Ron Paul wins Fox News Presidential Debate!

[DTBusta]

http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/20...y-a-landslide/

Its funny, Dr.Paul won Fox's very own debate last week. He took approx 35% of the vote, while Romney& his clone Guiliani took less than 15%. It looks now after last quarters fund raising,in which Dr.Paul also raised the most cash, he just may have a chance at the nomination. After all the 10 term conservative republican is the only anti-war candidate they have! After this past weeks look on how the surge is going, it shouldn't surprise anyone that bush has once again cooked the books..They actually consider sect violence only if the person is shot from behind, if they are shot from the front , thats considered "an accident"...also saying they have killed 15,000 insurgents, with from the beginning there only being by there own quotes 15,000 insurgents....Well then if we go by what they say they are creating them atleast as quick as they are killing them?! So Mr. Paul is clearly finding grassroot support from true conservatives. I am at times painted a liberal...yet It may look that way cause I am so anit-bush, Yet am a true financial conservative like Mr.Paul. Hes a constitutionalist, running on Bush's 2000 campaign promise of non intervention on foreign policy, some would argue sept 11th changed that, but has it,Bush totally took advantage and messed it up ten fold! Question is ,does Ron Paul have a chance?

[Logan13]

http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/20...y-a-landslide/

Its funny, Dr.Paul won Fox's very own debate last week. He took approx 35% of the vote, while Romney& his clone Guiliani took less than 15%. It looks now after last quarters fund raising,in which Dr.Paul also raised the most cash, he just may have a chance at the nomination. After all the 10 term conservative republican is the only anti-war candidate they have! After this past weeks look on how the surge is going, it shouldn't surprise anyone that bush has once again cooked the books..They actually consider sect violence only if the person is shot from behind, if they are shot from the front , thats considered "an accident"...also saying they have killed 15,000 insurgents, with from the beginning there only being by there own quotes 15,000 insurgents....Well then if we go by what they say they are creating them atleast as quick as they are killing them?! So Mr. Paul is clearly finding grassroot support from true conservatives. I am at times painted a liberal...yet It may look that way cause I am so anit-bush, Yet am a true financial conservative like Mr.Paul. Hes a constitutionalist, running on Bush's 2000 campaign promise of non intervention on foreign policy, some would argue sept 11th changed that, but has it,Bush totally took advantage and messed it up ten fold! Question is ,does Ron Paul have a chance?

Ron Paul and his ideas got sincerely lambasted last night on O'Reilly. Like many polticians, he is unable to think outside of his talking points.

[mcpeepants]

That cheerleader Hannity couldn't hide his frustration when he found out Ron Paul won another fox debate. He probably my second favorite presidential candidate running after Kucinich.

[DTBusta]

Na, Oreilly did the usual...with his loud mouth...not letting his guests speak...thats there only tactic, and thats how they appear to come out on top...Ron Paul held his own on that pervert fake american named Bill Orally !

[DTBusta]

O'rally goes crazy ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReP7sQB0jJs

[Logan13]

Na, Oreilly did the usual...with his loud mouth...not letting his guests speak...thats there only tactic, and thats how they appear to come out on top...Ron Paul held his own on that pervert fake american named Bill Orally !

When asked a direct question, and someone spins their answer, they get called on it.

[39+1]

http://www.nashvilleistalking.com/20...y-a-landslide/

Its funny, Dr.Paul won Fox's very own debate last week. He took approx 35% of the vote, while Romney& his clone Guiliani took less than 15%. It looks now after last quarters fund raising,in which Dr.Paul also raised the most cash, he just may have a chance at the nomination. After all the 10 term conservative republican is the only anti-war candidate they have! After this past weeks look on how the surge is going, it shouldn't surprise anyone that bush has once again cooked the books..They actually consider sect violence only if the person is shot from behind, if they are shot from the front , thats considered "an accident"...also saying they have killed 15,000 insurgents, with from the beginning there only being by there own quotes 15,000 insurgents....Well then if we go by what they say they are creating them atleast as quick as they are killing them?! So Mr. Paul is clearly finding grassroot support from true conservatives. I am at times painted a liberal...yet It may look that way cause I am so anit-bush, Yet am a true financial conservative like Mr.Paul. Hes a constitutionalist, running on Bush's 2000 campaign promise of non intervention on foreign policy, some would argue sept 11th changed that, but has it,Bush totally took advantage and messed it up ten fold! Question is ,does Ron Paul have a chance?

