Official Debate Thread for Dec. 15th!!!!!

why do they call people who want to protect the environment "environmental radicals". I thought Huntsman did a good job answering the question, at that point it was the last half hour of the debate so they didnt ask Ron Paul. It is a balancing act, but I would rather have a clean water to drink and air to breathe than a temporary job.

Originally posted by geryon
why do they call people who want to protect the environment "environmental radicals". I thought Huntsman did a good job answering the question, at that point it was the last half hour of the debate so they didnt ask Ron Paul. It is a balancing act, but I would rather have a clean water to drink and air to breathe than a temporary job.

We figured out a long time ago how to manage/clean the water supply.

The air is also clean. Dirty manufacturing was forced overseas.

There is alot of focus being put on Ron Pauls intentions if he fails to win the republican nomination..

I heard Chris Wallace ask Paul on Fox a while ago if he would run as an independant. He said no. He was very definate about that no.

Look at his responses to the question now. He is alot less definate. Is he a liar? Why has he changed his stance?
I was disappointed by that. He sounds like just another politician now.

Hannity interviewed him after the debate. He looked to be dodging the question again with standard politician bs. He cant "conceive of it"

I dont trust the guy anymore.
Not that I ever really did.


# Sorry if that sounds stupid,just giving my opinion.

I dont think its radical to want to protect the environment, not saying the pipeline is a bad thing, i don't know enough about it. Think we would be advanced enough to move beyond gasoline at this point though. I would of rather they passed the infrastructure bill if you want construction jobs, its a mess

After watching several of these Republican "debates", I am left wondering....why are they calling these things debates? There is no debate going on; rather, these things are more like Q&A sessions.

With that being said, I most liked what Ron Paul had to say. And I also must say that I am somewhat baffled by John Huntsman's poor showing in the polls. He may not be great, but at least he is sane....something only he and Ron Paul can lay claim to.

reply to post by Cloudsinthesky

Thanks.

Originally posted by geryon
I dont think its radical to want to protect the environment, not saying the pipeline is a bad thing, i don't know enough about it. Think we would be advanced enough to move beyond gasoline at this point though. I would of rather they passed the infrastructure bill if you want construction jobs, its a mess

Gasoline has the best energy density right now.

I would prefer that we build a huge refinery in North Dakota or Montana.
Turn the crude oil into Super Unleaded and distribute it from there.

Forget about the pipeline altogether!

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Here is Michelle Bachmann calling for the immediate bombing of Iran and then in the same sentence, saying that Ron Paul’s policy is dangerous. Is that an oxymoron? One sentence later, she is calling herself the candidate of peace. Santorum also seized on any opportunity to get up on his soapbox and propose war, knowing what we’ve just been through in the last ten years. Anything for a cheer. I respect Ron Paul sticking to his guns even knowing that there will always be a crowd of blood and guts Republicans ready to stand up and cheer . I think the boos Ron Paul met with should be worn as a badge of honor. It’s so refreshing to see a Republican stand up for the truth in the face of fire and not back down on his position. I personally am tired of war and a century of peace would be just what the Dr. ordered for this country. The only nation building we need to do now is our own, and we need a leader with a sensible head. Imagine Michelle Bachmann in the middle of the night with her finger on the button going through an episode of PMS. One hot flash and BOOM, WWIII.

Michelle Bauchman is a complete dolt, i dont know how anyone could take her seriously

reply to post by theovermensch


I don't think that he's just lying to people. If he announces now that he will run 3rd party if he doesn't get the gop nomination it will draw attention away from the gop race he's currently doing well in. I'm sure he will run 3rd party if he doesnt get the gop nomination, but now is not the time to be advertising it.

reply to post by knightrider078
The numbers are highly disputed on all sides, based on who's being included, timeframes involved, "qualifying factors", and various other issues.

That said, the Opinion Research Business poll estimated over 1 million dead, and The Lancet estimated up to over 900k, so no, Paul didn't lie. I don't know if we'll ever know an actual number, but he was probably referencing these or other numbers available to Congress on the back end.

reply to post by digginforthetruth


I guess but did you see the interview with Wallace? I just see him as less honest and genuine now than I did before. I beleived him when he said no I will not run as an independant. Now he cant "conceive" of it?

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Since When Iran Became an Issue?

Since Nuclear North Korea, who vowed to destroy America, became a non-issue.

Which happens to be a perfect example of WHY Iran might want to develop a nuclear weapon, if was ever actually proved they did. We don't pick on people with nukes, and they are SURROUNDED by american military & allies.

I personally think if they DON'T actually want to develop the nuke, they're a little crazier than everyone wants to try to say they are. North Korea gets nuke - oh, we don't really need to worry about them anymore...but I remember all the crazy rhetoric about them all the time before then.

...which makes me really angry, given the excuses we hype about wanting to go after Libya, Syria, Iran and others (they're oppressive regimes and torture their people, etc.) - you can't GET more oppressive or tortured than North Korea, as far as I'm aware.

Hypocritical, weak garbage.

Originally posted by ker2010
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Here is Michelle Bachmann calling for the immediate bombing of Iran and then in the same sentence, saying that Ron Paul’s policy is dangerous. Is that an oxymoron? One sentence later, she is calling herself the candidate of peace. Santorum also seized on any opportunity to get up on his soapbox and propose war, knowing what we’ve just been through in the last ten years. Anything for a cheer. I respect Ron Paul sticking to his guns even knowing that there will always be a crowd of blood and guts Republicans ready to stand up and cheer . I think the boos Ron Paul met with should be worn as a badge of honor. It’s so refreshing to see a Republican stand up for the truth in the face of fire and not back down on his position. I personally am tired of war and a century of peace would be just what the Dr. ordered for this country. The only nation building we need to do now is our own, and we need a leader with a sensible head. Imagine Michelle Bachmann in the middle of the night with her finger on the button going through an episode of PMS. One hot flash and BOOM, WWIII.

edit on 16-12-2011 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)

The timeline will be similar to Pakistan.

Obtain some weapons grade uranium from the centrifuges.

Put together a working nuclear bomb design.

Then with - EVERYONE - on the Earth watching.....detonate their first - NUKE - in a
remote area of Iran.

The next day the attack will commence.

reply to post by knightrider078
Uhhh...no. Because of us. First off, Saddam was our ally until he invaded Kuwait. We propped him up and enabled him to acquire/keep power. WE sold him the chemical and other weapons he used on his people (and against the Iranians - blowback). We enabled and didn't have a problem with any of it until drama with Saudi Arabia got us interested in Iraq's oil reserves, and Kuwait cross-drilling into Iraq's oil (disputed) led to the Iraqi invasion and giving us excuse.

Check the official estimates, up to 100k died from various effects of the war (just civilians). UN estimates 500k - 1.2 million CHILDREN died as a result of the sanctions afterward (and likely our use of DU and other things).

Take the blinders off, man. Everything we do in the world is not right simply because it's US doing it. We've done so much that we would have obliterated other countries for.

rofl, so Dr. Paul somehow has hurt your senses of fairplay and right and wrong because he might be entertaining the possibility of running third party?
Wouldn't that be the best thing ever? A new third party ending the dialectic craziness that is the two sides of the same coin?

So please tell me, how is this pertinent to the great moral issues facing our country? Our lives?
If that is where you draw the line and feel this is a moral issue that is a deal breaker I want to hear the reasonings simply because you just might be a great moaral teacher for us all. That sir, is very high moral ground to be standing on.
I mean if you see that as a lie I want you running for office regardless of your other qualifications, or even the lack thereof.
Kudos to you

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by digginforthetruth

 

I guess but did you see the interview with Wallace? I just see him as less honest and genuine now than I did before. I beleived him when he said no I will not run as an independant. Now he cant "conceive" of it?

edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

It's because he's sick of being asked that question every interview! Are they asking the other candidates that question? NO! Many of "us" believe it's being done as a subtle-form of brainwashing, trying to get the populace to believe that he has NO chance of winning--therefore don't vote for him!!! Geesh!

Outkast, Paul has been shown to beat Obama in MANY polls!! Here's a few:
panicattackshelponline.com...
www.sodahead.com...
finance.yahoo.com...

Imo, it would be well if this type of information would be gotten out to the masses:

Ted Gunderson Former FBI Chief - Most Terror Attacks Are Committed By Our CIA And FBI
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Habit4ming

Text !!! Geesh!

There is no need for that my friend. I am giving my opinion and that is that whilst I dont feel that Paul is a liar you can see his stance changing and I feel as though he is not being entirely honest. I find that to be disappionting. I understand if you disagree.

And

Text Many of "us" believe it's being done as a

"us" ? What is it a cult?



Do you mean paultards or americans? Its just an opinion settle down.

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by digginforthetruth

 

I guess but did you see the interview with Wallace? I just see him as less honest and genuine now than I did before. I beleived him when he said no I will not run as an independant. Now he cant "conceive" of it?

edit on 16-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo

He doesn't want to lie but he also doesn't want to tread down that road. What would you have him do. If they would stop asking the same question over and over , which they do to try to discredit him , then he wouldn't have to do it. He isn't running for senior class president you know.