PDA

View Full Version : Florida Debate



Gerry Clinchy
09-13-2011, 09:44 PM
Did any of you watch the debate in Florida. I watched it on my computer today. Must say it's much better without the commercials :-)

Kind of ironic that the co-sponsors were CNN and The Tea Party.

Franco, Ron Paul was outrageous in his contention that 9/11 was justified because of our troops being on the ground in countries like Saudi Arabia & sanctions against Iran. Somehow he mentioned bombing/killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I believe that he had to have been referring to the Gulf War, and it wasn't exactly a civil war that called us to action there. And we surely made no attempt at "nation-building" after sending Saddam packing back home.


I can understand being against the war in Iraq, but his spew was downright ridiculous for someone of his intelligence. He came off as a grumpy, old man. Santorum cited that Paul's website actually made the same statement. Who would think that Ron Paul & Krugman would have something in common!!

I don't think that his stint with the Fed Reserve should be held against Herman Cain. He did support reigning in the power of the Fed (as did others). He and Santorum could make a ticket (even though I'm not a Santorum fan). I think a non-politician teamed up with someone who knows how Congress works could be an advantage. Of course, Biden hasn't been a whole lot of help to Obama in that regard.

Romney and Perry were given the most air time (my perception), but I would definitely have liked to hear more from Cain & Huntsman. I'm no fan of Santorum, but he came off well in the debate, I thought. As commentators have said, Perry didn't look in command of his situation. I don't like Newt, but can't deny he's a very bright guy. Bachman: I think she can be more effective by remaining in Congress.

Now, I'll sit back and watch you guys dissect them all :-)

BonMallari
09-13-2011, 10:03 PM
this was the more humorous take on the debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekYxupmdrZA&feature=player_embedded

charly_t
09-14-2011, 01:05 AM
Now, I'll sit back and watch you guys dissect them all :-)

The dissection on this forum is much better than the news media's ! VBG

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2011, 08:22 AM
Not saying that the debate indicates the individual's fitness for getting elected, but ...

I would agree with the analyses that say Perry lost ground.

I don't think Romney won any, since the debate was more about attacking Perry. I don't think Bachman really gained anything, but Santorum may have. Paul lost ground for sure. Newt didn't gain or lose ground. Huntsman and Cain came off well, but unsure whether they gained enough ground to be considered closer to the leaders.

Not sure I really can say Romney is the kind of leader who would be the kind to come up with real solutions to the economic mess. He just smacks of more of the same old political type. I think I have more faith in Cain or Huntsman being able to think outside of the box. Cain definitely would need a running mate who could add some weight for working with Congress. Aren't we all tired of the same old, same old?

I was listening for the applause when each walked on stage at the beginning. Cain did very well by that measure. Newt and Ron Paul did less well.

BonMallari
09-14-2011, 08:47 AM
Not saying that the debate indicates the individual's fitness for getting elected, but ...

I would agree with the analyses that say Perry lost ground.

I don't think Romney won any, since the debate was more about attacking Perry. I don't think Bachman really gained anything, but Santorum may have. Paul lost ground for sure. Newt didn't gain or lose ground. Huntsman and Cain came off well, but unsure whether they gained enough ground to be considered closer to the leaders.

Not sure I really can say Romney is the kind of leader who would be the kind to come up with real solutions to the economic mess. He just smacks of more of the same old political type. I think I have more faith in Cain or Huntsman being able to think outside of the box. Cain definitely would need a running mate who could add some weight for working with Congress. Aren't we all tired of the same old, same old?

I was listening for the applause when each walked on stage at the beginning. Cain did very well by that measure. Newt and Ron Paul did less well.

I guess we all look and hear the same words but process and comprehend them differently....not saying you are wrong by any means...just saying I saw the debate differently

My quick cliff notes version...Huntsman and Santorum are done...Paul, well lets just say he didnt do his candidacy any favors but his supporters will follow him to the ends of the earth and beyond.. Cain had to fight his way into the conversation...Perry got hurt, Bachmann schtick is getting tiresome,Romney looked and sounded Presidential...and Newt proved he is the best debater of the bunch, so if I am keeping score he won

Told you we saw it differently...doesnt mean I am right either

huntinman
09-14-2011, 09:42 AM
I think Paul and Huntsman are in the wrong debate... they sound like libs to me. Santorum is just shouting from the rooftops... and I agree with Bon on Bachman. I like her, but I think she peaked early and has lost her mojo...

