positions you have a need for. 5 nights and 6 days in a jungle, with 3 men makes for a very hard and tiring week. Dont get me wrong. I feel for you guys, I really do, and wish I could go myself. I thank you and marvel at your levels of expertise in your jobs. But I cannot help but think that it is still, today, and will always be, the attitude of the men to get the job done, no matter what it takes or what you have at hand. Bless you guys.
I am for Duncan Hunter, but I think Guiliani won. He had a lot of good answers for the center and was strong on explanations and knowledge and philosophy.
Giuliani did, do a good job, Mitt looked a little shaky esp. about the Spanish adds he is running. I wish Fred T. was in the mix just to see how he stacks up. But I think that Hunter made the most head way tonight.
I would hope America watched both the Democrats and the Republicans: They cant help but see the difference.
Bush set himself up to be slammed with the immigration bill!!!!
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Can't say who won for sure. I am leaning toward Hunter tonight. Romney and Guilliani both had a few good answers, especially Guilliani on the war on terror.
Can say that McCain and Paul tied for last. I thought they were simply atrocious.
Paul the jerk bagala said " for the cromagnuns" referring to republicans...
How the heck does the news allow that ? I'm waiting for either half republican to call the democrats the "fantasy fairies".
Then they cut to Kiran Chetri(?) and she said disaster could strike in your own backyard, and blah blah will be poolside to help you protect our village children...
Now, is CNN so damned stupid, that they think that idiot parents that cannot even guard their own children's safety concerning their backyard pool, would be watching their news channel ?
Really, how DUMB are they ? Are they all STUPID LIBS, so they think people who watch NEWS channels cannot take care of their own pool and children in their own backyard ?
________________________________________
Now Begala is making a HUGE LIE about the wmd inspectors and he got away with it.
Oh good wait - he's getting half called on it. Begala is INSANE and believes his own lies. That guy better never cross my path.
Didn't watch it. Did I miss anything? Is NPR going to tell me that every Republician is a Nascar-watching, white-hooded, trailer-living freak tomorrow when I listen on my way to work? Someone please just give me the short 411.
Future President Thompson is on a earlier repeat from tonight of H&C at the moment....going to catch this and see ya' all on the other side tomorrow God willing...been a long day.
Have a good evening all.
Btw...I just heard him say this is brand new website they just put up for him so I am putting the new site here for those interested....I'm With Fred.
I checked out vote.com to see their poll on who won the debate last night. It is a shame that vote.com and republicanstrawpoll.com can't set up their sites so that a nearly accurate poll can be taken. According to vote.com, Ron Paul won the debate with 3,338 votes of a total of 4,417 votes. I know this is bull****. You can't make me believe that 76% of the population thought Ron Pau won the debate. You Ron Paul supporters need to stop spamming these polls. You don't do your candidate any good whatsoever.
This also makes me wonder about their poll on who won the Democrat's debate. Vote.com gives the win to Bill Richardson with 19% of the votes. Amusingly, and with great relief, I noticed that the Hildebeest came in 7th out of 8 places. She was only ahead of Chris Dodd. Even Kucinich got over twice as many votes as Hillary.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well we all watched it, Who w
June 5, 2007 - 21:17 ET by USA4freedomWell we all watched it, Who won (not “your” candidate but who won and who lost the debate)?
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Hunter won.
June 5, 2007 - 21:30 ET by bigtimerHunter won...he made so many good points, he is a true conservative.
Btw...
I have posted so much on the other thread on this subject tonight already.... I thought Romney and Giuliani did well too.
A lot of good points were made by others also.
I liked what Romney said about a lot of pundits hope I will distance myself from my church...then said that is not going to happen.
In your face msm.
Good for him.
I agree, as the looser I thin
June 5, 2007 - 21:42 ET by USA4freedomI agree, as the looser I think Mc Cain.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
McCain is done...has been for
June 5, 2007 - 21:51 ET by bigtimerMcCain is done...has been for a long time...tonight he just stuck a fork in himself as far as I am concerned....it is so over.
Tancredo did not do well...and I am going to have to listen again later to his agreeing with the surge or if he voted against it or what, I asked others if they heard that or if I just misunderstood at the beginning of the debate, it surprised me.
McCain is done, so how do we
June 5, 2007 - 21:54 ET byMcCain is done, so how do we get him out of the way? He's the guy doing 45 in the left lane of the freeway.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
botg,McCain is done, so how d
June 5, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Dave Rbotg,
McCain is done, so how do we get him out of the way?
Fret not, because Fred Thompson is going to flatten the McSenator from Arizona's ass when he runs over him in his red pickup @ 140 mph. :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
I do think his money will dry
June 5, 2007 - 22:17 ET by bigtimerI do think his money will dry up...I also would not put it past Thompson to make him some cabinet member or such.
Unless McCain is so mad he runs some other party or something...I do not know if he could do that now anyway.
Anybody know?
He does have a very bad anger faction to him.
it would be a mistake for F
June 5, 2007 - 22:20 ET by Conservative Voiceit would be a mistake for Fred to put McCain the passive aggressive undermining show hog in any position other than as an ambassador to somewhere far away.
CV,...as far away as possible
June 5, 2007 - 22:29 ET by bigtimerCV,
...as far away as possible from the Mexican border at least...lol!
CV
June 5, 2007 - 22:31 ET by Dave RShangri-La, perhaps? Dark side of the moon? Is the ambassadorship to the planet Pluto available? :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
bt,The McSenator is so far do
June 5, 2007 - 22:28 ET by Dave Rbt,
The McSenator is so far down, it doesn't matter anymore. His position on the scamnesty bill was his last act of self-destruction. He's toast, essentially.
Now the MSM is going to have to find another favorite RINO to push, so at the last minute they can pull the rug out from under them just as were planning to do with McCain.
BTW-Watching McCain tonight reminded me of one of the characters played by Tim Conway on the old Carroll Burnett show.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Hell, McCain needs to worry a
June 5, 2007 - 22:28 ET by BDHell, McCain needs to worry about keeping his position in the Senate after his recent performances....
If Joe Arpaio ran against him he would probably eject him bodily....
Evening BD...It would be so p
June 5, 2007 - 22:33 ET by bigtimerEvening BD...
It would be so priceless if Arpaio did run.
I bet he would win hands down...that is as long as you had legal votes that counted for the most part in Az.
Now that would be a good thin
June 6, 2007 - 02:15 ET by Andrew H.Now that would be a good thing! High falutin' McCain has been no friend to conservatives working for lower taxes and a better judiciary... illegal immigration is an annoyance to his majesty.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
convince him that his best
June 5, 2007 - 22:17 ET by Conservative Voiceconvince him that his best chances is to change parties and win the Democrat primaries...Someone mentioned in the other thread that McCain and Ron Paul would make a great dem ticket (not that I can see these two getting along though...what I am thinking...McCain is like Clinton, if he wins the President seat he will pick an Al Gore as vp, because he doesn't want to be out-staged...at least President Bush was man enough to get Cheney to run with him. )
Opposing the Iraq war from
June 5, 2007 - 22:43 ET by sarcasmoOpposing the Iraq war from the beginning, along with opposing a wide variety of Republican domestic pork, does not make one a Democrat...
JMR
"Opposing the Iraq war
June 5, 2007 - 23:31 ET by ckc1227"Opposing the Iraq war from the beginning, along with opposing a wide variety of Republican domestic pork, does not make one a Democrat..."
But, in the case of Ron Paul, it does mean you're a few fries short of a happy meal. In his case, instead of "birds of a feather flocking together", we can say "moonbats with wings of leather flock together". I sure hope he doesn't win the Presidency. We need him to dedicate his time to figuring out what REALLY happened on 9/11.....
Way to make not even one c
June 5, 2007 - 23:38 ET by sarcasmoWay to make not even one coherent argument. Did you even read the Reason piece? Any replies to that, instead of all the impotent name-calling??? And what really happened on 9/11 was exactly what libertarian Muslims warned us about before that day, like it or not, as ye sow so shall ye reap. And I love the ass-kicking we're seeing once-again in the online polls (CNN already closed their comments sections, too) in spite of the news media's harumphing. Were it any other Republican candidate, the NB masthead would be in a tizzy, and we all know it.
