PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.
speculawyer said:
Why does the GOP hate involvement in Libya? I can't see why they hate that action except for the fact that Obama is in the whitehouse.

Yup, only reason why the hate it since Libya is basically like a cheaper, more well thought out Iraq. What i mean is, once the WMD excuse was found out to be BS, they had that whole reason about getting rid of an evil dictator and fostering democracy in a dangerous region.

Kinda sounds like what is happening in Libya, except this case a significant portion of the population is also trying to get rid of their dictator.

Can't say it really surprises me that Republicans don't support it, because when the hell have they ever made sense?
 
balladofwindfishes said:
what sort of backwards thinking do you have to have to believe for a second the GOP is an anti-war party?

Was the GOP EVER anti-war at any point in time? I know they used to like black people, but as far as I can tell, they've always loved war.
 
Paul's a nut, but he's twice the man of anyone on that stage.

Oh shit, Paul just suggested we talk to Cuba. Could he kill his candidacy any more swiftly?
 
Sky Chief said:
Where you live is a choice. Why not ride a bike or take the bus. There is no mandate that all people must own cars, people buy them out of choice.

This thread in this current topic isn't the place for this, but to suggest that where people live and work is a simple matter of choice is glossing over reality.
 
God, I am so happy to see Paul in this debate. There will at least be some variation in the answers to some of the questions.
 
History slipups don't look good on the highlight reel. Santorum shouldn't have jumped in off the cuff like that. I know he was hoping for his moment in the sun, but all he did was show that he hasn't researched the topic enough.
 
Jackson50 said:
My initial thought was confirmed; Paul is the only candidate making a modicum of sense.

It's not sensible to allow Iran to freely pursue a nuclear weapons program. I like Ron Paul. He's a great counter to a lot of the BS out there. But we have to do something to limit nuclear proliferation, especially to a country that is as openly hostile as Iran.
 
Ulairi said:
Huntsman has the ability to beat President Obama.


Huntsman can't even beat Herman Cain.

(coming from a Huntsman fan)


braves01 said:
But we have to do something to limit nuclear proliferation, especially to a country that is as openly hostile as Iran.

No we don't. History has shown that we have ZERO ability to stop any determined country from becoming a nuclear power.
 
SlipperySlope said:
Hmm. Now that I think about it, I wonder what would happen if someone tried.
Nothing. Psilocin doesn't respond well to high temperatures. Which is why you have to be careful if you're baking with shrooms.

Paul is destroying.
 
Ulairi said:
Huntsman has the ability to beat President Obama.
That is a moot issue since he lacks the ability to win the GOP nomination. He is one of the GOP's better candidates.


Ron Paul is indeed making a lot of sense right now . . . but it is just all his anti-war stuff. Beyond that position, he goes into crazy land.
 
braves01 said:
It's not sensible to allow Iran to freely pursue a nuclear weapons program. I like Ron Paul. He's a great counter to a lot of the BS out there. But we have to do something to limit nuclear proliferation, especially to a country that is as openly hostile as Iran.
I did not state he was correct in every instance. But he correctly identifies the reason for their pursuit of nuclear weaponry. Moreover, he understands the history of Iran-American relations. Santorum embarrassingly displayed his ignorance on that issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom