South Carolina Republican Debate
- Thread starter swiftclick
- Start date
No, that's exactly what he said. Although Santorum was trying to say he wants tougher gun laws to protect the manufacturers.
It was awesome when she called his ass out for bias during his next analysis when he would just skim over RP even though he was #1. After that they finally admitted to there being an "elephant in the room" in that they don't trust RP's twitter presence due to the demographics of his following, which to be honest is a fair assessment. Paul's fanatic followers discredit just about any online poll but they are the reason he is doing so well. More power to them!
I think Ron Paul completely shit the bed last night on the bin laden question. didn't his campaign know they would ask that at the fox debate?!?
maybe he is showing his age here. but he flubbed the answer. he could have said everything he was trying to say and received a cheer from the crowd.
"i was for the authority to go after bin laden where he was harbored. ten years later we find him basically on a pakistani military base. and instead of questioning the billions of dollars of taxpayers' hard earned money sent to the paki military, you attack me for speaking about respecting national sovereignty which this whole republican party seems to have no regard for any longer, abroad and especially at home. when are we going to talk about how these schemes rob the taxpayers, steal our liberty and make us more unsafe instead of attacking the few voices who step out of line with these disastrous policies?" <cheers not jeers>
easier typed in a forum...obviously.
ron paul annoys me on foreign policy. not because i disagree with him much, but because i don't think he articulates it. inb4 being redirected to mises.org. you can be principled while also not giving the opposition golden sound bite nuggets. its like ron paul just tees it up for the opposition on foreign policy.
last night was his worst performance yet in these debates. meanwhile newt is scoring points going back to his attack obama/establishment approach. i wish paul would do a little more of that. he needs to find common ground with mainstream republicans. why isn't he pointing out more than everyone is now agreeing with him that iraq/afghanistan is a disaster? i hear it on talk radio constantly from the same people that called us unpatriotic a decade ago for opposing it. there is a shift with republicans on foreign policy when you speak about the cost of the wars. no matter what happens, RP has blown a hole in the political debate in this country, way beyond 2008. who is going to carry the torch when he retires?
maybe he is showing his age here. but he flubbed the answer. he could have said everything he was trying to say and received a cheer from the crowd.
"i was for the authority to go after bin laden where he was harbored. ten years later we find him basically on a pakistani military base. and instead of questioning the billions of dollars of taxpayers' hard earned money sent to the paki military, you attack me for speaking about respecting national sovereignty which this whole republican party seems to have no regard for any longer, abroad and especially at home. when are we going to talk about how these schemes rob the taxpayers, steal our liberty and make us more unsafe instead of attacking the few voices who step out of line with these disastrous policies?" <cheers not jeers>
easier typed in a forum...obviously.
ron paul annoys me on foreign policy. not because i disagree with him much, but because i don't think he articulates it. inb4 being redirected to mises.org. you can be principled while also not giving the opposition golden sound bite nuggets. its like ron paul just tees it up for the opposition on foreign policy.
last night was his worst performance yet in these debates. meanwhile newt is scoring points going back to his attack obama/establishment approach. i wish paul would do a little more of that. he needs to find common ground with mainstream republicans. why isn't he pointing out more than everyone is now agreeing with him that iraq/afghanistan is a disaster? i hear it on talk radio constantly from the same people that called us unpatriotic a decade ago for opposing it. there is a shift with republicans on foreign policy when you speak about the cost of the wars. no matter what happens, RP has blown a hole in the political debate in this country, way beyond 2008. who is going to carry the torch when he retires?
He isn't going to play with words to win votes. He has principles and that's why he will never be elected. Bitter sweet.
In fact, when he loses I doubt he endorses Romney. Actually, if he did endorse Romney I'd lose all respect for him. But he would never do that just like he'd never endorse Obama.
I agree but I will say this. I have told people numerous times, Paul isn't running to win. Then people scream at me that I am some sort of idiot, or that Mises.org sucks, or some other mindless bullshit.
Paul is running an educational campaign. People who have been in this movement for awhile know that one election can't change much. The prevailing attitude of the people has to change because government is a reflection of the attitudes of the people. Small government conservatives and libertarians are the minority attitude in America (and the world), like it or not.
In that regard, Paul has done a great (if at times, painful to watch) job. He's pulling 20% in open primaries in the GOP. He has the largest small donor network outside Obama. He is arguably the most famous active US congressman, and the only intellectual leader in the GOP for the last 2 decades.
Fighting for liberty is an ongoing battle. This 76 year old country doctor is doing what he can, and he's a lousy orator. Always has been.
I dunno, I think being a Paul supporter means accepting that you probably won't win, and so you focus on the positive affects of running for 2nd place.
As far as Newt doing well, of course. Newt is a great rhetorician.
It doesn't matter. Obama is going to be re-elected. The only GOP candidate with a chance against Obama is Paul, who will most likely not be nominated even if he got 60% of the delegates.
Libertarians used to play 4th and 25 from our own 1 yard line with the second string o-line.
Now we're 1st and 10 at our own 20 with the wind at our back. That's what Paul has done. Advance the ball. Someone else will have to step up and make plays.
This is a philosophical, social and intellectual battle. Arm yourself.
Has he endorsed anyone before? (I did a quick google search but only came up with the people endorsing Ron Paul)
I keep thinking along these lines as well. This may be our civil rights movement (pun intended). Won't it be nice to be 80 (ok it will suck to be 80) and watch our grandchildren in American History class, review these debacles in confused horror over the archaic political infrastructure that once had a death grip on this country?
Look at that. I have a dream.
You know, last 24 hours have been very weird for me. Since Iowa, we're pretty much seen DrP's polling over double. I was really starting to become more optimistic ... not for this election, but for the future of our country. Yeah, most are asleep still but 20-25% awake is enough to do damage in the future.
Now I'm back to the belief that it will take a major financial catostrophe in the next few months for any real chance for change. That's not win/win.
Hearing people (any number of people) outright booing the golden rule in the south really makes me question my neighbors. Is our hatred of brown people really stronger than JC in the bible belt that we would actively show revolt to scripture?
Regardless your personal feeling about religion, you have to feel the gravity of this. Peacemakers screaming for war .. this isn't new stuff but it's been done anonymously in the past, this is outright blasphemy and really shows that aggressive organized religion of any sort is the enemy of all peaceful societies.
For you atheists, as I see it, it's not what someone wants to believe in their own bedroom than angers you .. it's the force feeding of oppressive views done by "outreach" programs of all sort. It's painful for all of us & the sane among us get this. I'm fucking livid about what I saw last night. The golden rule isn't about bible thumping, it's treating others with respect and is more of a humanitarian law than a bible rule.
Now I'm back to the belief that it will take a major financial catostrophe in the next few months for any real chance for change. That's not win/win.
Hearing people (any number of people) outright booing the golden rule in the south really makes me question my neighbors. Is our hatred of brown people really stronger than JC in the bible belt that we would actively show revolt to scripture?
Regardless your personal feeling about religion, you have to feel the gravity of this. Peacemakers screaming for war .. this isn't new stuff but it's been done anonymously in the past, this is outright blasphemy and really shows that aggressive organized religion of any sort is the enemy of all peaceful societies.
For you atheists, as I see it, it's not what someone wants to believe in their own bedroom than angers you .. it's the force feeding of oppressive views done by "outreach" programs of all sort. It's painful for all of us & the sane among us get this. I'm fucking livid about what I saw last night. The golden rule isn't about bible thumping, it's treating others with respect and is more of a humanitarian law than a bible rule.
He gave a 1/2 assed endorsement to Chuck Baldwin last go around but really it was just a showcasing of 3rd party candidates that wanted to attend his concession speech.
I never thought about the golden rule being biblical, mostly because it's in every religion and as well as most secular societies. Who the fuck disagrees with the Golden rule? It's golden for a reason.
Amen to that. What a fucking embarrassment.
Apparently the good people of South Carolina.
Another thought from last night. Dat nigga Mitt bullshitted HARD when asked about releasing his tax return. It was the most flustered I've ever seen him. He danced and literally stuttered around the fact that in the past Presidential candidates have released their returns in April. He wouldn't even make a hard commitment to saying he'd make it public. Loud boo's from the audience and the biggest 'dodge' pit on his Twitter graph. It was fucking great.
He's an idiot because he's only drawing more attention to it.
He's an idiot because he's only drawing more attention to it.
Last edited:
Libertarianism is based on the golden rule which as you said, fits with secular ethics of any sort.
In philosophy, the golden rule is a universal, that is something which applies to everyone. So if you deny the golden rule, then you deny that you should be treated equitably.
Which is basically a society based upon domination by whoever can commit the most violence, fastest. A race to the bottom.
I try bring up stuff in a logical context (non-contradiction) often, and I think the notion of a golden rule is crucial for a civil society. To deny the universability of ethics is incompatible with the notion of "human liberty", and to deny a golden rule foundation for the applicability of ethics is basically anti-ethics. It means anything goes because nothing is wrong.
None of us are perfectly rational or ethical or logical, but certainly advocating violence against others isn't a system we can all (universally) participate in and expect peaceful prosperity.