Ive been hearing a lot about this guy and im starting to payt attention, unfortuantley a few year back i got excited about perot and he turned out to be a quiter, but hey today is a different day and this guy might go take his chances. I dont know about the other comments on oreily an hannity i liked to listen to them but they've really strayed away from what they intended to bring.
Ron Paul, Im gonna start to pay attention and check this guy out

[39+1]

When asked a direct question, and someone spins their answer, they get called on it.

No you can tell when its not working and Oreily starts talking over people hes lost his edge its swinging the other way and hes lossing control of his fundamentals.
If something is working such as the war on drugs then why after 27 years are we still having this war. You cant legislate religion, morality or resposibility.

[Logan13]

No you can tell when its not working and Oreily starts talking over people hes lost his edge its swinging the other way and hes lossing control of his fundamentals.

It is not hard to answer a direct question, unless your answer is bullshit and you know it. Obviously, Paul knows it.................

[RA]

Ill vote for paul as soon as I get my bomb shelter done. The last thing we need is a president that acts like a hole with hair around it.

[scriptfactory]

Ill vote for paul as soon as I get my bomb shelter done. The last thing we need is a president that acts like a hole with hair around it.

...a vagina?

[DTBusta]

Pauls a constitutionalist, the meaning of what it is to be financially conservative ! Never voted to raise taxes ! Non-intervention foreign policy...my kind of republican!

[Logan13]

Pauls a constitutionalist, the meaning of what it is to be financially conservative ! Never voted to raise taxes ! Non-intervention foreign policy...my kind of republican!

........and no plan for national security.

[RA]

...a vagina?

A pus*y

[DTBusta]

No Logan, National Security doesn't mean invading other countries, It means protecting your country from outsiders(defensively)...What Has George secured....certainly not the BORDER, and only has bred terrorism in Iraq !

Bush is a ***** !


Pauls plan is to Secure the borders, not leave wide open..

[Logan13]

No Logan, National Security doesn't mean invading other countries, It means protecting your country from outsiders(defensively)...What Has George secured....certainly not the BORDER, and only has bred terrorism in Iraq !

Bush is a ***** !


Pauls plan is to Secure the borders, not leave wide open..

What do you do when those who invade you are not doing so in the name of any country? Open your eyes.

[DTBusta]

Dude...we do what we should have from the start, If what happened on 9.11 was true we still have to understand the reasons they attacked us, its not cause "we are free" its cause we have bases all over there,those are there specific reasons for attacking us...why do we have bases, securing oil..disturbing the peace just enough to have a reason to have bases...\
Paul wants to specifically attack terrorist operations and do so covertly...not one country at a time ! Bush is the one with the horrible foreign policy, or lack there of !

[convalescence69]

Dude, Ron Paul is the Frikken Man!
Seriously, you guys should consider what he wants to do about decriminalizing drugs. He wants to restore our privacy, keep the gov out of our business and end the war on drugs.

[Tock]

........and no plan for national security.

Uh-huh, like the Bush Administration has done anything for National Security.
Started a needless war on falsified BS, killed/maimed jillions of US troops, and hundreds of thousands of foreigners--needlessly. Meanwhile, he let Osama Bin Laden go free, diverted the military from catching him to ousting Saddam Hussain, and then doing exactly what he promised he wouldn't do--nation build.

The Generals are saying Bush is an idiot, too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/wa...syahoo&emc=rss

Ex-Commander Says Iraq Effort Is ‘a Nightmare’

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top commander of American forces there called the Bush administration’s handling of the war “incompetent” and said the result was “a nightmare with no end in sight.”

Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who retired in 2006 after being replaced in Iraq after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, blamed the Bush administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current addition of American forces as a “desperate” move that would not achieve long-term stability.
“After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” General Sanchez said at a gathering of military reporters and editors in Arlington, Va.
He is the most senior war commander of a string of retired officers who have harshly criticized the administration’s conduct of the war. While much of the previous condemnation has been focused on the role of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, General Sanchez’s was an unusually broad attack on the overall course of the war.
But his own role as commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal leaves him vulnerable to criticism that he is shifting the blame from himself to the administration that ultimately replaced him and declined to nominate him for a fourth star, forcing his retirement.
Though he was cleared of wrongdoing in the abuses after an inquiry by the Army’s inspector general, General Sanchez became a symbol — with civilian officials like L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority — of ineffective American leadership early in the occupation.
General Sanchez said he was convinced that the American effort in Iraq was failing the day after he took command, in June 2003. Asked why he waited until nearly a year after his retirement to voice his concerns publicly, he responded that it was not the place of active-duty officers to challenge lawful orders from the civilian authorities.
General Sanchez, who is said to be considering writing a book, promised further public statements criticizing officials by name.
“There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”
White House officials would not comment directly on General Sanchez’s remarks. “We appreciate his service to the country,” said Kate Starr, a White House spokeswoman.
She noted that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the current top commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad, said in their testimony to Congress last month that “there’s more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq. And that’s what we’re focused on now.”
General Sanchez has been criticized by some current and retired officers for failing to recognize the growing insurgency in Iraq during his year in command and for failing to put together a plan to unify the disparate military effort, a task that was finally carried out when his successor, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., took over in mid-2004.
General Sanchez included the military and himself among those who made mistakes in Iraq, citing a failure by top commanders to insist on a better post-invasion stabilization plan. He offered a tepid compliment to General Petraeus. The general, he said, could use American troops to gain time in Iraq but could not achieve lasting results.
Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution, criticized General Sanchez for implying in his speech that the current military strategy of relying on additional troops and on protecting the Iraqi people is little different than the strategy employed when he was in command.
Noting that calls by members of Congress for troops were rebuffed by the Bush administration in 2003, Mr. O’Hanlon said, “Sanchez was one of the top military people who condoned that, if not directly, then by his silence.”
General Sanchez’s main criticism was leveled at the Bush administration, which he said failed to mobilize the entire United States government, not just the military, to contribute meaningfully to reconstructing and stabilizing Iraq.
“National leadership continues to believe that victory can be achieved by military power alone,” he said. “Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat.”
Asked after his remarks what strategy he favored, General Sanchez ticked off a series of steps—from promoting reconciliation among Iraq’s warring sectarian factions to building effective Iraqi army and police units — that closely paralleled the list of tasks frequently cited by the Bush administration as the pillars of the current strategy.
General Sanchez, now a Pentagon consultant who trains active-duty generals, said the administration’s biggest failure had been its lack of a detailed strategy for achieving those steps and “synchronizing” the military and civilian contributions.
“The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the State Department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable,” he said.
His talk on Friday at the annual convention of the Military Reporters and Editors Association was not the first time that General Sanchez has been critical of the administration.
He said in an interview in June with Agence France-Presse that the best the United States could achieve in Iraq would be stalemate. And he drew a standing ovation at a gathering of veterans last month when he argued that the country’s problems in Iraq were the result of a “crisis in national political leadership.”
Though General Sanchez remained on active duty after leaving Iraq in 2004, he never received a fourth star, in part because, though he was popular with Mr. Rumsfeld, the Bush administration feared that his nomination hearings in the Senate would turn into a bitter partisan fight and a public replay of the details of the Abu Ghraib scandal.

[Tock]

Ya, I could be persuaded to vote for Ron Paul.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

[Logan13]

Dude, Ron Paul is the Frikken Man!
Seriously, you guys should consider what he wants to do about decriminalizing drugs. He wants to restore our privacy, keep the gov out of our business and end the war on drugs.

Ye hah, you and all of the crack heads must be excited.............

[thegodfather]

The founding fathers warned against the dangers of having political parties. They are a disaster, they keep anything from getting accomplished in this country. People should be running for President as AMERICANS, not as a Republican, Democrat, Liberatarian, Independent, etc... The founding fathers did not envision the person with the deepest pockets being able to campaign the best election. Democracy is based on the common person being able to get into office. The way that corporate America has taken over this country is SICKENING.

The Constitution should be adhered to with impunity. It should not be open to interpretation the way that these parties have done. The founding fathers of this country are probably spinning at 7,000 RPM in their graves right now.

Another axe I have to grind is with RELIGION...Religion has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN POLITICS OR SCIENCE. It makes me absolutely sick that human society has not evolved enough to respect the INDIVIDUALS belief and to actually try to tell ANYONE what to do with their own body is a propostorous idea. How any rational human being capable of any degree of higher thinking can be ok with this kind of thinking is totally beyond me.

[Amorphic]

Another axe I have to grind is with RELIGION...Religion has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN POLITICS OR SCIENCE. It makes me absolutely sick that human society has not evolved enough to respect the INDIVIDUALS belief and to actually try to tell ANYONE what to do with their own body is a propostorous idea. How any rational human being capable of any degree of higher thinking can be ok with this kind of thinking is totally beyond me.

couldnt have said it better myself