JMR
Sarc, opposing the war from
June 5, 2007 - 23:41 ET by NL207Sarc, opposing the war from the beginning is the wrong direction for America. Once battle has been joined, it is America's best interests to prevail. While I too opposed opening a front in Iraq, I also oppose losing there. Ron Paul thinks this is acceptable.
We didn't start the war, Al Qaeda did. OBL declared war on the US back in the '90s and Clinton was too stupid to notice. I am entirely in favor of wiping out both Al Qaeda and anyone who actively supports Al Qaeda or its allied terror groups. They are religious fanatics and will never make any peace you can trust.
Ron Paul is on the wrong side of the issue right now.
At least this isn't 100% na
June 5, 2007 - 23:54 ET by sarcasmoAt least this isn't 100% name-calling, so I can respond.
1. Like it or not, we started the Iraq part of this war, and you, me, Colin Powell, & Ron were all right about that. Saying so doesn't get US troops killed, keeping them there -- essentially as targets with an ill-defined mission of policing what looks more and more like a civil war -- does. (You've already seen my "Iraq is 3 countries, not one" rant, so I'll skip that as if included.) There's no way Iraq as 1 country or 3 is ever gonna look nearly as much like "victory" in the next 5 years as it did when they finally got Saddam. The American people -- even the war-supporters -- seemed to understand that obviousity, even as American politicians didn't. We've already lost (the money) in many ways.
2. Try playing 2 games of chess, on the clock, against 2 opponents you consider mediocre sometime. Not many people -- certainly not many politicians -- have done that, but I have. It's not easy, and you find things out about your own game that you might not have discovered otherwise. The idea that Ron Paul somehow wants peace with Al Qaeda is belied by his vote FOR the Afghanistan war. People like me know he wanted to actually kill Osama, not just make noise and then divide our efforts. Now our military is stretched in ways that make it look to me like Iran's gonna have nukes and China's gonna have Taiwan whenever they want it. Of course, China could also stop the Iraq war on a dime, simply by cutting off their borrowing of USD, which is gonna happen eventually someday even if we ignore it now. Has China's borrowing been mentioned, even once, in the "debates"? I didn't notice if so.
3. Most importantly, Ron's on the right side of spending in ways the other candidates can't come close-to, and that remains obvious with his fans, who are tired of holding our noses and voting for liars on the subject of spending. We mean to do something about it this time even if, at times, we have to be a bit rough on behalf of our grandkids. Think about it as our fight for the unborn....
JMR
Sarc,I won't discuss the spen
June 6, 2007 - 00:15 ET by NL207Sarc,
I won't discuss the spending issue because I think Paul is on the right side of that.
We aren't prosecuting this war. That is the real problem. We are strategically on the offensive. That is good. That means Al Qaeda and the rest of those scum are responding to our initiatives and I think its the main reason we haven't seen another catastrophic terror attack. But tactically, we are on the defensive in Iraq. This is whay 70% of our casualties are occurring. We let the terrorists initiate the action at a time and place of their choosing most of the time. Not only is this "surge" good, it isn't big enough by half. The surge represents tactical initiative, WE choose the time and place. This enemy isn't good enough to take this by half. Notice that as soon as the surge began, Moqtada Al Sadr fled into hiding and the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq was promptly killed in Anbar province? Al Sadr has returned. We need to go all out to kill him. His Mahdi army has already fractured and the part that calls itself the "Noble" Mahdi Army is close to flipping sides.
Our military isn't stretched nearly as thin as you think. Ask yourself this question: Where is the VIII Corps, the heart of the army that won the 1st Gulf War? One division of it, the old 2nd Armored reflagged as 3 Infantry is in the current war. Where is the rest of it? It is sitting here stateside, much of it in ready reserve. I think VII Corps together with a the necessary support units is powerful enough to defeat the entire Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Ahmadinejad knows it. He merely thinks the political will to use it does not exist, and he is right about this.
Mistake in prosecuting the war.
June 6, 2007 - 00:26 ET by Cool ArrowBush did his best early to allay the fears of Iraqi's that we were some ruthless marauding horde from hell. This was the wrong approach.
Before the first shots were fired we were touting our intent to rebuild Iraq in our own image.
