Posted on 08/11/2011 4:15:45 PM PDT by newzjunkey
Ron Paul is a joke and gives every candidate the opportunity to show tact and yet chastise the “nutty uncle” in the room.
When all is said and done, he’ll get his 5% of the Primary vote nationwide...bfd...he is irrelevant.
Which is exactly what happened in ‘08, if you listen to Rove who compared the numbers with those of ‘04...
The dirty little secret is that the “Independents” are made up of many “true” conservatives who will not i.d. with the Pubbies especially when they nominate a loser like McCain and will sit it out...principaled stance, yes, but it gave us O’bummer and mass destruction...
Totally agree with you...shame on Fox for shutting him out.
And interesting how this seems to be happening more lately since the News Of The World scandal and Justice’s threat to investigate supposed “hacking” into 9/11 phone calls...
Paranoia strikes deep...
Amen!
Why does our side have to put up Mighty Mouse while the other side gets away with.....mouse?
*pull out gun...shoot foot*
Does anyone know where we can watch a re-run? Had to work yesterday and missed it.
stay in race:
1. Newt. (even though a flawed candidate for personal morality issues, hope he stays in race to sharpen other candidates, by far best answers of night)
2. Santorum. (Great answers solid candidate through -— needs to show more command and not so much frustration over media time)
3. Cain (could add some quotes/statistics related to competing for capital investment when talking about 0% capital gains rate)
4. Bachmann (needs to stay above the fray and avoid TPaw, needs to loosen up a bit and avoid being robotic, could add some interesting quotes (i.e. Newt/Santorum) and avoid repeating self)
drop out now:
5. Huntsman (absolutely nothing fresh, totally boring, did nothing, pat answers)
6. Romney (Completely flawed candidate based record in Mass—pro-abortion, severely overreaching government, tone is arrogant, speaks out of two sdies of his mouth/contradicts himself, pat answers, health care answer was absolutely horrible )
7. Paul — comes across as a crazy, gouchy, grandpa. Some of his ideas strike a cord w/ libertarian crowd, but he misses the boat......( i.e. one could say that we should work hard to avoid foreign entanglements, while still acknowledging the Iranian threat, would be so much better)
8. Pawlenty— (Tone is completely wrong, going after Bachmann showed he is a complete ***. He’s done.)
9. Fox News Moderators. stupid snear-ky dumb questions. Absolutely horrible. The founding fathers would be appalled at the stupid sound-bite politics. The media should promote real statesmanship and scholarship....
Palin and Perry easily get into top group if/when jump in....
I’m no web expert but I’d go to You Tube first - just wait awhile then see if anyone has posted the debate...I thought it was great, IMHO!
Ron Paul has plenty of money and a cult-like following. He may very well be around for a little while longer. He has absolutely no chance of getting the nomination. Paul reminds me of Mike Gravel who ran in 2008 with the Dems. They both say outrageous things that get media attention, but in the long run, they are just a sideshow.
“”Yes! Santorum’s the real deal!””
I went to bed with that opinion and nothing has changed my mind. He was ready to answer and had real passion for the solutions - the only one who did with the exception of Ron Paul who always comes off quite nutty. I don’t blame him for being pretty perturbed at being all but ignored on the stage. His interview with Sean later was priceless.
I like Ron Paul and always have but he just doesn’t have all the facts when he speaks...Iranian Revolution didn’t begin in 1979? Loved that Santorum TRIED to correct him on that. We have nothing to worry about Iran having nuclear capabilities??? He gets his info from the CIA and they say everything is cool there regarding that subject???
He could ask Israel but I don’t think he thinks they’re genuine either.
ROFLOL!! That's one of the craziest, most UN-factual assertions I've ever read on FR.
Do you Paulites actually believe this fabrication??
Wow. That's all I can say.
Wow.
I rememebr when Buckely finally threw the Birchers out of the conservative movement..the same may be necessary for Paul
I agree...
but don’t get as upset abt Paul as some conservatives...I liked him last night, like you enjoy the grumpy old uncle in the living room chair who slowly gets drunk and comes out with more and more outrageous statements...and he’s the father of Rand Paul so deserves SOME respect. But he showed just how irresponsible, cowardly and nuts libertarians are...
The founding fathers would be appalled at the stupid sound-bite politics debate moderators and format. The media (esp. Foxnews) should promote real statesmanship and scholarship....
The lane stream media is simply a liberal propaganda machine.
Hmmmmm......... you sound like you must might be a troll.
Has anyone else noticed that, newbie?
Obama would be bested by ANY of these candidates in a debate (well, probably not crazy Paul). Every one of these candidates speaks more for the will of the American people than Obama.
In fact, Obama is toast. Does that sadden you??
He has a serious, serious problem. Not just his craziness that can be laughed at, but his apathy about a country whose leaders want Israel evaporated.
There's something really wrong with him.
It got the subject out there (and Michele answered it super-well, based on what Christian submission in marriage really is), so that when the evil anti-Christian leftists go after her on it, she's already dealt with it.
Maybe?? :)
You could be right about that.
Non-believers have absolutely no understanding of what submission in that sense means. They see it in literal simplistic terms because they have no understanding or context about the bible to work from.
Submission after all, is what Liberals want from the electorate. They want complete power over our lives. Submission is exactly what they have gotten from entitlements. So that is the premise they approach it from.
I agree that the submission question needed to be asked. It’s very relevant to the idea of a woman being president. Did she answer well. I’d give her a B. She explained within the context of their marriage, but she did not relate her answer to holding the office of Pres. She needed to have made that clearer. Would another woman, say Hillary Clinton, be asked that? No. But we conservatives live our values, that is why these questions come about, and why they must be answered properly. She did okay, IMHO. Rick S. was much clearer and firmer on the values issues. Cain as well. Both grew in my esteem. Newt has great political wisdom but not much in the morals area. I can’t get past that. Others candidates? What others? Rick Perry was a cheerleader for Texas A&M. Not sure that’s an erasable image for me.
He has no chance of being elected, never did, but that means he had nothing to lose at the debate. For him, it’s all about pushing a different way of thinking, and he certainly achieved that last night, so from that basis, I considered him a winner last night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.