That leaves Mitt, Perry, Newt & Cain. Newt is the best debater and Cain is sharp, but neither is getting any traction. Now its down to Mitt and Perry...
Unless someone else jumps in... Don't think he will do it, but maybe VP... Rubio...

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2011, 10:31 AM
I guess we all look and hear the same words but process and comprehend them differently....not saying you are wrong by any means...just saying I saw the debate differently

Right! And I would like to hear what others' "take" was.

My quick cliff notes version...Huntsman and Santorum are done...

If accurate, I don't think it was because of what they said, but because attention got focused on Romney and Perry. I think each of them got more air time than Cain.

Paul, well lets just say he didnt do his candidacy any favors but his supporters will follow him to the ends of the earth and beyond..

Is that called a "cult"? I can agree with some of his ideas, but not others.


Cain had to fight his way into the conversation...

Glad you mentioned that! The whole scenario seemed slanted toward Romney & Perry.


Perry got hurt,

Our perceptions are the same on that.


Bachmann schtick is getting tiresome,

I'd tend to agree with that.


Romney looked and sounded Presidential...

Yes, but that can be why I saw him as same old, same old. Popularity contest. Maybe we are too hung up on that.


and Newt proved he is the best debater of the bunch, so if I am keeping score he won

Obviously the best at thinking on his feet. Not quite enough air time to hear enough from him. However, I think he has too much baggage for a general election. But it would certainly be a treat to hear him debate Obama.

Obama's tack in debates, is to reply, "That simply isn't true," and then change the subject entirely! Wonder if any of his debate opponents will ever be sharp enough to point that out in a debate!

Told you we saw it differently...doesnt mean I am right either


Agreed, Bon. And sometimes I can be more intuitive than logical, so like to compare.

Franco
09-14-2011, 05:04 PM
[quote=Gerry Clinchy;853202]Did any of you watch the debate in Florida. I watched it on my computer today. Must say it's much better without the commercials :-)

Kind of ironic that the co-sponsors were CNN and The Tea Party.

Franco, Ron Paul was outrageous in his contention that 9/11 was justified because of our troops being on the ground in countries like Saudi Arabia & sanctions against Iran. Somehow he mentioned bombing/killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I believe that he had to have been referring to the Gulf War, and it wasn't exactly a civil war that called us to action there. And we surely made no attempt at "nation-building" after sending Saddam packing back home.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gerry, you pose this question like one of the writers for the Huffington Post! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were doing something other than really listening to what Dr Paul said.

From the debate...
In Tampa, Fla. on Monday night, the libertarian Paul opened the fray by saying that America was “under threat because we occupy so many countries.”
“The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there where they can target us – and they have been doing it,” he said, adding that there have been more attacks against U.S. interests each month “than occurred in all the years before 9/11.”
“We’re there, occupying their land,” Paul continued. “And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

Franco
09-14-2011, 05:11 PM
I will also add that I think it is a good time for the USA to become Isolationist and take care of America first!

We have given 4,000 US lives in Iraq and nearly a TRILLION dollars yet they still hate us. A'stan will not last the way we want it to because it is not the will of thier people.

From Libya to Egypt and from Iran and Pakistan, they not only hate us and want us dead, there is no way we can make them the kind of civilizations we want them to be!

Dr Paul is correct and had we followed his Foreign Policy from the beginning, we wouldn't be in nearly the financial hardship nor given the lives of THOUSANDS of our best because of our poor policy!

BonMallari
09-14-2011, 05:16 PM
Muslims have been hating Christians since the Crusades, maybe before that....Arabs have been hating Israelites since the beginning of time because they both think they are the chosen ONE.....has nothing to do with who is occupying what....the Arab nation looks at Israel like they do the western world (USA), they want to drive the Israelis to the sea and into extinction


How do you become Isolationist in a global economy ?

Franco
09-14-2011, 05:29 PM
Muslims have been hating Christians since the Crusades, maybe before that....Arabs have been hating Israelites since the beginning of time because they both think they are the chosen ONE.....has nothing to do with who is occupying what....the Arab nation looks at Israel like they do the western world (USA), they want to drive the Israelis to the sea and into extinction


How do you become Isolationist in a global economy ?