War is supposed to be hell! We should have promised our enemy nothing.
Let them come to us begging for help after we've kicked sh!t out of them, but don't tell them all they have to do is ride out the storm and the money would pour in.
Iraqis flipped a coin in deciding who would be in charge after we dumped Hussein, and didn't see much sense in fighting on our side, because we failed to choose a side.
Riled, The Iraqi poeple wre n
June 6, 2007 - 12:52 ET by RESTLESS 1Riled,
The Iraqi poeple wre never the enemy. Terrorists were, and therefore, so was Saddam and his sons. They hve supported terrorism against the U.S., even if they had nothing direct to do with 9/11.
Sarc,
I can respect that Ron Paul was against Iraq from the beginning. I can even admit that he may have been right. But my beef with him is his wanting us out before we are through. We are there now, and we need to win. The war against terrorism is taking place, for the most part, in Iraq now. We cannot lose. We already have Pelosi and Reid saying we have lost the war. We don't need one of our own candidates saying it in unison. I simply feel our troops deserve the support of the entire nation at this point, and when they are done, that would be the time for " I told you so's".
Iraqi People
June 6, 2007 - 13:00 ET by Cool ArrowMany Iraqi people were, and are, the enemy. My point is that we made no attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff. Had we chosen a side early, the other could either fight or come across.
Still think we tried too hard to make war look beautiful to the Iraqi people. But that's in the past. Still think we could be more ruthless. Truth be told, we probably are getting that way already.
Those Iraqis loyal to saddam
June 6, 2007 - 13:21 ET by RESTLESS 1Those Iraqis loyal to saddam were definitely the enemy. I think too many "regular" citizens of Iraq were too scared, and many still are, to openly side with us.
I would agree with you that political correctness has NO place in war. I haven't ever liked p.c. as it makes us way too soft.
PC is dangerous...but most
June 6, 2007 - 14:58 ET by Conservative VoicePC is dangerous...but most people fall for it because they confuse the need to respect each other as needing to be PC. You can disagree...even be at war with, and still be respectful. However, with PC you aren't allowed to ACT, and thereby its dangerous.
Agreed. but the worst thing a
June 6, 2007 - 17:19 ET by RESTLESS 1Agreed. but the worst thing about p.c. is that it is defined by the left. Somehow, they got to make the rules as to what can be said or done and what is not allowed. Methinks the msm may have had something to do with that.
only if we play
June 6, 2007 - 17:28 ET by LionKingOnly if we play by their rules. Call a terrorist a terrorist. Their new religion is still Global Warming, not Climate Change. Wrong is still wrong, not an alternate life-style. Abortion is still murder.
In other words, call a spade
June 6, 2007 - 17:29 ET by JimboIn other words, call a spade a spade.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I completely agree. In my p
June 6, 2007 - 19:54 ET by RESTLESS 1I completely agree. In my personal life, I am absolutely not p.c. Problem is, too many conservative leaders seem to backpedal when called politacally incorrect or worse by the media and the left. I think and overwhelming majority on this site would love to be the ones being interviewed by these morons so that we could get our message out the way we want to. No giving in, No talk of compromise on those things we consider dear to us. We need someone representing our country who will tell it like it is no matter who gets offended.
This would get into the phrase "mistakes were made". I am sooooooo tired of hearing those words out of republicans' mouths. Alberto Gonzales damn near made me puke when he said that in regard to the firing of EIGHT U.S. attorneys. F-that. Every president has that option, whether or not it is 8 or all of them. Clinton's firings were certainly more politically motivated than these.
