A Sea Of Red

First debate.....Ugh, more blah blah blah. Hardly any substance. Did anyone else feel like they could predict each candidates answer to the questions?

I thought it was interesting to see two lesser candidates, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum, attack Michele Bachman and Ron Paul repeatedly. Personally, I think this was intentional since the Republican establishment probably hates both Bachman and Paul, and want their pick, Mitt Romney who made it through the debate relatively unscathed, to win. As for Ron Paul's performance, Lew Rockwell summed it up nicely...

Ron Paul is a hero. Though he was ignored in the beginning of the debate tonight, his answers on war and peace were the most magnificent ever heard in politics. Indeed, on the cost of war and empire as well as states rights, monetary policy, the Fed, the business cycle, and every other area, Ron Paul was also courageous, passionate, eloquent, and 100% right. Wow! He was on fire. He won easily against the 7 neocons by simply telling the truth. He won the debate by simply being Ron Paul, the greatest champion of freedom, peace, and sound economics in the history of American politics. If the people of Iowa are decent, if they deserve a man this good, they will give him a landslide in the straw poll. I was encouraged that the audience at the debate clearly agrees with me.

while that is true about Ron Paul, it was obvious from the beginning til the end that the hosts were not fans...

But, will that change if he wins Iowa???

He won the debate by simply being Ron Paul, the greatest champion of freedom, peace, and sound economics in the history of American politics.

dont hate...

I mean I get it, Ron Paul is the savior of the universe...

Like I said before. Like the guy personally. Can't stand most of his supporters.

Substitute Ron Paul in that paragraph for Obama, and you'd think it was an Obama supporter.

In other news, Obama has reached a new low. He attended the transfer of the SEALs' bodies at Dover this week and, against the families' wishes, had a photographer there snapping away. Thanks for taking time to use my friend's death as a campaign opportunity, Mr. President.

Disgusting.

Ron Paul against 7 "neocons". Goodness. Didn't see this analysis coming.

jbock13 wrote:Substitute Ron Paul in that paragraph for Obama, and you'd think it was an Obama supporter.

Yeah right, because Obama really cares about the cost of war and empire as well as states rights, monetary policy, the Fed, and the business cycle.

Covert, I meant in terms of Obama worship, compared to Paul worship in this article.

Anyways, I know I've been pretty tough on you. I don't mean anything personal, I just think a little more objectivity is called for.

a little more objectivity, yet we get your spiel about "i like ron paul, just not his supporters" every time ron paul is mentioned?

lol

I liked how Newt and Chris Wallace (best in the biz IMO). Especially Wallace prefacing one question to another candidate by saying "At the risk of getting Rep Gingrich upset, I'd like to ask you something about your past record....". Classic.
IMO Bachman didn't do herself any favors. While it may seem petty I thought her being late from a break was poor form.
As for Ron Paul, there have been people like him around forever. He is not new nor or his views. I find his views on economics interesting and some of his ideas should be listened too. As for his foreign policy positions let's just say I'm glad people like him were not iin power in the 1800's and the first half of the 20th century. He implicitly endorsed what Romney did in Mass with healthcare which I found interesting.
I can't wait for the herd to thin so we can get more than sound bites

RubberMallet wrote:a little more objectivity, yet we get your spiel about "i like ron paul, just not his supporters" every time ron paul is mentioned?

lol

You know RM, that's fair game. I admit it.

Purple Haize wrote:As for Ron Paul, there have been people like him around forever. He is not new nor or his views. I find his views on economics interesting and some of his ideas should be listened too. As for his foreign policy positions let's just say I'm glad people like him were not iin power in the 1800's and the first half of the 20th century. He implicitly endorsed what Romney did in Mass with healthcare which I found interesting.

Yea, their names are Thomas Jefferson, Grover Cleveland, Robert Taft, etc. etc. Good company to be in I'd say.

BTW, Ron Paul is against the bi-partisan interventionist foreign policy that has tickled policy-makers fancy since WWII. He speaks admirably of 1800's non-interventionist policy. So, your comment is kind of Ironic.

The thing I can't understand is why the conservative movement has become decidedly pro-interventionist. Especially when the history of conservatism is one of non-intervention. Doesn't anyone even know that many of the founders of modern "conservative" interventionism were ex-Trotsky leftists?

Does anybody care? You're painting everybody else with the same black or white brush that you choose to define yourself with. You can't assume everyone here is pro-intervening on every situation that comes up just because they're not an isolationist like yourself.

Look, I think we all applaud Ron Paul for being true to his ideology/philosophy, and for the most part, we agree with him. The problem is, it's perfect-world philosophy, and there comes a point when reality trumps theory, and the two can't always coexist. Even some of the things that I agree with him simply can't happen. I'd like to let my 7-year-old daughter take her bike and just ride all over town wherever she wanted to go like I did when I was a kid, but there's no way on earth I'd ever let her do that today. The world has changed, mostly for the worse, and we can make things better, just not to Ron Paul's extent.

He's a great theoretician and even teacher, someone we need in government, but I don't think he'd make a great leader.

Covert Hawk wrote: The thing I can't understand is why the conservative movement has become decidedly pro-interventionist. Especially when the history of conservatism is one of non-intervention.

I absolutely agree with you here.

Huckabee for president!!!

LUconn wrote:Does anybody care? You're painting everybody else with the same black or white brush that you choose to define yourself with. You can't assume everyone here is pro-intervening on every situation that comes up just because they're not an isolationist like yourself.

Does anyone care that the founders of modern conservatism have their roots in communist ideology? I imagine a few might care.

Also, I don't assume everyone on Flames Fans is pro-intervening in every situation. There is a lot of non-interventionist sentiment on this board.

Finally, I am a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.

ALUmnus wrote:Look, I think we all applaud Ron Paul for being true to his ideology/philosophy, and for the most part, we agree with him. The problem is, it's perfect-world philosophy, and there comes a point when reality trumps theory, and the two can't always coexist. Even some of the things that I agree with him simply can't happen. I'd like to let my 7-year-old daughter take her bike and just ride all over town wherever she wanted to go like I did when I was a kid, but there's no way on earth I'd ever let her do that today. The world has changed, mostly for the worse, and we can make things better, just not to Ron Paul's extent.

He's a great theoretician and even teacher, someone we need in government, but I don't think he'd make a great leader.

It's not a perfect-world philosophy. Ron Paul's worldview doesn't assume, nor does it require, that the rest of the world will behave like perfect angels, once the U.S. adopts a more non-interventionist stance.

Also, what does make a great leader? Is it being a great orator, like FDR, Obama, and Reagan? Because in my view they were/are terrible presidents. How about being "effective" in getting their agenda passed? Lyndon Johnson and Woodrow Wilson were the two most effective in the 20th century, yet they were two of the worst presidents. Or does being a great leader mean strictly obeying the constitution and rule of law? If that is the case, Ron Paul, as far I can tell is the best leader in this race.

In Ron Pauls world the Union would have let the South leave. What would the world look like now? America would never have become a dominate force that it is now. Imagine how much longer the British Empire would have lasted had they sided with the CSA? At what point would he have intervened in Europe in WW ?
His comment that Iran is not a threat because they don't have missiles that can reach America is naive. There are many ways countries can affect one another without ICBMs. Now that Sadaam has gone away they are the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world. It would be fantastic if we could fund/support the freedom movement inside Iran and I hope we are.
The world has changed since WW 2 and policy should change with it. As someone stated earlier Mr Paul has great theoretical ideas that lose traction when faced with the real world.
And the fact that you said Reagan was a terrible president causes you to lose a lot of credibility. Thank God he was around, what with a crappy economy and that whole Soviet Union thing. I'm sure THEY would have just gone away if we had minded our own business

Purple Haize wrote:In Ron Pauls world the Union would have let the South leave. What would the world look like now? America would never have become a dominate force that it is now. Imagine how much longer the British Empire would have lasted had they sided with the CSA? At what point would he have intervened in Europe in WW ?
His comment that Iran is not a threat because they don't have missiles that can reach America is naive. There are many ways countries can affect one another without ICBMs. Now that Sadaam has gone away they are the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world. It would be fantastic if we could fund/support the freedom movement inside Iran and I hope we are.
The world has changed since WW 2 and policy should change with it. As someone stated earlier Mr Paul has great theoretical ideas that lose traction when faced with the real world.
And the fact that you said Reagan was a terrible president causes you to lose a lot of credibility. Thank God he was around, what with a crappy economy and that whole Soviet Union thing. I'm sure THEY would have just gone away if we had minded our own business

What is so bad about the south seceding? The colonists seceded from the British Empire. Change happens! Secession and smaller political units that come along with it are preferable to highly centralized states. As Jefferson once said, "Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to our happiness." With all the death in destruction associated with the war for southern independence (I refuse to call it the "Civil War") I can't believe people so readily believe that it was necessary.

No, Ron Paul would not have intervened in Europe in WWI. However, this would have been a great thing. That would have meant no humiliating defeat for Germany and most likely no subsequent rise to power by Hitler. It also would have most likely prevented the Bolsheviks from coming to power. A world without Stalin and Hitler sounds like a good world to me.

Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. However, they are anti-Israeli and not anti-American terrorist groups. I would love to fund the freedom movement in Iran as well, but through the peaceful means of trade, not by force with guns. If the Iranian government ever materially assisted a terrorist attack or initiated an act of aggression against the United States, then that would be a cause for the U.S. to go to war with Iran in a Ron Paul world. However, this is not the case and will most likely not be the case in the near future.

BTW, the Soviet Union collapsed because because socialism and central economic planning does not work. It had very little to do with what Reagan (or any other previous administration for that matter) did. Reagan just happened to be President when they collapsed. Oh, and Reagan was a bad President. His Foreign Policy is way overrated. He was hardly a good conservative.

But wouldn't an Iran attack on the US be justified? After all, it was our policies that made them so mad at us.

ALUmnus wrote:But wouldn't an Iran attack on the US be justified? After all, it was our policies that made them so mad at us.

No, but I am glad that you agree the U.S. policy in the middle East does provoke a negative reaction.

Covert Hawk wrote:

ALUmnus wrote:But wouldn't an Iran attack on the US be justified? After all, it was our policies that made them so mad at us.

No, but I am glad that you agree the U.S. policy in the middle East does provoke a negative reaction.

I believe that was sarcasm.

I have some sympathy to it. Iran is nuts, don't get me wrong. But would the Taliban really come and attack us? Nope. When we pull out of Afghanistan, they'll go back to killing the other tribe down the river just like they always do, and snatching books from the hands of women. They will no longer be killing our American soldiers who are dying without a cause. What's one good reason we should be in Afghanistan? Libya? And how do we know when we win? When every terrorist is gone? As if you're going to kill every one of them?

Not picking on you Almunus, I'd just like a few good reasons why in the world we're in Afghanistan right now from people who support it. Isn't funny how all of the sudden Hannity questions Libya and Afghanistan. But when Bush did it, he was perfectly fine with it, and if you didn't everything Bush did, you weren't a real patriot.

(end rant)