I'll answer that with two questions;

Why should our stock market be tied into waht is happening in Greece?

Why should foreign banks be allowed to manipulate our currency?


Ron Paul on our military and his policy....
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

BonMallari
09-14-2011, 05:38 PM
I'll answer that with two questions;

Why should our stock market be tied into waht is happening in Greece?

Why should foreign banks be allowed to manipulate our currency?


Ron Paul on our military and his policy....
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/


Why should a Belgium company own Anheuser Busch (Budweiser)

or a South African company own Miller beer

I dont like foreign entities controlling US interest either but the genie is out of the bottle...how would you deal with all the foreign owned oil companies....isolationism will not work, its great in theory and ideology but its neither practical nor possible

huntinman
09-14-2011, 05:43 PM
I'll answer that with two questions;

Why should our stock market be tied into waht is happening in Greece?

Why should foreign banks be allowed to manipulate our currency?


Ron Paul on our military and his policy....
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

How about all those hard working Mexicans that built your house while working 12 hour days for peanuts days on end?

Franco
09-14-2011, 05:46 PM
Why should a Belgium company own Anheuser Busch (Budweiser)

or a South African company own Miller beer

I dont like foreign entities controlling US interest either but the genie is out of the bottle...how would you deal with all the foreign owned oil companies....isolationism will not work, its great in theory and ideology but its neither practical nor possible

Big difference between foreign companies buying American companies and the Dow taking big hits because of the problems in Greece. When Wall St's interest are global, then Americans suffer! We have for far too long let our politicians sell us out becuase they are in the pockets of the big greedy bankers. Add to that that most politicans really don't know any better.

Foreign investment in American companies can be a good thing. But, when Wall St places us in harm's way because of the incompetence in DC, then shame on us! And yet, politicians reward Wall St for thier bad behavior.

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2011, 05:52 PM
Franco, I really was listening, and he mentioned bombing/killing "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis ... that had to have been before 9/11 if it had to be provocative of 9/11. There were two parts to his rant. I can't remember which was earlier or later.

From Ron Paul's website:

Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the September 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation.

Where were we occupying Arab countries prior to Sept. 11? We may have had troops in Saudi Arabia, but they were not "occupation troops".

From the website:

Pape notes that before our invasion of Iraq, only about 10% of suicide terrorism was aimed at Americans or American interests

So ... how does this gel with the first statement? The second quote above would indicate that the incidents the magnitude of those of 9/11 should have been directed somewhere else,

From the website:


Yes, the attacks of 9/11 deserved a response. But the manner in which we responded has allowed radicals in the Muslim world to advance a very threatening narrative about us and our motivation in occupying their lands. Osama bin Laden referred to us as “crusaders” with a religious agenda to convert Muslims, westernize their culture and take control of their resources. If we had targeted our response to only the thugs and criminals who attacked us, and refrained from invading countries that had nothing to do with it, this characterization would seem less plausible to the desperate and displaced. Blaming Islam alone is grossly misleading.


He is saying that 9/11 events resulted from the way we responded to 9/11? This is double-talk.

The response to 9/11 is certainly up for debate, but he has confused that with why 9/11 happened in the first place.

Did 9/11 happen because the US has long been a supporter of Israel? If so, then he should say that.

Franco
09-14-2011, 06:03 PM
Not saying that the debate indicates the individual's fitness for getting elected, but ...

I would agree with the analyses that say Perry lost ground.

I don't think Romney won any, since the debate was more about attacking Perry. I don't think Bachman really gained anything, but Santorum may have. Paul lost ground for sure. Newt didn't gain or lose ground. Huntsman and Cain came off well, but unsure whether they gained enough ground to be considered closer to the leaders.

Not sure I really can say Romney is the kind of leader who would be the kind to come up with real solutions to the economic mess. He just smacks of more of the same old political type. I think I have more faith in Cain or Huntsman being able to think outside of the box. Cain definitely would need a running mate who could add some weight for working with Congress. Aren't we all tired of the same old, same old?

I was listening for the applause when each walked on stage at the beginning. Cain did very well by that measure. Newt and Ron Paul did less well.

Lets don't forget that the reason we have Obama today is not because of McCain but because of G W Bush. Obama's election was a backlash to Bush/Cheney's Foreign Policy and the needless war in Iraq.

Americans want solutions. Solutions won't come from the extreme right but from those with the experience to define the problems and the experience to help solve them.

Franco
09-14-2011, 06:11 PM
From the website:

my responces in red


He is saying that 9/11 events resulted from the way we responded to 9/11? This is double-talk. No, from our mideast policy over the last 60 years.

The response to 9/11 is certainly up for debate, but he has confused that with why 9/11 happened in the first place. Go to his website. 9/11 was a responce to our Foreign Policy in the mideast.

Did 9/11 happen because the US has long been a supporter of Israel? If so, then he should say that. He has said so on many occassions and covers it in depth in his books. He feels that we should have let the Isrealis settle the matter long ago before their enemies were able to get thier hands on sophisticated weapons. That our (USA) intervention and restraint of Isreail has only made the situation worse.

huntinman
09-14-2011, 06:16 PM
The crowd at the debate spoke for most of America on Ron Paul's foreign policy idea's with their boo's...

BonMallari
09-14-2011, 06:33 PM
He has said so on many occassions and covers it in depth in his books. He feels that we should have let the Isrealis settle the matter long ago before their enemies were able to get thier hands on sophisticated weapons. That our (USA) intervention and restraint of Isreail has only made the situation worse.


lets see...letting the Israeli's handle it...they would have obliterated their enemies....but what do you do about the US made F-18's parked on the Saudi tarmacs with US trained Saudi's flying them...and just in case the Israelis needed help who do they turn to

Franco
09-14-2011, 07:01 PM
lets see...letting the Israeli's handle it...they would have obliterated their enemies....but what do you do about the US made F-18's parked on the Saudi tarmacs with US trained Saudi's flying them...and just in case the Israelis needed help who do they turn to

Yes, they would have pacified thier enemies had we not interfered politically.

F18's have been around since the mid-80's. We should have let the parties resolve the matter prior to then. Because we have restrainted the Israelis, we have weakend thier abilites to take care of themselves and depend on us more then ever. Now, they are faced with an American President that is an anti-Semite. As an Isreali supporting non-Jew, I can see how our policy has made them more dependent on our help. That's what happens when one country interfers. THat entire situation could have been settled long ago!

blind ambition
09-14-2011, 08:30 PM
I thought Ron Paul offered the most concise no nonsense, most politically incorrect, spot on assessment of US foreign policy errors ever offered in public. His honesty and sensibility will probably kill his campaign hopes but would save America a lot of grief if acted upon.

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2011, 08:46 PM
my responces in red


He is saying that 9/11 events resulted from the way we responded to 9/11? This is double-talk. No, from our mideast policy over the last 60 years.

But the premise he was using was about "occupation", but then that was not the right argument for 9/11. You can see the two arguments intermingled in those quotes from his website.




The response to 9/11 is certainly up for debate, but he has confused that with why 9/11 happened in the first place. Go to his website. 9/11 was a responce to our Foreign Policy in the mideast.

I did take the quotes directly from his website. See above.


Did 9/11 happen because the US has long been a supporter of Israel? If so, then he should say that.


He has said so on many occassions and covers it in depth in his books. He feels that we should have let the Isrealis settle the matter long ago before their enemies were able to get thier hands on sophisticated weapons. That our (USA) intervention and restraint of Isreail has only made the situation worse.

I might have to agree with that last paragraph. OTOH, the Israelis are so greatly outnumbered in the Middle East, that if they had then occupied adjacent Arab lands, we'd still have a mess in the Mid-East ... based on RP's arguments regarding the results of "occupation".

As long as there are Arabs that want Israelis pushed into the sea, I don't see how there can be peace in the Mid-East. The only possible way would be if those Arabs who are willing to live-and-let-live with Israel would take action themselves against those who would want to exterminate Israel.

Probably won't happen. If those in power in the Mid-East were to establish peace with Israel, the population might then focus on the injustices perpetrated upon them by their own leaders. If we think there is a big gap between the upper & lower economic levels here, I'd venture the gap is immeasurably larger between the oil sheiks and the majority of Arabs.

Franco
09-14-2011, 10:51 PM
I might have to agree with that last paragraph. OTOH, the Israelis are so greatly outnumbered in the Middle East, that if they had then occupied adjacent Arab lands, we'd still have a mess in the Mid-East ... based on RP's arguments regarding the results of "occupation".

Had not the US and Britsh interviened after the Yom Kippor War, the Hageneau would have expanded into present day Syria and Egypt creating a bigger and easier Israel to defend.

As long as there are Arabs that want Israelis pushed into the sea, I don't see how there can be peace in the Mid-East. The great late Israeli PM Golda Mier said it best, "As long as they hate the Jews more than the love their children, there will be no peace." The only possible way would be if those Arabs who are willing to live-and-let-live with Israel would take action themselves against those who would want to exterminate Israel.

Probably won't happen. If those in power in the Mid-East were to establish peace with Israel, the population might then focus on the injustices perpetrated upon them by their own leaders. If we think there is a big gap between the upper & lower economic levels here, I'd venture the gap is immeasurably larger between the oil sheiks and the majority of Arabs.
No doubt!


my comments in orange

Franco
09-14-2011, 10:56 PM
I thought Ron Paul offered the most concise no nonsense, most politically incorrect, spot on assessment of US foreign policy errors ever offered in public. His honesty and sensibility will probably kill his campaign hopes but would save America a lot of grief if acted upon.

I couldn't have written it any better!

He's known by his followers as the Prophet. He's been warning about what is happening today with our economy and Foreign Policy for decades. He identified the problems over 30 years ago. He is as misqouted and misunderstood as Winston Chruchill was in 1937!

Gerry Clinchy
09-14-2011, 11:05 PM
Had not the US and Britsh interviened after the Yom Kippor War, the Hageneau would have expanded into present day Syria and Egypt creating a bigger and easier Israel to defend.


However, they would still be "occupiers" surrounded by the indigenous people.

Golda's assessment probably said it all. In fact, her statement might apply to alot of the problems in our world. Golda was an incredible person.

Franco
09-14-2011, 11:26 PM
However, they would still be "occupiers" surrounded by the indigenous people.


Golda's assessment probably said it all. In fact, her statement might apply to alot of the problems in our world. Golda was an incredible person.

The Jews are the indigenous people too.

All of eastern and western Europe and the Americas are occupied by others than the native peoples. ;-)

Franco
09-14-2011, 11:44 PM
When I wrote the part about the US and British interveining after the Yom Kippor War, I forgot to mention that we did so under pressure from the USSR.

Which got me thinking about the Soviets. One fun part about History is specualting on the "what ifs".

Like, what if the US had followed Dr Paul's policy and not helped the Mujahadeen in A'stan? What if the Soviets had been successful in thier pacification of A'stan?

With you being from Pa. one of my favorite "what ifs" is; What if Gen Jackson had survived his bullet wound a month earlier to lead his army at Gettysburg? Certainly, they would have secured the high ground that his replacement, Gen Ewell, was too timid to attempt on the first day of battle. ;-)

BonMallari
09-15-2011, 01:03 AM
what if Custer wasnt such an egotistical jerk and not marched on the Little Big Horn

what if Travis -Crockett-Bowie, hadnt stayed at the Alamo

what if MacArthur had been allowed to fight NK the way he wanted

what if Patton had been allowed to demolish the Russians when he wanted

Gerry Clinchy
09-15-2011, 09:22 AM
The Jews are the indigenous people too.

Used the wrong word then. If 2 million Jews (just an arbitrary #), are "in power" and surrounded by (again arbitrary) 20 million Muslims who don't want them to be in power ... there will be a problem. Heck, even without imposing their own laws on their neighbors, the surrounding countries can't stand the presence of the Jews (who, as you say, have as much right to reside in that part of the world as those of other indigenous peoples).

I do NOT disagree that we often stick our nose where it doesn't belong.

OTOH, even RP (as stated on his website) believes a response to 9/11 was appropriate.

Gerry Clinchy
09-15-2011, 09:26 AM
With you being from Pa. one of my favorite "what ifs" is; What if Gen Jackson had survived his bullet wound a month earlier to lead his army at Gettysburg? Certainly, they would have secured the high ground that his replacement, Gen Ewell, was too timid to attempt on the first day of battle. :wink:

If that would have meant that slavery would still exist in the U.S., I would not be happy about that. However, I'm not sure that slavery could have continued to exist here over the long haul. Ultimately, that issue would need to have been addressed.