"Our military isn't stre
June 6, 2007 - 01:48 ET by jay_1975"Our military isn't stretched nearly as thin as you think"
As a two tour vet of Iraq, I can personally tell you that the Army is stretched thinner than most would believe. For units second tour we were about 33 people short of meeting 90% strength, but Uncle Sam said we had to go because we were needed that bad. How do you solve a manning problem of that magnitue? (btw, our unit at 100% strength is around 180 Soldiers) We had to take on 34 Soldiers from another post to augment our numbers. These were Soldiers who were home for less than a year and all volunteered to go back. My unit at the time had ten months home after our first year in Baghdad. My squad at full strength was to be 10 Soldiers. I deployed with nine and due to losses (non-combat but rather illness or squads that were worse off than mine took some of my Soldiers) I brought home a squad of seven total. My platoon was supposed to have three full squads for 30 Soldiers, we had around 22. That meant that we could only perform 2/3 of our assigned missions with the Iraqi Police. This tale is in no way unique. It is the rule rather than the exception. Our Army cannot maintain these rotations, even stop-loss cannot keep enough Soldiers in to fill the ranks. That is the real reason why the Army extended all tours to 15 months instead of 12. I say that if you want to win and win fast, send everyone now. There are so many Soldiers who are hiding in their training jobs or support sections who have never deployed, but their primary job is one of the combat skills. Shut down all schools except for basic training and start deploying those trainers and all of their support elements and finish this war the right way.
First of all, thanks for yo
June 6, 2007 - 04:43 ET by sarcasmoFirst of all, thanks for your service. We could not have this argument without it, in the end, and many of us who opposed the Iraq adventure (while in my case advocating Saddam's "termination with extreme prejudice" even back when the USA was stupid-enough to support his brutal-back-then-too dictatorship) understand that well.
I'm often in the position you're in right now, with people telling me things like, "we can't and won't totally defund (insert offensive federal agency) no matter what's the right thing to do." You may well be right about military success, but you're about as unlikely to get a retroactive US application of the Powell Doctrine as I am to get PBS 100%-defunded tomorrow. Also, I'm unsure what different people mean by "win" for the USA in the case of Iraq, especially now that Saddam's gone and they have elections. Since I consider Iraq 3 countries, I'd call a "win" a slow and peaceful divorce into 3-nations, but current US policy wants a single state just like under Saddam, and IMO that's going to require a very strong and very large government (just like Saddam's). I tend to oppose large governments for Iraqis or Americans, so once-again I'm on the "wrong" side. I'd be interested in your definition of "win," though, as it probably differs substantially from mine.
Finally, I'd like to address the cloaked portion of my post above, where (to dead silence...) I asserted that red China -- or perhaps we should call her "green China" these days in terms of money-not-pollution -- has complete fiscal control of US Iraq war policy. This is because both countries are currently addicted to a monetary situation which seems extremely-unlikely to last to this money-geek. China wants to someday take over Taiwon, and they're patient people, but my money's on them doing that during my lifetime. Whenever the takeover happens, it's likely to cause severe fiscal shocks worldwide, and I'd prefer to see it happening with a "ready" rather than "stretched" US military in whatever President's pocket. Iran's another issue, but Iran does not have the marriage to the US dollar that China enjoys, and that marriage makes China in effect a behind the scenes player in Iraq policy. Do you really think China would fill that role without discussing their eventual plans to retake Taiwon with the US on the sly? I don't.
JMR
IMO a win in Iraq is when the
June 6, 2007 - 09:14 ET by jay_1975IMO a win in Iraq is when the people can lead a "normal" life i.e. going shopping at a market without fear of being bombed. Plain and simple. While working with the Iraqi police, there was one sentiment that struck me as odd at first but later, after months working with them, I saw their point. The consensus was that Iraq needs a strong leader to tell them how to live. Saddam did this through fear rather than respect, but the point is that the Iraqi people want to be told by someone they respect, either forced or earned, how to live. The three state idea is hard because that would displace too many people. Breaking the country up by regional states would be somewhat less painful but the Iraqi's are stubborn. Many cling to the old ways. Their is much hate between the Sunni and Shia, but for the most part they use religion as an excuse. Tribal leaders are the key. Many units there saw this a couple of years ago and started intiating their own programs to work more on the local level as opposed to the federal government. Their success is just now starting to be seen in the outlying villages where the Sheiks are now starting to work with US forces and run out the insurgents from their towns. There must be strong partnerships with the local leaders to qwell the violence. Baghdad, on the other hand, must be locked down with curfews, more check points and constant patrols. Marshal law must be enacted. In 2003 there was a curfew of 10 PM to 5 AM, but we lifted it so as to not make the locals mad. The response to lifting the curfew was more roadside bombs being placed under cover of night and the insurgents were able to move more freeley in the town. It was not uncommon for a car carrying AIF (anit-Iraqi forces) to strike at what was a peaceful village during the night. Our leaders do not wish to offend anyone in this politically correct world, but to save lives (our and Iraqi) there is little choice.
Thank you for your service.
June 6, 2007 - 12:28 ET by NL207Thank you for your service. I wish we did not need to ask it of you.
I see you support my thinking that we should go all out to win and then get out as opposed to this driving about posing as targets for anyone in Iraq that has a mind to shoot a gun or plant a bomb. This is the value of tactical initiative to reduce casualties.
We have the force to win, just not the political will to use it.
This war shares something in common with Vietnam. Its rules of engagement are political, not military and its casualties are military, not political. Were the consequence of permitting Al Qaeda to win not so catastrophic, I would support getting our people out of there.
There is also a matter of honor here. Through their widespread cooperation with us, and with our drect military support, the Kurds in Iraq are now semi-autonomous and more or less self-goverrning for the first time in centuries, a situation they want greatly to continue. To simply withdraw and leave them hanging is an enormous breach of faith with people who have become ever more staunch allies.
Like Ron Perot's, er, Paul's
June 6, 2007 - 09:15 ET by BruzillaLike Ron Perot's, er, Paul's view of foreign policy, I find yours to be a bit limited. I regards to China, you, like many, think of a takeover of Taiwan in mostly military terms, i.e., Big China takes Small Taiwan. If that were the case, Taiwan would already be gone. The Chinese know that while the US huffs and puffs about Taiwan, there's really no way that the US could defend Taiwan without engaging in a wide-open war with China, and they've learned this through two great lessons: Korea and Vietnam.
The reason that China has not invaded Taiwan is that there would be no gain for them in doing so. All of the economic powers of Taiwan would leave long before the first Chinese soldier ever set foot on the beach, and what would China be left with? An island population of broke people who require a significant amount of resources to support... which is the last thing China needs.
The reclaiming of Hong Kong was an important precedent for the Chinese as they realized that leaving the city a capitalist enterprise held terrific benefits for them, despite all the Communist dogma. The Chinese got the city back, didn't add many drains to their economy, and gained financially by not using force. This will be the model for Taiwan. There will be no shooting, no severe financial shocks, and no more disturbance than when Hong Kong changed hands.
Jay, thanks for the insight i
June 6, 2007 - 09:25 ET by BruzillaJay, thanks for the insight into troop levels in Iraq, but my question to everyone is "why does this matter?" When I was in the Navy back in the 1980's, we never deployed with 100% of anything. Most of the time, out of nine aircraft, three or four would be fully mission capable, two or so would be highly degraded, two would be used for practicing landings and take-offs, and one would be the "Hangar Queen" that we used for spare parts. Any squadron that deployed with even 50% full-up aircraft was blessed! We also never had 100% of our manpower requirements in the five years I was in a squadron, the three years I was at a shore station, and the year I was on a carrier. If we had 75% we considered ourselves lucky.
Yet, despite having all these shortages, we always overcame them and got the mission done. There were times we had to cut up soda cans and glue them to our sonobuoys to keep them working longer, but they worked. There was never any whining about "we can't finish the mission without more buoys!", we just adapted to the situation. There was also never any talk of being "stretched too thin" either. When the Soviets countered Reagan's deployment of Minutemen missiles to Europe by flooding the North Atlantic with missile submarines, we responded to the new threat with the same forces used to track just one sub. It meant going for long periods without sleep, violating crew rest requirements, changing tactics, etc. But never once did I ever hear anyone say "we're stretched too thin", just "get out there and get it done!" Liberals never gave a damn about readiness issues until a war they didn't like broke out and they needed something to beat up on Bush with.
Hey Squid!The only thing on a
June 6, 2007 - 12:10 ET by NL207Hey Squid!
The only thing on a carrier that comes in squadrons of 9 is the S-3. Your Navy experience is little different than conditions were in the early 70's. In fact, it is no different that I can see. The job got done back then. It got done in your day. It gets done today. We always wondered how but it always got done.
If you've ever talked to any of the WWII vets you will hear much the same from them too. There was never enough of anything but they always found a way.
