GOP Debate Audience Boos "The Golden Rule"

I don't know who the answer is, but I don't believe it to be Ron Paul. This country is currently so broken, and we are all looking for the quick fix, when there isn't any. At the end of the day, I will probably be voting for Obama again, because at this point I think switching up tactics when his are currently only halfway accomplished will hurt us more than seeing where he goes with it.

I also really wish people would do their own fact checking, rather than believing politically motivated and funded news agencies and the advertisements of other politicians.

I honestly believe that a large percentage of people rely on news channels to understand what opinion they should have on candidates, as opposed to reading up on what candidates stand for and watching candidate speeches and deciding for themselves. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, news channels don't seem to like him. So instead of just telling people the news, channels tend to imply that people should have a negative opinion of Ron Paul. So because of this, people don't really listen to what Paul has to say-- they've already made their minds up on him.

That's obviously just my opinion and is subject to be laughably incorrect, but that's what I think. I think it wouldn't matter in the least how much sense the man makes, if Fox News or whoever doesn't like him, then the people aren't going to like him.

Sucks. He's by far my favorite of the GOP candidates, and I honestly don't think he has the merest shadow of a chance at winning the presidency.

He was only Prime Minister because Tony Blair quit. Both of whom I never voted for in any capacity of office. When elections rolled around the Labour party - of whom Gordon Brown led - lost by a landslide if I recall.

People take all of their information from television instead of reading ITT.

Idon'twanttoliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg

Unfortunately, most people get their facts about candidates from here-say and the idiot box exclusively.

This is a good site:

http://factcheck.org/

I am leery of this one because it is backed by a newspaper, which is no doubtedly backed by some political interest:

http://www.politifact.com/

That's exactly why he trusts the internet more than any other media for political information- because establishments like Fox News love getting rimjobs from people like Romney (or as I like to call him: "Romjob") for assistance in manipulating the media to make their candidate more electable, while attacking the others based on potentially false interpretations of their takes on issues. The Internet is more consistent for fact-checking. It's right there when you look for it, too.

Yesterday Paul looked like he was doing well in yesterday's debate. What he needs to do is keep his course and eventually the rest of the candidates will fall out of the race. Romjob was really doing a shitty job with answering questions, lol.

So glad I live in a world that we need third party websites doing 24/7 work to verify the validity of our candidate's words. We really have to be skeptical of people until proven truthful now, as opposed to a person's word being just that, their word like it used to be.

Anarchy really doesn't look so bad for those of us that live in non urbanized areas.

I feel it's the same, now we just know how much value someone's words have. Corruption is in competition for prostitution as the world's oldest profession.

The definition of insanity is using the same quote over and over and still expecting people to find you clever.

Yes, I see the ironing.

How'd people feel about Gingrich's spiel?


What Gingrich fails to realize is that there are 'Pakistani Andrew Jacksons' who have been hurt by a drone attack which hits 6% of their intended targets.

Where do you get your information? They hit about 86% of their targets. The 14% they miss is almost exclusively due to bad recon data within 5 min of the attack. (ie. Manned aircraft wouldn't have done any better)

I love this quote.

Most interesting but totally unelectable. He scares the establishment silly.


He actually makes Bush look informed.


That story goes ... She was in the hospital recovering from a cancer operation when he dropped the divorce papers on her.

He has never been faithful to any of his wives, always sleeping with the next before dropping the current one.


At the most convenient times too.


But he says he loves them and only hates the sin. So we should toss them out of the military, prevent them from adoption or marrying, and toss them in jail if they have sex.

But he says he loves everyone too. hmmmmm.....


He isn't an isolationist. He is a non interventionist. Over half of our discretionary spending goes to the military. Its about as much as THE REST OF THE WORLD spends on "defense". And look at what happened when we gave the keys to our military to a cowboy.

We weren't isolationist in the '30s, we just couldn't afford foreign entanglements.


Not a bit. See above.


Defense not offense is his military stance. As I understand it at least.

One of his points. Why are we still occupying Japan, Germany, and Korea?


Most people listen to the news they want to hear. And in this 21st century that's all to easy to do. Well, most people who bother with news that is.

That's scary.

But oh so true.

Bombing other countries? Oh are you talking about when their terrorist soil viciously attacks our freedom bombs? Totally unprovoked, those countries should be ashamed of themselves!

I beg to differ.

Ron Paul raises most campaign cash from military workers

Military Families Support Ron Paul's Platform In Zogby Poll

Ron Paul Gets Most Military Support

There's more too, I'm just posting a few. (The last one is for the lulz)

I see this statement a lot. Daily show even did a great bit about it with John McCain:

I can certainly look at our government and point at things I don't like (that are broken). But that makes me wonder, when was the last time the "system" worked?

I read Chanti's response as, It's not ironic. Because it makes sense. Even though we have an all volunteer military, very very few of them actually want to be deployed away from their family to a country we have no business being in for whatever reason, to be shot at, bombed or killed. Ron Paul thinks the same thing. It only hakes sense for them to support him.

Hmm didn't take it that way. Perhaps that is what he meant than, that it's not a bit ironic.

I have more of an issue with the thought of "states rights" than not bombing other people, then again I don't like the idea of waiting to act until AFTER something has happened.

Also I would much rather have a huge military that stands around doing nothing than not having one...

also there's good reasons to have military deployed on bases worldwide, even in times of peace. especially Japan who legally doesn't have their "own military"

Dont believe ive ever said what I said before. And I dont believe I said it to be clever. I said it to point out how funny US politics are. Not to be clever. I wouldnt be hanging around on the FFXIAH boards if I wanted to be clever.

If we didn't have bases abroad, we would have less military jobs available- including ones that don't involve getting shot at.

Going abroad isn't always= going to kill me sum terrorists!.
Sometimes it's just being stationed in Germany or Japan- with your family.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of all bases abroad, which would cause many of those supporters to lose their jobs- something that is very ironic.

Yeah, there's no reason to shut down strategic military bases in countries that tolerate their presence.

That's a totally different ballgame than what's being discussed in the OP video, though.

At least in the 90 seconds captured in the OP video, Paul is saying "we shouldn't bomb other countries" based on the "Golden Rule" tenet that we wouldn't be very pleased if another country started dropping bombs on our soil.

I think Paul has a damned good point there. And I think it's pathetic that the audience actually booed this idea.

First they boo Paul's ideas now they boo for nearly skipping over him to answer a question...

Crowd Boos After Dr. Paul Nearly Passed Over on Abortion Question, Later Spars With ‘Overly Sensitive’ Santorum on Issue

Then you're ready for socialism and have brushed up on Mandarin?

You have to be totally joking when you say 4 more years of Obama is better than any other alternative.

From http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/sorry-statistics/
the 'corrected' report card values:
Since he took office in Jan 2009:
The price of gas went from $1.83 to $3.11 avg -- 69% increase
Corn rose 72.5%
Sugar rose 175%
Unemployment went from 7.8% to 9.0% -- up 15.3%
People receiving food stamps rose 36%
National debt rose 32.27%

REALLY?

**edited spelling**

Don't you know that the only way to invoke change is to keep doing the same thing over and over again?

While I don't care who wins (not american), you haven't forgotten that he actually has to clean up the mess left by the two-term Bush? Quote from your link:


The way the US has wasted resources in military funding the past 10 years, I don't think any individual or party could fix the US economy in one term or even two.

Ron Paul Doesn't Plan on fixing it.



I am a Ron Paul supporter.