2nd Republican Debate Starting now - OFFICIAL COMMENT THREAD

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We shall see. I hope it does turn out ok for him because I do think he is the best republican up there. If it was Paul vs. Democrat for president I would really have to think about my vote. If it was any other republican up there vs. Democrat I'd have to do far less thinking. Those other candidates are worse than a lot of the democrats.

the way i look it is, the fucking idiots that fall for giuliani's "zomg they hate us cause we are free am i rite" shit wouldn't vote for Ron Paul anyway, they can't grasp his arguments and where he comes from. big fucking deal if they hate him more.

The thing he does is make people who aren't really sure spark some interest in him. Sure, they may think he is a bit out there but it will get them to look into who he is and where he stands.

Paul isn't isn't an isolationist. He believes in non-intervention which is a big difference. It is a shame that the republican "party" has gotten the way it is.

the simple fact giuliani did what he did and the republican party is trying to do what they are doing shows that they do fear his positions, they fear the honest discourse. Paul broke the cardinal rule of politics, he told the truth.

[JaJae]

Would Ron Paul have gone to Europe during WWII?

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Would Ron Paul have gone to Europe during WWII?

WWII was a direct result of intervention into WWI. Read the book 1919.

But, seeing the attack on the US @ Pearl Harbor, I don't see why he wouldn't have. But then again, that was pretty much provoked due to bad trade relations.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Would Ron Paul have gone to Europe during WWII?

given everything leading up to WWII being the same, I'm comfortable saying absolutely. We only entered the war officially after we were attacked by Japan, and then Germany declared war on us. Paul isn't a pacifist, he has no problem with defensive wars. Given that Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor, I have no doubt he would have supported going to war with Germany as well as Japan.

The real question is would he have engaged in the weapons sales to the allies prior to our official entry into the war. On that question, I'm not so sure.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

given everything leading up to WWII being the same, I'm comfortable saying absolutely. We only entered the war officially after we were attacked by Japan, and then Germany declared war on us. Paul isn't a pacifist, he has no problem with defensive wars. Given that Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor, I have no doubt he would have supported going to war with Germany as well as Japan.

The real question is would he have engaged in the weapons sales to the allies prior to our official entry into the war. On that question, I'm not so sure.

.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by hsmith

.

I can agree with you on that...

but another problem sense for Paul is that he may have to explain his positions to much, using a few minutes instead of a few seconds. I guess the best way to explain it is the way Rudy took what he said, twisted it in to a big piece of shit, and threw it back at him. He was talking about our interventionist foreign policy for the last 50 years, and the common dolt heard Rudy say "we were attacked on 9/11 because we bombed Iraq". Immediately the dolts do not process complicated answer, they just accept the idiot answer.