Exactly! All this hand wrin
June 6, 2007 - 15:08 ET by BruzillaExactly! All this hand wringing over being "stretched too thin" was never an issue until Liberals needed something to bash Bush with.
BTW, I was an aircrewman on P-3C aircraft, which also have nine birds. I did work with S-3s aboard the Saratoga.
Sadly things have not changed
June 6, 2007 - 09:36 ET by BDSadly things have not changed since the 1970's. When I was a young platoon leader in 1985-86 my Bradley Platoon was supposed to have 36 soldiers. Twelve of them to man the vehicles and 24 to dismount and fight on the ground as classic infantrymen.
What I really had was 13 soldiers. It used to be humorous when I would give the command "Dismount Left" and all four ramps would drop and one lone soldier carrying a radio, M-203, and humping the Dragon would come staggering out.
The situation only got worse when Billy Clinton whacked the last two divisions (24ID and 2AD).
Things have traditionally not improved until just before deployment. Desert Storm - my unit was brought up to 110% strength the week before deploying. Same thing for post 9/11 and then in Iraq.
24ID is now in reserve spread
June 6, 2007 - 12:15 ET by NL20724ID is now in reserve spread across two or three states. I think parts of it are based in Kentucky and Tenn. 2AD wasn't dissolved. It was re-flagged as 4 ID.
24ID is now simply a headquar
June 6, 2007 - 22:18 ET by BD24ID is now simply a headquarters element for any future brigade level units that are assigned to it. It is not an active force.
2AD was reflagged as 4ID and the 4ID units in Colorado were eliminated.
THe key judgement is that the US army went from 12 active divisions to ten divisions.
Jay, you think thats streache
June 6, 2007 - 12:20 ET by bassndudeJay, you think thats streached, you should try deploying in a LRRPS team, with 12 slots, and only 3 people. Our entire LRRPS platoon only had 9 personel. I have seen company size elements in the field with fewer than 50 troops, and a 2nd Lt. as company comander. In combat zones, it is a fact of life, you never have the troops to fill the slots and positions you have a need for. 5 nights and 6 days in a jungle, with 3 men makes for a very hard and tiring week. Dont get me wrong. I feel for you guys, I really do, and wish I could go myself. I thank you and marvel at your levels of expertise in your jobs. But I cannot help but think that it is still, today, and will always be, the attitude of the men to get the job done, no matter what it takes or what you have at hand. Bless you guys.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Who won ?
June 5, 2007 - 21:48 ET by SportPoliticsI am for Duncan Hunter, but I think Guiliani won. He had a lot of good answers for the center and was strong on explanations and knowledge and philosophy.
Guiliani did a great job.
Giuliani did, do a good job,
June 5, 2007 - 21:55 ET by USA4freedomGiuliani did, do a good job, Mitt looked a little shaky esp. about the Spanish adds he is running. I wish Fred T. was in the mix just to see how he stacks up. But I think that Hunter made the most head way tonight.
I would hope America watched both the Democrats and the Republicans: They cant help but see the difference.
Bush set himself up to be slammed with the immigration bill!!!!
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
debate impressions
June 6, 2007 - 08:31 ET by LionKingUnfortunately, I only saw about the last 30 minutes. Quick impressions:
I am still looking for Thompson/Rice !!!
How Ron Paul has more than 1%
June 5, 2007 - 21:59 ET by newstalkmachineMaybe because he's been absol
June 5, 2007 - 22:37 ET by sarcasmoMaybe because he's been absolutely-right about so much for so long and you don't want to admit it??
JMR
Can't say who won for sure.
June 5, 2007 - 22:45 ET by RESTLESS 1Can't say who won for sure. I am leaning toward Hunter tonight. Romney and Guilliani both had a few good answers, especially Guilliani on the war on terror.
Can say that McCain and Paul tied for last. I thought they were simply atrocious.
Begala
June 5, 2007 - 21:29 ET by SportPoliticsPaul the jerk bagala said " for the cromagnuns" referring to republicans...
How the heck does the news allow that ? I'm waiting for either half republican to call the democrats the "fantasy fairies".
Then they cut to Kiran Chetri(?) and she said disaster could strike in your own backyard, and blah blah will be poolside to help you protect our village children...
Now, is CNN so damned stupid, that they think that idiot parents that cannot even guard their own children's safety concerning their backyard pool, would be watching their news channel ?
Really, how DUMB are they ? Are they all STUPID LIBS, so they think people who watch NEWS channels cannot take care of their own pool and children in their own backyard ?
________________________________________
Now Begala is making a HUGE LIE about the wmd inspectors and he got away with it.
Oh good wait - he's getting half called on it. Begala is INSANE and believes his own lies. That guy better never cross my path.
I really tune him out complet
June 5, 2007 - 21:35 ET by bigtimerI really tune him out completely when he is talking if I chose...which I did.
Now I am glad I made the right choice Sport thanks to what you have written.
ROFL!
Did you see the "Conservative strategist" ?
June 5, 2007 - 21:45 ET by SportPoliticsDid you see the "Conservative strategist" ? You see that, the gal there is a "conservative strategist".
I don't believe I have ever seen a "liberal strategist" as a commentator, actually labelled as such.
We won't any time soon either
June 5, 2007 - 21:53 ET by bigtimerWe won't any time soon either Sport....
LOL!
Talk about hypocrisy.
I wonder if that ignoramus, B
June 5, 2007 - 23:43 ET by NL207I wonder if that ignoramus, Begala, knows that Cro-Magnons had larger brains than homo spaiens?
What is less well known is th
June 6, 2007 - 12:08 ET by dahliatraversWhat is less well known is that, remarkably, Paul Begala's brain is slightly smaller than that of Homo Floresiensis.
Paul Begala
June 6, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Cool ArrowI think Paul's stage of development gave rise to Homo Erectus.
Didn't watch it. Did I miss
June 5, 2007 - 22:31 ET by CapitalismRulesDidn't watch it. Did I miss anything? Is NPR going to tell me that every Republician is a Nascar-watching, white-hooded, trailer-living freak tomorrow when I listen on my way to work? Someone please just give me the short 411.
white-hooded, trailer-living freak
June 5, 2007 - 22:59 ET by Cool ArrowNo, they won't mention Robert Byrd
hmm...
June 5, 2007 - 22:55 ET byhmm... I think it is clear that Tom Tancredo won....
:o)
I'm With Fred...a new website...check it out....
June 5, 2007 - 23:11 ET by bigtimerFuture President Thompson is on a earlier repeat from tonight of H&C at the moment....going to catch this and see ya' all on the other side tomorrow God willing...been a long day.
Have a good evening all.
Btw...I just heard him say this is brand new website they just put up for him so I am putting the new site here for those interested....I'm With Fred.
Watching Fred on H&C right now
June 5, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Cool ArrowFred ain't skirting nuthin. Great show without ol' Walleye buttin' in.
George Steffi said this morni
June 6, 2007 - 07:51 ET by SouthJersey1953George Steffi said this morning on GMA "McCain easily wont he debate last night."
I wonder what debate he watched? Obvioulsy not the one I did......
No RINOs in '08 - Thompson/Hunter would be a good ticket; Thompson/Steele would be a great ticket
SJ1953They wish he had won.
June 6, 2007 - 08:13 ET by Airforce_5_OSJ1953
They wish he had won. In their eyes he answer every Liberal question correctly.
In their eyes if they were to loss the election in 08 to McCain it would be an easier pill to swallow because of his moderate stances.
I checked out vote.com to see
June 6, 2007 - 12:35 ET by MikeBI checked out vote.com to see their poll on who won the debate last night. It is a shame that vote.com and republicanstrawpoll.com can't set up their sites so that a nearly accurate poll can be taken. According to vote.com, Ron Paul won the debate with 3,338 votes of a total of 4,417 votes. I know this is bull****. You can't make me believe that 76% of the population thought Ron Pau won the debate. You Ron Paul supporters need to stop spamming these polls. You don't do your candidate any good whatsoever.
This also makes me wonder about their poll on who won the Democrat's debate. Vote.com gives the win to Bill Richardson with 19% of the votes. Amusingly, and with great relief, I noticed that the Hildebeest came in 7th out of 8 places. She was only ahead of Chris Dodd. Even Kucinich got over twice as many votes as Hillary.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan